On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 09:41 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 09:27:43AM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 09:20 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > If we are not there yet, then why don't we wait until F16 for Gnome > > > 3/Gnome Shell? I see this as being exactly the same as the situation > > > was with systemd--it wasn't polished in time for F14, so it had to > > > wait until F15. Why should Gnome be any different? Why should the > > > users have to put up with a half-baked user experience for F15? > > > > Lack of extensions != half-baked user experience. GNOME 3 will give you > > a fully baked, crip user experience without extensions... > > Thanks, good to know. Sorry for my scepticism. Now that you've reset > my expectations, I'll try it out during the Test Days to make sure > there are no regressions in user experience & capabilities compared to > gnome-panel/nautilus and Gnome 2. Let me reset your expectations some more. There will be big changes in the user experience - thats the whole reason why we are working very hard to get GNOME3 done. And some of these changes will certainly be perceived as regressions by some people - if you have had your stock ticker in the upper right corner for 10 years, then that is a very understandable reaction to decry the disappearance of applets. What you should expect from GNOME 3.0 as a user is a fully functional desktop. What you should expect from it as a developer is a good platform to build on for 3.2 and so on. But a feature-by-feature and per-ui-detail comparison of GNOME 2.32 and 3.0 does not really make sense. The difference in the minor version numbers should make clear: GNOME 2 has had 16 revisions to build up UI details and features; GNOME 3 is just starting out. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
