Slashdot Mirror
Havoc Pennington on GNOME 3's Future
An anonymous reader writes "Havoc Pennington, lead developer of GNOME, wants to fork GNOME 3.
'So the forces of existing userbase, the easiest-to-reach future userbase, cross-platform applications, and funded development efforts are strongly pulling GNOME 2 toward conservatism. I think GNOME 3 should be a fork for that reason.'" This has been a common practice for not only many open source projects, but proprietary systems such as Solaris for major revisions, so it's not as tumultous a change as the word "fork" may imply.
The name 'Gnome 3' is reserved for the core Gnome product.
If you're going to fork the core product and possibly make an incompatable branch, please give it another name.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
If they want to fork, let them. If it becomes any good, it'll be used
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
Funny, but good point. However, I woud say that a fork may not really be necessary. Just having a set of Stable and Devel branches is pretty good. After all, not everything in Devel winds up in Stable usually. So for people like me who want the extras we'll keep using Devel as production. The sheeple can follow onto the Stable. ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Spatial Nautilus is the only file manager avaiable that works the way I want a file manager to work.
The way I want a file manager to work in X is illustrated beatifully through rxvt.
That has got to be one of the coolest first names ever.
Awesome. Go forth and use it.
Isn't choice grand?
Havoc is NOT talking about breaking out of GNOME because he doesn't like the current way.
He is talking about forking off development for GNOME 3, because it would be too disruptive to move everyone onto GNOME 3 immediatly.
Basically GNOME 2 would continue as is, with incremental changes, while someone starts hacking on GNOME 3 for a future release. They would diverge quite heavily after a while, but when GNOME 3 has started getting momentum, GNOME 2 can be closed down.
I have no idea why the mods thought to mod me that way, but I can tell you that you're in the minority of users. Myself and most users I know much prefer the single window approach to file browsing. It's fast, it works, and it doesn't clutter your desktop in weird ways. I'm glad that you like it, but the decision to force it on the entire world was not the best one ever made by the GNOME project.
;-)
Ok, I'll stop being serious now:
No, just a user.
Liar! You're a KGB mole sent to disrupt our computing abilities! I just know it!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This is a great strategy on his part. I view this as analogous to the great gcc2->egcs->gcc3 "fork", which was quite successful.
11*43+456^2
Yep, choice is grand.
That's why I stopped using Gnome, there was a deliberate push to remove choice from the configuration of Gnome to target a subset of users.
Strangely enough, this seems to have alienated some developers and past users. It's not really a surprise that some of them want to fork off.
I'm glad that you like it, but the decision to force it on the entire world was not the best one ever made by the GNOME project.
Force it on the entire world? Last time I checked, it was still possible to make Nautilus use "Windows File Browser" mode, and the gnome developers hadn't rendered the dozens of other Windows-esque file managers available for X inoperable. They added a choice, which happens to be the default setting, to allow Nautilus to behave in a different way. It's pretty much the only X file manager out there that dares to do something other than clone the Windows file browser, and for that "crime", it's widely castigated by the community.
God forbid those of us who think the Windows browser model is a horrible User Interface design should have an actual, viable option to choose.
God forbid that the GNOME developers should do anything other than follow the pack, and make their product indistinguishable from everyone else's.
God forbid that everyone who likes the browser model should have change an option, or install one of the dozen other managers that cater to their needs. But no, those of us who wanted something different were finally given an option, and that crime is apparently unforgivable.
Yet Microsoft breaks previous versions of software and APIs with new releases. The only difference between MS & OSS is that MS releases once every 3-5 years and you have nothing in the interim except for security updates. Gnome, KDE, etc., all create tons minor with new stuff every 6-8 months. The only way to give the new major version of Gnome/KDE (like a new version of Windows) is to create a seperate development-only branch on the side. When it is complete (in that same 3-5 year timeframe as Windows) then it is released and the old version becomes deprecated.
God forbid those of us who think the Windows browser model is a horrible User Interface design should have an actual, viable option to choose.
Sorry, you can't dodge the point by demonising the "Windows browser model". Practically every file browser works in this way. Why? Because that's what most users like.
God forbid that the GNOME developers should do anything other than follow the pack, and make their product indistinguishable from everyone else's.
There's a reason everybody else does it a different way. If GNOME changed the pointer to move up when you moved the mouse down and move down when you moved the mouse up, would you applaud them for not "following the pack" as well?
But no, those of us who wanted something different were finally given an option
There's a difference between giving it as an option, and making it the default and making it difficult to switch back.
Seems to me that Havoc wants to create a platform to try out new features that may or may not be accepted by users, and another platform that is more "traditional". When a feature is found to be really useful then they could merge it into their traditional version.
The problem with this, of course, is when the underlying libraries like atk, etc, are altered fundamentally. In that case, things will become a right mess.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Why? Because 95% of the computers used windows and thats what they used.
No, it's because in the vast majority of situations, people activate a folder icon because they want to work with the files in that folder, not because they want to work with the files in that folder and the files in the parent folder.
Yes, lets all fragment our efforts to kingdom come, then try to compete with proprietary software.
...and then lets wonder why Linux isn't taking off on the desktop.
Lets have 3000 different distros, and no clear leader. Lets make sure every distro has slightly different configuration tools. While we're at it lets force users to compile their source, (including the kernel otherwise their hardware won't work).
Lets have 3 different kernel firewalls, in about as many years.
Lets have 300 desktop managers, none of which quite work or interoperate.
Lets have 3 different office suites, none of which quite translate MS Office stuff quite right.
I'm getting goddamn sick of this, and I'm a developer. I'm also damn tired of defending it. I've had comp sci students roll their eyes at me when I had to recompile my kernel to add support for a printer so we could print data off in Linux. I've also had Astronomy Masters students feel overwhelmed with Linux - avoiding it or dumping it out of frustration early.
Lets decide whether we're doing cool techy geeky play stuff, or whether we want to produce something real and tangible and useable by everyone. Lets make up our minds on any given project what our goals are (or what the goals for our group are). Lets contribute to existing open source instead of starting our own little pet project that does no better than anything that came before it. Lets get a bit of unity back into open source, before it goes the way of the dinosaur!!!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Back in the "old days," I remember the pgcc/gcc split. The old version of gcc was in dire need of an update, but was relied upon by many projects and users. The pgcc effort came online and made remarkable improvements. The old gcc and pgcc coexisted for years. People wanting the fastest compiled code used pgcc. Them finally pgcc was deemed stable enough and became gcc.
Revolutionary work can be done in a fork and I surely wouldn't discourage it. It will make distributions a little more complicated and may cause compatibility issues, but there is a clear benefit here. If the whizbang new stuff is worthwhile, people will use it, patch the bugs, solve the compatibility problems, and use it.
Why? Because 95% of the computers used windows and thats what they used. They don't "like" it, thats what they know how to use.
Horsefeathers. Windows 95 and 98 both used that mode by default. Users hated it. That's why it's no longer the default, although it's still an option.
Check out Krusader under KDE.
LOL, your post perfectly demonstrates the attitude of GNOME developers.
Users have no idea what they want! We know better.
Idiots.
And the "Open links in Browser Window" option is such a great description for turning spatial on/off. (What is a 'link' and what kind of 'browser' are we talking about? I personally relate URL/Web browser to those words not folders/file browser)
I don't mind the Gnome devs making spatial the default (WinXP does it too) but when the fucking option to turn it off is called something completely stupid and unrelated to opening a new window for each folder it pisses me off.
I did post about this on the Gnome forums and guess what their response was? "Thats a problem for your distribution to sort out." Well gee wouldn't it be easier to change the options name to something that made sense in your top level source instead of forcing every distro in the world to do it?
The main problem with spatial nautilus are twofold. The problem of file browsing was not a problem of file broswing per se, but nautilus was god awful in the file browsing mode.
From day 1 nautilus was a desaster, first it was slow but the functionality was there. Then they took out splitting, then they took out tabbing, then they took out boomarking. What was left was a desaster of a file browser. And then they went the spatial route, which is fine per se, but did hide many important commands in half documented hotkeys and basically made it impossible for the average user, to change the behavior, but hiding it in a registry like config file on how to change the stuff back into almost equally awful nautilus browsing mode.
Gnome has bigger problems than nautilus, which still works for most users. Gnome needs a compound document model, it needs one which works with the existing models (kparts and the openoffice model). Currently the stance is, KDE has something working, the gnome project tries to reinvent the wheel, mostly fails then either dumps the idea alltogether (bonobo for instance) or takes the kde implementation under free desktop and then reimplements it and forces sort of the kde people to use the gnome implementation (happened with the automatization stuff and various other things).
Also gnome needs a decent cd burning frontend, the current frontend is a desaster, same goes for the networking browser...
A few days ago I read a review on a news portal (index.hu - it's hungarian) about suse linux. This is not a technology portal, it is more like cnn or bbc - politics, culture etc. The title of the review caught my attention, it was something like a SuSe Linux review - it is working!. And it did, mostly (reviewer had problems on a laptop, but desktop puter was fine). He mentioned one gripe though - spatial browsing. He didn't name it like that, he has no idea about the gnome lingo, he just simply didn't like the fact that each folder he opened took up desktop space, and he criticized the file manager for cluttering his desktop. Yes, I know that there is a key combo that closes previous window. He didn't know that, he just didn't understand why it works like that.
So the problem with spatial nautilus is that it was made the default, which imho flies in the face of their precious HIG. Whenever it comes to debates like KDE vs. GNOME, it is always about hig this and hig that, but when it comes to implementing (or not implementing) features, often it is in violation of the HIG. Not the GNOME hig, which I didn't read (except for the first chapter). A generic HIG that has something like a POLA (policy of least astonishment) - in it (which it should). Spatial browsing as the default flies in the face of such policy. So does the reverse button order (and don't start me on its justification, I think someone is always having a good laugh when it is mentioned). The way I see it, lately gnome devs blindly copy features of OS X, because we all know that OS X is a powerful yet user friendly desktop. However, each time I sit down (not many times unfortunately, I worked on Macs extensively years ago - 7.5.x times) I have to readjust to the button order. I guess most PC users will have the same problem when trying out either GNOME or OS X. However, in the case of Macs, it was always like that, it is a tradition. In the case of GNOME - well, its what I said: blind copying for no good reason. GNOME devs cannot expect a great number of newcomers from the Mac - if one can afford a mac (and now with mac mini more and more ppl could) why would he or she want to switch? However, they can expect newcomers from Windows - and these newcomers are forced to get accustomed to this order, and during that period they will make accidental mistakes (I did a lot when trying out GNOME - which I do each year out of curiousity). This is again an example of violating HIG.
God forbid those of us who think the Windows browser model is a horrible User Interface design should have an actual, viable option to choose.
Exactly! I cannot agree more. But making that choice the default for everyone is a mistake imho - and it somehow undermines the prestige of their own HIG. I very much doubt that some of the choices they made is based on viable research - spatial browsing is just one example for that. When the GNOME desktop is presented to a newbie, usually the one thing that stands out as something uncool is spatial browsing. Note that I'm talking about newbies here, not users who are accustomed to using various desktop environments. Having a good interface design is only part of the picture - another part which is hugely underestimated is familiarity. This goes hand in hand with drawing up a picture of The Generic User which would usually be your computer-agnostic grandma. This is wrong. Users learn new things more readily than gnome devs would readily admit. Documentation and good tutorials are the key here, and windows leads in that area. It is also a wrong concept that users prize simplicity above all. Yes, you heard it right. This simplicity fetish is simply wrong - being an admin of a small computer lab, the extent users go to make their desktop unusable (in MY opinion) is unbelievable.