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.
Thread beginning with comment 465610
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
In other words...
by darknexus on Thu 10th Mar 2011 13:32 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

They won't do what we want! *cries* I agree with the poster above, that's what happens in an open ecosystem like this. Maybe Canonical and KDE think the appindicators and Unity are a good idea, but maybe the GNOME folks don't. That's the way it is. Shuttleworth needs to quit whining when others decide not to follow him. This isn't iOS where everything needs approval from someone else, this is an open system. If Shuttleworth doesn't like the way GNOME is handling things, he's free to switch Ubuntu to KDE if he wishes. Quite honestly, I don't really care what he does since I use Arch anyway, but he sure seems to complain too much.
Funny thing is, my GNOME installation on ARch is way more stable *without* Canonical's additions. Maybe that has something to do with GNOME's reluctance?

Reply Score: 2

RE: In other words...
by evert on Thu 10th Mar 2011 13:54 in reply to "In other words..."
evert Member since:
2005-07-06

True, but if Gnome leadership first indicates "great idea, let's work together" and later changes plans, then others will lose trust in such leadership.

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE: In other words...
by g2devi on Thu 10th Mar 2011 17:55 in reply to "In other words..."
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

That's the way it is. Shuttleworth needs to quit whining when others decide not to follow him. If Shuttleworth doesn't like the way GNOME is handling things, he's free to switch Ubuntu to KDE if he wishes.


Actually, Shuttleworth created Unity for precisely this reason. His only disagreement is with GNOMEshell. WRT whining, he's getting regularly attacked by people in the GNOME camp for not using GNOMEshell, so restating the reasons for not using GNOMEshell is appropriate.

Personally, I haven't tried either Unity or GNOMEshell, but from what I've seen I don't look forward to either. I am glad there are alternatives. Let the best shell win. I am willing to give both a try, but if neither work for me, KDE4 doesn't either so I'll go for XFCE since it has always "just worked".

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: In other words...
by da_Chicken on Fri 11th Mar 2011 02:11 in reply to "RE: In other words..."
da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

XFCE is indeed a very good alternative to GNOME. GNOME apps work nicely in XFCE, and XFCE offers a stable and familiar desktop environment.

Pretty much the only thing I don't like about XFCE is its window manager, which is almost as lame as metacity. Openbox is a much better alternative, and you can easily change the WM in XFCE to openbox by typing in a terminal window this command:

killall xfwm4 ; openbox & exit

Then exit XFCE, saving the session. The next time you start XFCE, it will use openbox as its WM. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: In other words...
by superstoned on Fri 11th Mar 2011 21:37 in reply to "In other words..."
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

If GNOME removes the minimize buttons everyone criticizes them for it (despite the fact that it was a sensible choice) but when they refuse to cooperate, making things actually worse for the users - it is their right to do that?!?

Of course it's their right to do that, as it is your right in Japan to go Whale fishing and I bet there are countries where seal clubbing is legal too. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: In other words...
by WereCatf on Fri 11th Mar 2011 22:05 in reply to "RE: In other words..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

If GNOME removes the minimize buttons everyone criticizes them for it (despite the fact that it was a sensible choice) but when they refuse to cooperate, making things actually worse for the users - it is their right to do that?!?


I rather criticize them for both decisions ;) I will definitely not like having those buttons removed and several other "features" being introduced in GNOME3, and even though I haven't bothered reading all the replies in those mailing list threads about this current topic I can't help but feel slightly disappointed in GNOME devs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: In other words...
by allanregistos on Sat 12th Mar 2011 01:11 in reply to "In other words..."
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

They won't do what we want! *cries* I agree with the poster above, that's what happens in an open ecosystem like this. Maybe Canonical and KDE think the appindicators and Unity are a good idea, but maybe the GNOME folks don't. That's the way it is. Shuttleworth needs to quit whining when others decide not to follow him.

disclaimer: I am not for Ubuntu or any distro, this is only my opinion based on my reading of facts.

Whose whining first? The folks who accuse Canonical for not contributing back to the Kernel, and now morphed into Banshee then to appindicator and Unity.

Please follow the relevant blogs, I see that the GNOME folks were at fault first for not collaborating on the open(freedesktop.org) despite of their _DENIAL_.

Reply Parent Score: 1