Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Mar 2011 12:59 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y If you were, you know, living your lives, you've probably missed it, but old fires are burning brightly once again: there's somewhat of a falling-out going on between KDE and GNOME, with Canonical siding squarely with... KDE. The issue seems to revolve around GNOME's lack of collaboration, as explained by KDE's Aaron Seigo.
Permalink for comment 465631
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why no GNOME Perspective?
by chandler on Thu 10th Mar 2011 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why no GNOME Perspective?"
Member since:

I read through that whole thread, starting with that message. Frankly, Aaron does not come off well here. The Gnome folks raised valid concerns about the vagueness of the specification and some protocol issues, and Aaron's response was to obfuscate or say the issues had been raised elsewhere (but certainly not addressed in the specification).

If you think this discussion indicates a lack of willingness to cooperate on the part of the Gnome developers, then you must not read many mailing lists or participate in specification development. This is an absolutely normal conversation, except that one of the participants is not really responding to the issues raised.

Unfortunately the KDE and Unity developers seem willing to put out a specification that's not quite fully baked and let dominant implementation practice define expected behavior instead of capturing it in the document. When that happens, what results is a mess of backwards compatibility hacks and nearly-compliant implementations that fall apart at the edges. It's why you can't just write a CSS + HTML document and have it render the same on all browsers.

Doing specifications right isn't the expedient path, but it is the right path, and I'm disappointed that the Gnome developers' insistence on it is being used as evidence of their uncooperative nature. If any proprietary software developer acted this way regarding development of an open specification, they'd rightly be excoriated for it here.

Reply Parent Score: 4