Comments on: The future of GNOME? http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/ Dave Neary's view of the world Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:17:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Christian http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-554 Christian Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-554 Have to say I feel you are not really answering the question at all with this answer. Whether or not this trend is happening is irrelevant to the question of if GNOME (be that the desktop or the platform) should be refactored or not. The question of GNOME 3 is more the question of 'Do our underlaying libraries need changes at this point that require ABI/API breakages to be viable for the next years or are they still good enough to stay competitive within the current API/ABI constraints'. Looking at various usecases is a useful tool for making that evaluation, and the current situation in the case of the desktop scenario is either that a) we think the current GNOME desktop stack is good enough and going for the upheaval of GNOME 3 would be a waste of resources or b) we think that the GNOME stack needs to be revised in order to provide the needed services for the desktop we envision for the next years. If the answer is a) then I guess we can say that GNOME is not 'missing leadership' as we/it have made the choice of staying put, but if the answer is b) then I would argue that it could be said we are missing leadership and direction currently.<p/>So, yes all these organisations are modifying the libraries and modules we have today to suit their needs of today, the question is if they will feel that these libraries are still usefull for assembling something 2-3 years down the road unless some major re-engineering happens. <p/>Personally I think refactoring the stack to take advantage of new technologies, especially in order to keep up in the gloss departmenent and at the same time get rid of old cruft could be a valuable exercise, but I am not forseeing doom either if it doesn't happen anytime soon. As I tried mentioning on LUGRadio, most of the thing being advertised by everyone else as their new killer features are already underway for GNOME 2.x within current API/ABI boundaries. Have to say I feel you are not really answering the question at all with this answer. Whether or not this trend is happening is irrelevant to the question of if GNOME (be that the desktop or the platform) should be refactored or not. The question of GNOME 3 is more the question of ‘Do our underlaying libraries need changes at this point that require ABI/API breakages to be viable for the next years or are they still good enough to stay competitive within the current API/ABI constraints’. Looking at various usecases is a useful tool for making that evaluation, and the current situation in the case of the desktop scenario is either that a) we think the current GNOME desktop stack is good enough and going for the upheaval of GNOME 3 would be a waste of resources or b) we think that the GNOME stack needs to be revised in order to provide the needed services for the desktop we envision for the next years. If the answer is a) then I guess we can say that GNOME is not ‘missing leadership’ as we/it have made the choice of staying put, but if the answer is b) then I would argue that it could be said we are missing leadership and direction currently.

So, yes all these organisations are modifying the libraries and modules we have today to suit their needs of today, the question is if they will feel that these libraries are still usefull for assembling something 2-3 years down the road unless some major re-engineering happens.

Personally I think refactoring the stack to take advantage of new technologies, especially in order to keep up in the gloss departmenent and at the same time get rid of old cruft could be a valuable exercise, but I am not forseeing doom either if it doesn’t happen anytime soon. As I tried mentioning on LUGRadio, most of the thing being advertised by everyone else as their new killer features are already underway for GNOME 2.x within current API/ABI boundaries.

]]> By: Stuart Langridge http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-555 Stuart Langridge Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-555 I agree that there are a number of possibilities; the worry I personally have is that everyone can list the alternative routes that Gnome can take but we're not taking any of them because no decision is made. The paralysis of indecision, you might call it. The same issue came up a while ago as regards languages: there was talk of maybe adding some dependencies like OpenOffice's UNO library to the C core, but no-one wanted to do that in case instead the idea was to shift more development to Mono or Python or similar; by contrast, there was no agreement on whether core Gnome bits could be written in Mono or Python or Java because that would make it more difficult to fiddle with the core. So nothing happened other than discussion. That eventually got resolved, and I'm sure this will too, and it doesn't need one "dictator" to stand up and lay down the law about what should happen, but *something* needs to happen otherwise we're all trapped by that indecision paralysis. I agree that there are a number of possibilities; the worry I personally have is that everyone can list the alternative routes that Gnome can take but we’re not taking any of them because no decision is made. The paralysis of indecision, you might call it. The same issue came up a while ago as regards languages: there was talk of maybe adding some dependencies like OpenOffice’s UNO library to the C core, but no-one wanted to do that in case instead the idea was to shift more development to Mono or Python or similar; by contrast, there was no agreement on whether core Gnome bits could be written in Mono or Python or Java because that would make it more difficult to fiddle with the core. So nothing happened other than discussion. That eventually got resolved, and I’m sure this will too, and it doesn’t need one “dictator” to stand up and lay down the law about what should happen, but *something* needs to happen otherwise we’re all trapped by that indecision paralysis.

]]> By: Luca http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-556 Luca Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-556 I don't think we should create different distributions of GNOME. GNOME is an environment for the "community" and it has innovative and smart ideas because it is not the "standard" user using it. That is why I chose GNOME in the first place, because commercial ideas were way below my line of expectation! <br/>I think GNOME is good as it is, with a strong community. I don’t think we should create different distributions of GNOME. GNOME is an environment for the “community” and it has innovative and smart ideas because it is not the “standard” user using it. That is why I chose GNOME in the first place, because commercial ideas were way below my line of expectation!
I think GNOME is good as it is, with a strong community.

]]> By: Murray Cumming http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-557 Murray Cumming Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-557 Stuart, I think this paralysis of indecision thing is a myth. That's just spin on the situation where one group of people would like another group of people to like their choice. But no decision will force people to like what they don't like. That's just simple disagreement.<p/>There's nothing that I need from GNOME that is currently blocked by any lack of decision. <br/> Stuart, I think this paralysis of indecision thing is a myth. That’s just spin on the situation where one group of people would like another group of people to like their choice. But no decision will force people to like what they don’t like. That’s just simple disagreement.

There’s nothing that I need from GNOME that is currently blocked by any lack of decision.

]]> By: Stuart Langridge http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-558 Stuart Langridge Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-558 Murray: interesting. One of the things I'd like, for example, is the stuff that's been talked about for Topaz: people as first-class objects, etc. Alternatively, I'd like to hear that that's just talk and there's not going to be a move towards it. At the moment I don't know whether it is or not: I've been talking about how desktop environments might work differently in the future to some people and giving Topaz as an example. Now, true, there's nothing stopping me building a Topaz-ish desktop on top of Gnome 2.18, except that it'd take rather more time than anyone's got, but if it ain't gonna happen I'll stop talking about it.<p/>Clearly, though, if you're not seeing a problem then it's less of a worry, since my points are fairly theoretical: I was able to decide to use D-Bus for communication in Jackfield because I can assume that it'll be present on a Gnome desktop, and that sort of thing is helpful, but it's an edge case.<br/> Murray: interesting. One of the things I’d like, for example, is the stuff that’s been talked about for Topaz: people as first-class objects, etc. Alternatively, I’d like to hear that that’s just talk and there’s not going to be a move towards it. At the moment I don’t know whether it is or not: I’ve been talking about how desktop environments might work differently in the future to some people and giving Topaz as an example. Now, true, there’s nothing stopping me building a Topaz-ish desktop on top of Gnome 2.18, except that it’d take rather more time than anyone’s got, but if it ain’t gonna happen I’ll stop talking about it.

Clearly, though, if you’re not seeing a problem then it’s less of a worry, since my points are fairly theoretical: I was able to decide to use D-Bus for communication in Jackfield because I can assume that it’ll be present on a Gnome desktop, and that sort of thing is helpful, but it’s an edge case.

]]> By: Dave Neary http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-559 Dave Neary Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-559 Let me show you one example of a first-class object oriented version of GNOME 3.0: <a href="http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Image:AP1_13.jpg">http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Image:AP1_13.jpg</a><p/>How about these versions of GNOME 3.0?<br/><a href="http://www.maemo.org/screenshots.html">http://www.maemo.org/screenshots.html</a><br/><a href="http://www.openmoko.com/press/index.html">http://www.openmoko.com/press/index.html</a><br/><a href="http://www.fluendo.com/elisa/screenshots.php">http://www.fluendo.com/elisa/screenshots.php</a><br/><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/10/mega-hands-on-virgin-americas-airbus-a320-with-red-in-flight-e/">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/10/mega-hands-on-virgin-americas-airbus-a320-with-red-in-flight-e/</a><p/>How about this for the desktop?<br/><a href="http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/screenshots.html">http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/screenshots.html</a><p/>The point is, innovation is happening elsewhere, not in the GNOME desktop - GNOME is a great platform for that innovation, but it'd be nice to have that innovation happening in the project, rather than outside it.<p/>Just imagine - a GNOME specifically for 5 - 8 year old school kids, another specifically for adolescents (maybe with Enlightenment as the window manager? ;), yet another for TV set top boxes, yet another for hand-helds and mobile phones, the list goes on.<p/>We would doing the same thing that we're doing now - creating user interfaces for GNOME. With one important difference, each user interface would have a very specific niche audience who we would cater to exclusively and completely, to the detriment of others. This kind of design coherency would give us a power that we don't have now, and each of the developers would have a mix'n'match mentality towards GNOME applications.<p/>Why are we making a sysadmin release set and a developers release set to sit on top of the core GNOME desktop? Wouldn't it be better to make a sysadmin control center - single-mindedly focussing on that usecase? And another for developers which included everything that a developer might need, integrated in such a way as to make his life easier?<p/>There's still going to be a use for the general purpose desktop, but single-use user interfaces are where we have the most power to make people happiest.<br/> Let me show you one example of a first-class object oriented version of GNOME 3.0: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Image:AP1_13.jpg

How about these versions of GNOME 3.0?
http://www.maemo.org/screenshots.html
http://www.openmoko.com/press/index.html
http://www.fluendo.com/elisa/screenshots.php
http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/10/mega-hands-on-virgin-americas-airbus-a320-with-red-in-flight-e/

How about this for the desktop?
http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/screenshots.html

The point is, innovation is happening elsewhere, not in the GNOME desktop – GNOME is a great platform for that innovation, but it’d be nice to have that innovation happening in the project, rather than outside it.

Just imagine – a GNOME specifically for 5 – 8 year old school kids, another specifically for adolescents (maybe with Enlightenment as the window manager? ;) , yet another for TV set top boxes, yet another for hand-helds and mobile phones, the list goes on.

We would doing the same thing that we’re doing now – creating user interfaces for GNOME. With one important difference, each user interface would have a very specific niche audience who we would cater to exclusively and completely, to the detriment of others. This kind of design coherency would give us a power that we don’t have now, and each of the developers would have a mix’n'match mentality towards GNOME applications.

Why are we making a sysadmin release set and a developers release set to sit on top of the core GNOME desktop? Wouldn’t it be better to make a sysadmin control center – single-mindedly focussing on that usecase? And another for developers which included everything that a developer might need, integrated in such a way as to make his life easier?

There’s still going to be a use for the general purpose desktop, but single-use user interfaces are where we have the most power to make people happiest.

]]> By: Christian http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-560 Christian Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-560 David, nobody is arguing against this vision here, the question asked if its happening or if we are stuck in a circle of talking about it. David, nobody is arguing against this vision here, the question asked if its happening or if we are stuck in a circle of talking about it.

]]> By: Murray Cumming http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-561 Murray Cumming Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-561 Obviously wild and vague new ideas need to be experimented with. When we know what we really want, and if we want it, then it can be done for real in a common way that people can really use. You can't rush these things, even if you assign someone to tell you to rush. Obviously wild and vague new ideas need to be experimented with. When we know what we really want, and if we want it, then it can be done for real in a common way that people can really use. You can’t rush these things, even if you assign someone to tell you to rush.

]]> By: Murray Cumming http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-562 Murray Cumming Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-562 Stuart, and you can't really give "Topaz" as an example because it's meaningless, or it means whatever you want it to mean. It's a project name without aims, therefore sure to lead to dissatisfaction. Stuart, and you can’t really give “Topaz” as an example because it’s meaningless, or it means whatever you want it to mean. It’s a project name without aims, therefore sure to lead to dissatisfaction.

]]> By: Dave Neary http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/comment-page-1/#comment-563 Dave Neary Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2007/03/14/the-future-of-gnome/#comment-563 Christian: My point is that it is already happening, with or without "authorisation" of the GNOME project. Christian: My point is that it is already happening, with or without “authorisation” of the GNOME project.

]]>