On 04/27/2011 10:21 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 04/27/2011 03:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 04/27/2011 07:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 06:56 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>>>> Fedora, as a volunteeer effort, cannot. >>>> It's worse. I fear Fedora will loose contributors, because Fedora is not >>>> shipping the DE these users want. >>> We ship every major currently maintained desktop. Which one do you think >>> is missing? >> Adam, please. >> >> All of this thread is about "Gnome 3 not being a replacement for what >> used to be Gnome 2", >> > I don't think you carefully read what Adam wrote: I did ... my feel Adam doesn't want to understand. > "We ship every major *currently maintained* desktop." Correct ... IMO, Gnome upstream has derailed, but Fedora is blindly following, telling their users they are dumb and unable to learn. > AFAIK, GNOME 2 is no long about to be maintained.... > Therefore it > doesn't meet the criteria. > I think it is clear.... The upstream folks at gnome.org aren't > interested in maintaining GNOME 2. So, if there is a body of people > wanting it, they can take it over. Well, there is a different perspective: If an upstream is doing a bad job and breaking a large numbers of a distro's users expectations, a distro should reconsider its position towards such an upstream and can not avoid to fork. Debian turned aways from libc, SUSE has always followed KDE, ... Many Fedora packagers do so on the package level, when upstreams die or "go nuts". That said, I can't deny finding some wisdom in Ubuntu's decision to launch Unity (we will see where this ends). Ralf -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
