bjoernvold.com

“The future of GNOME is as a Linux based OS. It is harmful to pretend that you are writing the OS core to work on any number of different kernels, user space subsystem combinations, and core libraries. That said, there may be value in defining an application development platform or SDK that exposes higher level, more consistent, and coherent API. But that is a separate issue from how we write core GNOME components like the System Settings.

Systemdwut?

Oh, boy, we're about to get into a REAL ball of wax here.

Who is this McCann who wrote this?

Kernels just aren’t that interesting. Linux isn’t an OS. Now it is our job to try to build one – finally. Let’s do it.

I think the time has come for GNOME to embrace Linux a bit more boldly

He wants to embrace the non interesting non OS Linux more boldly??? It is common to embrace interesting things in my book.
I have rarely seen more meaningless crap. If Gnome is trying to build an OS based on something else than Linux - good luck with that! If they want to base it on Linux, what is the difference? Well that they want to sacrifice BSD.
I want my OS to be fast flexible and lightweight. Or are they just talking about closing the source?
I will easily sacrifice lightweight for the two first. I just got a very good reason to follow KDE more closely.

So did everyone else, if you'll notice in the comments there. For me, it wouldn't be KDE though; even there they mention what we have so many times, that it's a resource-hogger. At this point, I'm seriously considering another alternative OS.

However, Gnome is stealing our choice (which, IMO is what open source is all about) with every release now; they have been since before they took away our ability to fully customise gdm. Look at it now - "take it as-is or go away" attitude; again, taking our choice away to customise it the way we want it (I feel KDE's done much of the same though; I know people who can't even get a decent "Properties" on a file from dolphin).

I said a bit back in time here, that I didn't like the way Linux was heading. I've also advocated equally as hard for Linux developers to get some real imagination and innovation going for the desktop, and for it to stop trying so hard to be Windows. This is why.

Oh, and this, is a very real possibility. Been finding stuff on it, out and out news articles, etc., and just about puking my guts out over it. However they do it, they will be leaving open source to the wind, and what people aren't thinking, is the fact that 3.2 isn't as far away as they think; in particular, on Arch.

I found this, btw, through a very good discussion on the Arch forums. At the time, I was looking for a way to customise title bars colour-wise in Gnome 3 all over the place last night, and to prove the point, never found one. The only single thing I found, was your hack (which IMO no one should have to do in the first place), which they all said should work. Obviously however, not in all cases. I also found others across the board online who really don't like mutter being forced on them and are just using metacity. As I said, "take it as-is, or go away".They're ramming this "bullshit" that THEY call a good WM right down our throats. Well, for some of us, it just doesn't work for functionality. I know it does you, Viking, but honestly, it's not cutting the mustard for me.

I share your views on the "take it or leave" it bit. Deciding what is good for me is MY business - I get that too. So policy wise I think there is a lot of wisdom in your post. I don't like the "we are thinking for you and know whats best for you" any more than you do.

From a practical point of view:
I have found Gnome3 to be somewhat functional - should that change - then Goodbye Gnome.

The way Linux is heading - I have no problem with it. I just want it to get so big that no hardware supplier can ignore it.

viking60 wrote::gpost

Thanks.

viking60 wrote:The way Linux is heading - I have no problem with it. I just want it to get so big that no hardware supplier can ignore it.

But see, for Linux to truly do that, is to come up with something that beats the competition, not that is the competition. Okay, for instance, when was the last time you saw a Mac look and function like Windows? And they haz market.

Yes they haz market. But Linux does not look like Windows unless you want it to?
Open Source scares the market - there is no such thing as a free lunch etc..
There is an uncertainty on what they can sell and what they have to give away. And for businesses uncertainty is the worst thing. Only the big companies who can afford Lawyers dare go for it all the way, like IBM.
Propper clean cut information on this would work wonders for Linux business. And then Microsoft's FUD does not help of course.

But then, if everything Linux did weren't some takeoff of what MicroFUD does, then we wouldn't have that worry. If you can show me something that is honestly completely original, right from the start, that Linux has done (other than the kernel), then I'll stfu.

**Do not take this to mean I'm sticking up for Microcrap. I'm not. I'm trying to get Linux to honestly move.**

Like standing on the head and crap in a 90 degree angel? A car tends to come with four wheels. Still I think there is a great deal of difference between BMW and Suzuki.
The GUI an mouse concept never was a MS thing. It was Xerox! Apple practically stole it from them and MS stole it from Apple. So what can we do about MS having stolen *nix technology? Change the look? Or just be confident that our superior system inspires the common MS masses, and be generous enough to let them play with it?
You seem to base your views on the wrong assumption that Linux and *nix have copied MS. Are you sailing under a false flag here?
Ballmer is that you?

Who else "does it for you"? Who else has that motto, of "doing it all for you", other than M$? Who else eats resources, like RAM, hard drive space, and CPU usage, other than Microcrap?

Look at Gnome3 now, and KDE. Now, mark my words, someday, 'nix is gonna screw us just like Microcrap has.

Look at Apple, who started out open source... and is now screwing us to the tune of thousands of $s like MS does.

Gnome 3? Linux/Open Source philosophy still? I don't think so. And to think that I was actually looking forward to its release; followed it like a hawk, then when the reality of it came, stole every single philosophy I and others have in the Open Source world from us, yep, just like Microsoft.

It's not about getting revenge against Microcrap for what they've done to the open source world. It's about Linux, and adhering to principles with it, and coming up with innovation and imagination for the 'nixes, within that philosophy and those principles. I don't care that Microcrap has stolen whatever, because if they think it good enough to steal, then we're doing something right. I care that they can say we stole. I don't want a BMW or Suzuki or whatever. I WANT A ROLLS ROYCE, edit: BUT AM GETTING A MOPED.

Wtf? This is a violation of the license agreement of free for all do what you want we dont care policy?
I mean gnome is or use to be free as in air? To be able to experment as long as you respected the terms of the agreement?

Yes, but the complaint is that they've taken away choice with Gnome 3. Not sure if you've run it yet, but if you do, believe me, you'll know that it is indeed a "take it as-is and we're giving you no choice but to use it as-is, like it or not". There's no way to customise the desktop without a lot of hacks, there's mutter ("oooooo compiz in a 'very minimal form'", "very minimal form" in quotes deliberately) forced at startup, and the real features are very limited of it. No right-clicking unless you remain in fallback mode (and even then it's Alt+right click; hell, even Windbloze has right-clicking normally on the desktop), and there's no "dressing up" the desktop without making a LOT of hacks. See about it down in the Software section.

When you start taking my power of choice away, and remove my ability to look "under the hood" as I'd been able to all these years, then you've removed open source in a very real way. The open source philosophy isn't just "that you can pass it around, modify it, etc." - it's a whole way of thinking. Power of user source, power of user everything with their own machine. Not to mention that it isn't there to "support one OS, distro, or another, and not others" (the very subject of this thread).

Kind of makes one wonder what a Gnome OS would be like. If they ever seriously do it, I'll burn a cd of it just to break it. Then I'll do a hundred more just to be able to break them. It would be worth the $s for the cds; mono would probably be more than *just* a "requirement to run it", however the OS turned out to be. Hello, M$. Now, how open source is that? To give you an idea of how open source it is (or isn't), and DO be sure to click "Show" and scroll the code:

http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
The split second you say C# or .NET in Linux, that's when I throw you the middle finger, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit, if Gnome not only plays "pick and choose" with distros, but does come out with their own OS, based on mono. I do believe the current devels have no clue what real open source is. Mono is THE very first thing I uninstall from any distro that I install. I don't care what relies on it; it all gets eradicated if it's been installed by default, even if I have to pull off a forced remove.