Re: debian-desktop, and relevant thoughts.
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 10:51, Shaun ONeil wrote:
> Good day all,
>
> First off, a caveat: I'm just a User, not a developer. Take me as you
> will.
>
> Now, a recent mail[1] on debian-devel reminded me of the Debian
> Desktop[2] sub-project, which I see could be a great solution to a lot
> of conflict and duplicated effort.
>
> What I see happening around me at recently (hopefully somewhere close to
> chronological order):
>
> * Backports appear for Gnome 2.x on Woody
> * Hopeful release date announced for Sarge to become Stable
> * KDE fans immediately realise that this date stands days before KDE 4.2
> is due, and propose many unworkable ideas to squeeze it into Sarge at
> the last moment, during the heaviest of freezes.
> * Spanish Gnome Fanatics[3] make great steps towards a Ximian Desktop
> port to Woody
> * Gnome 2.4 arrives: Anxious gnome-ers want to see the latest and
> greatest of their favourite desktop, at a time when in all honesty we
> should be aiming for ripples, not tsunami.
> * I get a faint sniff that our Spanish friends _may_ be talking to
> Ximian about producing community-produced backport of the next Ximian
> Desktop.
>
> I can't seriously be the only one that still thinks that the legions of
> developers that volunteered to help put KDE 4.2 into Sarge, or Gnome 2.4
> into Experimental, or those currently producing third-party backports ..
> between them couldn't produce one butt-kicking Debian Desktop
> subproject?
>
> I see a Will, I see a Way - and I see the combination as a win-win
> situation. comments?
>
> Regards,
> Shaun.
>
> [1]
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200309/msg00624.html
> [2] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-desktop/
> [3] I personally see Gnome Fanatic as a compliment. I simply don't
> recall the correct name of the group in question right now.
addendum: Yes, I realise being a central repository for backports wasn't
debian-desktop's original purpose, but it seems to be sitting there
waiting for a good use, and this could be it.
currently users have a choice of having an old desktop on a solid
foundation, or a new desktop on a shakey foundation. I do see that
separating the desktop from the foundation could be very beneficial to
desktop users, and would ease the stampede when they do release a new
foundation.
Starting to wonder if he made sense in the first place,
Shaun.
Reply to: