On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 20:16 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: > Ok then - so then the debate here should not be about gnome 3 missing > features - we all agree - that should be an upstream discussion. > > The discussion should turn to what the default desktop should be - in > the past it was gnome 2 - gnome 2 is dead and we now have 4 desktop > managers to choose among (gnome 3 being just one). > > So - lets choose the default desktop manager for fedora from among: > > Gnome 3 > KDE > XFCE > LXDE > ? Other? > > How do we go about changing from gnome 2 to one of the above- since > gnome 3 is not gnome 2 it should be on equal footing from above list - > should this be by a vote on a website - discussion - fesco - what? > > What is the best mechanism for the fedora community to choose the > default desktop? > > May the best desktop win :-) This is a much more interesting way of framing the discussion as regards Fedora. Gnome 3 =! Gnome 2, therefore why give any special consideration to Gnome 3 over more well defined projects which predate it? And since we are discussing defaults, the option to use another DM is not a way out here. I think we are living with a cultural assumption that Gnome would be the default without really considering that Gnome as we knew is gone, completely. Put another way, if Gnome 3 were called something else it is perhaps less likely that it would remain the default. This is not so different from the current BTRFS debate. ext2/3 is not ext4, which is not BTRFS, but if BTRFS were called "ext5" people would worry over it a lot less. Perhaps there is a general sense that we've put so much into the Gnome community since the switch from KDE that considering an alternative to it feels bad. Someone on here has a great .sig along the lines of "No matter how far you've gone down the road, turn back." Old proverbs are usually worth some contemplation. On the other hand, perhaps Gnome 3 embodies such a radically better technical approach that interface silliness is just that -- mere silliness which can be easily adjusted -- but the underlying base is so solid and logical that people who are really familiar with it are just enduring the arguments for now while they prepare Good Things. I consider this to be fairly likely -- though that doesn't help not scare desktop users away in the meantime. Gnome 2, were it to remain alive in some form, would require a great deal of critical Single Architect cleanup and refactoring. Obviously that was not considered to be worth the effort (which is interesting, considering the history of nixy development and of X in general, and the broad acceptance of Gnome 2 as a platform standard). -Iwao -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
