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
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'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.
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.
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.