Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 17:45 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 195709
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-26
As you already pointed out in your article, Gnome 2 provides a very consistent interface, with many gradual improvements.
Drastic changes, like the one from Gnome 1 to Gnome 2 are not a good thing. With open source, there's no need to justify a $100 (Apple) $250 (Vista Pro) upgrade fee.
You seem to prefer a long-expected, secretly developed, dramatically changed new release over a constantly improved, consistent open development model. Within the open source development model, that is not realistic. XGL/Compiz is an example, but it served more as a seed-project and a way to flesh out the specs before releasing it to the open source community.
Over time, projects like Beagle, D-BUS, Cairo and Compiz have been/will be incorporated into the mainstream Gnome Desktop. This only testifies to the well-designed framework that Gnome has become.