Re: Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 20:30 -0500, Alex GS wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:52 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:09 +0000, Allan Day wrote:
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > Thanks for reaching out with your ideas. I'm afraid that you're
> > > catching us at a bad time - we are really close to UI freeze and a lot
> > > of us are working flat out on that. I personally don't have much time
> > > to spare on mailing lists right now. :)
> > >
> > > Can you explain what the GNOME 2 sub-project would actually look like?
> > > It's hard to respond without knowing details about how it would
> > > actually work. I understand that you are proposing to utilise some
> > > GNOME 3 modules, but how would it differ? Would it have a 3.x
> > > gnome-control-center? Would it have a shell? If not, which pieces
> > > would you use instead? Would you expect the GNOME project to make
> > > regular GNOME 2 releases alongside GNOME ones? Would we work to ensure
> > > we produce quality GNOME 2 releases as well as GNOME 3 releases? How
> > > would we market these two experiences? What would we recommend to
> > > distributions?
> >
> > The main question for me would be, why would we want a "GNOME 2"-like
> > sub-project in GNOME when we dropped support for a very similar
> > interface, the fallback mode.
>
> To respond that that I'll copy a response I posted to the Fedora
> Workstation mailing list, it's modified to address your question
> specifically.

I wouldn't mind if the response wasn't horribly flawed. It seems to boil
down to "GNOME 2 was released around the same time as MacOS X so it was
awesome".

Furthermore, we obviously don't agree that GNOME 2 is that great,
otherwise we'd still be working on it. So you'd have to do a *lot* more
convincing.

Finally, I'd point out that MacOS X has made pretty extensive UI
changes, some of them clearly inspired by GNOME 3.