Re: Three Point Zero - Idea Mockups

[Seth Nickell <seth gnome org>]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 4:23pm, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 21:52 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> >  But still, wasn't gnome 2 more or less a rewrite of gnome 1?
>
> Yes, GNOME 1 to GNOME 2 is in many ways exactly what I'd want to
> avoid. ;-) We salvaged it and got some user value out of it, but it was
> more despite the way we went about it than because of the way we went
> about it.

We hardly even got user value out of it at that. Gnome 2.0 was, from a 
user perspective, essentially Gnome 1.4 with more bugs and nicer font 
rendering.

Only later, in Gnome 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6, did we see a rennaisance in user 
improvements. I have heard these attritbuted in the past to the platform 
improvements introduced in 2.0, but I find only weak evidence for that 
(i.e. it looks to me like most of the 2.2-2.6 improvements could have 
been implemented atop 1.4 with only marginally more effort).

The reason things improved in 2.2,4&6 is simpler than all that: they 
improved because several hackers focused on improving the software in 
practical ways people cared about instead of dicking around with 
abstract platform issues.

-Seth