Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]

[Sergey Udaltsov <sergey udaltsov gmail com>]

> Could someone please articulate the GNOME position for downstream
> distributors of GNOME technologies?  It seems to me the previous
> position was to use the extension points instead of doing vendor
> patches.  Yet, without extension points it seems that vendor patches are
> the only solution there.
Technically, if the architecture only allows extension through
patching (instead of extension points), it means the architecture is
closed (that must be a highly offensive statement, if we're talking
about free software). Also, that is a very effective way to alienate
3rd parties (app developers, distromakers). I suspect, that attitude
in gnome possibly affected Canonical decision to drop gnome 3. I would
not be surprised if other distros follow that example. First
_unfriendly_ move from GNOME side: distros have to either patch g-c-c
to introduce distro-specific capplets (maintaining patches is not the
same thing as maintaining separate modules using relatively stable
APIs) or invent their own settings mgmt frameworks. If some distro
chooses the 2nd way - why stop? Next step - move all things to shiny
new distro-specific config UI, then - replace gnome-shell. Good bye,
GNOME3!

GNOME is not an OS. GNOME is not a distribution. GNOME is a core
desktop ("desktop building toolkit", if you like) that is used by
distributions - it is them who define the _final_ user experience. Do
we all agree that GNOME should be distribution-friendly, that GNOME
should trust distributions, make their life reasonably comfortable? So
let them put the configuration for the drivers, for the system
services, if they like, etc into g-c-c. "Let them" = "make it
reasonably comfortable" = "use APIs, not patching". If we do not trust
distributions ... we have to change a lot of things in GNOME, starting
from the first letter of the name (back at the days of GNOME 1 "G" was
for GNU)

All those rants aside, let me ask one question: is this APIlessness
considered as a temporary measure (I know, gnome 3 is currently highly
undocumented - at least I did not see g-c-c 3 UI guidelines) for some
transitional period or is it a policy that is planned to last in
foreseeble future of gnome3?

Sergey