Linked by David Adams on Thu 29th Jul 2010 16:47 UTC, submitted by suka
Gnome During the currently ongoing GUADEC conference in Den Haag the GNOME release team announced that GNOME 3.0 would be delayed for another six months and is now scheduled for March 2011. "We could release in September and have something working that is okayish, but it's not up to the standards we have" release team member Vincent Untz explains the reasoning. There's coverage of this issue at derStandard.at and an official GNOME press release.
Thread beginning with comment 434864
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The Simple Solution - both
by ozonehole on Sat 31st Jul 2010 03:46 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

Seems to me that the solution to this is so simple I don't know why it hasn't hit everyone over the head. I enjoy playing with alpha and beta software, and I'm currently running Firefox4-beta2 and Google-Chrome-dev (without issues, I may add). I also expect to install Ubuntu Maverick-alpha3 next week when it's released (on a Btrfs partition!).

Any good reason why I can't install both Gnome2 and Gnome3 and choose at login time which one I care to use? At least with Ubuntu, it's very easy to choose which desktop I want at login time, and most distros are similar (granted, some distros do make that difficult).

Seems to me like the best of both worlds. I can choose stable or unstable whenever I login, depending on my whim at the moment. Because Gnome3 is not currently available in the Ubuntu repository, it's not accessible to me right now (unless I want to compile from source, which I don't). Making the binaries available would get more people experimenting with it, and help speed development along.

But yes, Gnome3 should be clearly marked "beta" or even "alpha" so as to eliminate any confusion with the stable Gnome2. That whole KDE4.0 fiasco should not be repeated. So Ubuntu developers (if you're reading this) - go ahead and hit me with Gnome3.0-beta1 - I'm ready!

Edited 2010-07-31 03:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2