Ubuntu Linux and GNOME: The Disputes continue
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:00 pm
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/u ... in;content
Ubuntu Linux and GNOME: The Disputes continue
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols | March 14, 2011, 10:29am PDT
Summary
There’s disorganization and disputes in Linux desktop circles.
Shuttleworth on GNOME
To Neary’s comments, Shuttleworth replied, “The reason I care is, to state the obvious, a well-functioning GNOME is important to Ubuntu and Canonical. And I don’t think we’re there. Alternatively, a well-functioning FreeDesktop.org is important, and we’re not there either.
I agree. GNOME appears to have become an organization without any organization, and FreeDesktop has grown dusty with disuse. Look at Neary’s own words: GNOME doesn’t have technical leadership. What!? How can a group working something as technical as a major revision of a Linux desktop not have technology leadership!?
Shuttleworth’s response is “Perhaps a more accurate summation would be ‘Gnome is not self-consistent, or deterministic, so it can often come to two quite contradictory conclusions at the same time.’”
Shuttleworth then proceeds to go into a detailed discussion of the various viewpoints from GNOME developers on GNOME; Unity, Ubuntu’s new GNOME-based desktop; and what happened with the app indicators.
He concluded, “There are good faith efforts being made to bridge divides all over the show, for which I’m grateful and to which we’re contributing. My comments here are to address what I see as convenient papering over, which will not stand the test of time. It’s important - to me, to the members of the community working on Unity and Ubuntu (and there are substantial communities in both) that simplistic accusations against us are not left to stand unchallenged. The goal - for everyone, I think - is great free software. I know we’re committed to that, and doing what we think is needed to achieve it.”
That’s all well and good, but I have something to add: GNOME needs a grown-up organization. It needs responsible technical leadership and clear lines of authority. Almost of all the Canonical and GNOME issues, both the technical ones and the resulting bad-feelings, could have been handled much better if GNOME had a clearly defined management structure.
In addition, the FreeDesktop.org needs revitalized. GNOME, KDE, and all the other Linux desktops are, and, to a lesser extent Ubuntu’s Unity are once more heading in different directions. On top of that, the smartphone and tablet interfaces, such as Android 2.x and 3.x and webOS, are spinning off in their own directions as well. If this trend continues, mere disagreements about something as relatively minor as status indicators won’ matter a bit, because independent software vendors (ISV)s will simply ignore the Linux desktop.
In particular, without leadership and co-ordination with the other Linux desktop players via FreeDesktop or some other such group, I fear GNOME, will become like such obscure Linux desktops as AfterStep, Enlightenment, and FVWM: appreciated by a few enthusiasts, but otherwise ignored.
Ubuntu Linux and GNOME: The Disputes continue
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols | March 14, 2011, 10:29am PDT
Summary
There’s disorganization and disputes in Linux desktop circles.
Shuttleworth on GNOME
To Neary’s comments, Shuttleworth replied, “The reason I care is, to state the obvious, a well-functioning GNOME is important to Ubuntu and Canonical. And I don’t think we’re there. Alternatively, a well-functioning FreeDesktop.org is important, and we’re not there either.
I agree. GNOME appears to have become an organization without any organization, and FreeDesktop has grown dusty with disuse. Look at Neary’s own words: GNOME doesn’t have technical leadership. What!? How can a group working something as technical as a major revision of a Linux desktop not have technology leadership!?
Shuttleworth’s response is “Perhaps a more accurate summation would be ‘Gnome is not self-consistent, or deterministic, so it can often come to two quite contradictory conclusions at the same time.’”
Shuttleworth then proceeds to go into a detailed discussion of the various viewpoints from GNOME developers on GNOME; Unity, Ubuntu’s new GNOME-based desktop; and what happened with the app indicators.
He concluded, “There are good faith efforts being made to bridge divides all over the show, for which I’m grateful and to which we’re contributing. My comments here are to address what I see as convenient papering over, which will not stand the test of time. It’s important - to me, to the members of the community working on Unity and Ubuntu (and there are substantial communities in both) that simplistic accusations against us are not left to stand unchallenged. The goal - for everyone, I think - is great free software. I know we’re committed to that, and doing what we think is needed to achieve it.”
That’s all well and good, but I have something to add: GNOME needs a grown-up organization. It needs responsible technical leadership and clear lines of authority. Almost of all the Canonical and GNOME issues, both the technical ones and the resulting bad-feelings, could have been handled much better if GNOME had a clearly defined management structure.
In addition, the FreeDesktop.org needs revitalized. GNOME, KDE, and all the other Linux desktops are, and, to a lesser extent Ubuntu’s Unity are once more heading in different directions. On top of that, the smartphone and tablet interfaces, such as Android 2.x and 3.x and webOS, are spinning off in their own directions as well. If this trend continues, mere disagreements about something as relatively minor as status indicators won’ matter a bit, because independent software vendors (ISV)s will simply ignore the Linux desktop.
In particular, without leadership and co-ordination with the other Linux desktop players via FreeDesktop or some other such group, I fear GNOME, will become like such obscure Linux desktops as AfterStep, Enlightenment, and FVWM: appreciated by a few enthusiasts, but otherwise ignored.