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 465630
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why no GNOME Perspective?
by _txf_ on Thu 10th Mar 2011 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why no GNOME Perspective?"
_txf_
Member since:
2008-03-17

That's all anecdotal. Where is the evidence? Where are mails on the mailing list? What GNOME developers explicitly or implicitly rejected the proposals? And why? Hearsay doesn't count.


Here you go:

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2010-January/011228.html

I think that thread should provide ample proof...

Reply Parent Score: 2

chandler Member since:
2006-08-29

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

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I seem to have a different perspective. I just don't think they were being particularly helpful. The gnome developers were focussing on silly details like api naming that everyone agreed would have to be changed.

They did not provide use cases or solid justification for their stated positions. Nor did they at any point say "look this simply does not work for us, how about doing it this way..."

The whole point of the discussion was to flesh out the specification and get others to join in. AFAIK that is what canonical did when the spec was first created.

Edited 2011-03-10 16:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

That's not a lack of willingness of the part of GNOME developers, those are all valid concerns and very constructive criticisms not unlike what you'll find in any software engineering project.

Reply Parent Score: 2

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

No, it's not. Read again. For example, this message by Aaron: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2010-January/011236.html

Read it fully...

Reply Parent Score: 3