Re: CD1 without a network mirror isn't sufficient to install a full desktop environment
Hi!
2012/9/18 Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>:
> [...]
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 03:21:06PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> GNOME is seeking people to develop the GNOME-Panel - if MATE
>> developers want a classical desktop environment based on modern
>> technologies, they should develop the GNOME-Panel instead of forking
>> unmaintained and outdated technology like Bonobo or GConf.
>
> I'm so tired of these gnome2 vs gnome3 discussions...
Me too...
> One of the primary freedoms in free software is the freedom to fork. If
> you want to tell people they shouldn't fork, you have no business being
> a free software developer.
That's not true. Identifying why people fork software and suggesting
alternatives to a fork is totally valid. Most forks are bad for
projects and are unnecessary.
> If the gnome people would prefer that there was no fork of gnome2, then
> they should not have thrown it out. But they did, so it's their own
> fault.
There have been reasons for abandoning the old GNOME2 software. There
are still valid reasons for not using GNOME-Shell, and I understand
people disliking it. But this does not mean that you have to fork *all
of GNOME2*. Instead, doing a fork of some core applications and the
GNOME panel would have been enough. And people working on GNOME3-Panel
are very welcome.
> Also, "forking unmaintained software" is a contradiction. If you're
> forking it, then by definition you'll be maintaining it.
>
>> I don't consider MATE to be future-proof.
> And that's your good right, but that really doesn't mean anything.
Yes, but I know that. I'm not here to make any decision, I want to add
some information and my opinion, that's the whole point of
discussions.
> Fact is, gnome2 is now abandoned by the gnome developers, and there are
> many people who consider that a bad idea. These people have decided to
> continue the development of gnome2. AIUI, one of their stated goals is
> to port gnome2 (the interface) onto gnome3 (the APIs), so that the two
> can live side-by-side. This should not bring harm to gnome3 -- on the
> contrary.
Agreed. I still don't think forking all of GNOME2 was a good idea -
now they would have to do a GTK+3 migration, a DConf migration a
DBus-migration etc. again on their own. Last time I talked to some
people who were Mate developers (they claimed to be it), they didn't
even know about this issue...
> Now, if you don't like that, nobody's forcing you to use mate. If you
> think they're silly and backwards in continuing to develop what some
> other people have decided is outdated, you're free to ignore them. But
> please do not attempt to tell people what they should spend their own
> free time on. You won't be successful.
I'm not telling anyone what to do :P I added my opinion, which really
is only my opinion does not mean anything for someone else. The thing
I don't like is that Mate might slow down the adoption of new GNOME
base libraries, which is really bad. Deprecating the old stuff is very
important for me, and with Mate tools still using the old libraries,
this goal can't be achieved that easily. Of course many other desktops
also use "old" technology, but they all have plans to switch to the
new libs (and are discussing it).
I definitely need to talk to the Mate people again to see what their
plans are, but the "let's fork everything!" approach is definitely not
good... - a "let's fork the GNOME-Panel and Nautilus and make them
better" solution without the old libs would be better and a pretty
great solution. At time I see Mate in the same line with the Trinity
desktop (fork of KDE3).
As always, just my opinion, I'm telling nobody what to do :-) (why
should I try to do that, btw.?)
Regards,
Matthias
Reply to: