Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Nov 2009 13:20 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Gnome As most of you will know, the GNOME team is hard at work on GNOME 3.0, the first major overhaul of the platform since 2002. The release of GNOME 3.0 was originally planned for March 2010, but it has now been pushed back for six months to September 2010.
Thread beginning with comment 394181
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 12th Nov 2009 00:56 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not surprised that the change has taken place - if one looks at the targets put forward regarding the deprecated components, it would have been overly ambitious to meet the target given the scope of what was wished to be accomplished. Take libcanvas for example where nothing yet has been done regarding Evolution. Then there are the numerous components within the GNOME stack that rely on HAL even though it has been deprecated for over 6months - I found it funny when a bugzilla submission was made regarding GIMP the only thing the GIMP developers could do was, "not my problem, sort it out yourself" (kind of reminds of their attitude to fixing up their UI).

There are many issues and even pushing it back to September 2010 is overly ambitious given if the submissions to meet the targets keep going at the current pace - the goal won't be achieved until 2012 at the earliest. It is all very nice to talk about people volunteering but even in a voluntary organisation there has to be targets set and consequences if people don't step up and meet this targets. Just as the chariety organisation who organises the soup kitchen expects volunteers to turn up when rostered, so should the programmers who are part of the GNOME desktop to step up and properly maintain their projects to meet the over all goal of 3.0.

Edited 2009-11-12 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by segedunum on Thu 12th Nov 2009 16:25 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes. The problem with all of that, and the much talked about move to DeviceKit, is that the distributors who are generally involved in Gnome development simply don't want to invest time and money in anything new. There just isn't the wherewithall to do it.

I mean, who can blame them? Novell and Red Hat just don't make money from work on desktops other than the bare minimum for where people use Linux workstations, and any new work that needs to be done on Gnome or anything graphically goes to the bottom of the pile. Havoc Pennington isn't around any more to co-ordinate things so I think he's a big miss. As for Ubuntu, there just isn't much in the way of Gnome code being committed, despite the hype.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 13th Nov 2009 01:41 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes. The problem with all of that, and the much talked about move to DeviceKit


DeviceKit is no more, the ultimate move was actually to eventually migrate to libudev/gudev now that libudev is LGPL licensed. DeviceKit was only a stop gap measure.

is that the distributors who are generally involved in Gnome development simply don't want to invest time and money in anything new. There just isn't the wherewithall to do it.


Considering they were the ones who stated that they want the HAL dependency removed from the GNOME stack - I find it rather stupid stating one thing and allocating no resources to back it up.

I mean, who can blame them? Novell and Red Hat just don't make money from work on desktops other than the bare minimum for where people use Linux workstations, and any new work that needs to be done on Gnome or anything graphically goes to the bottom of the pile. Havoc Pennington isn't around any more to co-ordinate things so I think he's a big miss. As for Ubuntu, there just isn't much in the way of Gnome code being committed, despite the hype.


The move from HAL to libudev isn't just merely a GNOME issue given the system management tools that sit onto of Linux to make administration easier and thus lower the training and employment costs of linux admins. So it is in their best interest to clean things up.

Reply Parent Score: 4