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 465633
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Why no GNOME Perspective?
by _txf_ on Thu 10th Mar 2011 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why no GNOME Perspective?"
_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

olau Member since:
2011-03-10

Well, on the other hand if you read the last email from Aaron, he made it abundantly clear that no amount of use cases and other stuff could make him change his mind about fixing the vagueness of the spec, which is really what bothered Dan Winship and Mattias Clasen.

What he's arguing now is that the GNOME developers should just have eaten what they got served in the name of cross-desktop compatibility. And that's a fair point, no doubt about that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

What he's arguing now is that the GNOME developers should just have eaten what they got served in the name of cross-desktop compatibility. And that's a fair point, no doubt about that.


Well, if they had been more proactive they would have gotten to write parts of the menu. I'm much more inclined to take the side of kde as recent history shows kde being far more proactive on cross desktop than gnome.

Reply Parent Score: 3

jamboarder Member since:
2009-02-16

Well, on the other hand if you read the last email from Aaron, he made it abundantly clear that no amount of use cases and other stuff could make him change his mind about fixing the vagueness of the spec, which is really what bothered Dan Winship and Mattias Clasen.

What he's arguing now is that the GNOME developers should just have eaten what they got served in the name of cross-desktop compatibility. And that's a fair point, no doubt about that.


They didn't have to "eat what they got served". They could have proposed something else. No, what happened is they stopped communicating, went off and implemented a different systray/notifier mechanism and barely even bothered mention it to the people on fd.o who were obviously interested. This isn't about egos. This is about not fragmenting the FOSS app/DE ecosystem even more than it already is. Collaboration requires communication. You don't like what was proposed? Fine. Propose something else or leave things as they are. Don't go off creating something entirely different and expect folks to not get upset when you didn't care enough to tell them about it. As an app developer, I now have to decide which systray/notification mechanism to support or just go back to using crappy XEmbed. That's not progress...

As far as the merits of the Status Notifier spec, what a pleasure it is to run KDE apps in Ubuntu and see consistent GTK menus and tooltips in the GNOME systray instead of an out-of-place Qt/KDE menu or tooltip. How nice to see Plasma tooltips for Rythmbox instead of some out-of-place GTK tooltip on my KDE desktop. You would never think there were *any* practical value to the specs just reading their objections and, unfortunately, their objections are all we have as a testament to their efforts at cross-desktop collaboration on this particular issue. Again, this is not progress...

Reply Parent Score: 7

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Well, on the other hand if you read the last email from Aaron, he made it abundantly clear that no amount of use cases and other stuff could make him change his mind about fixing the vagueness of the spec, which is really what bothered Dan Winship and Mattias Clasen.


Agreed; from reading that thread, there was a major gap between Aaron's thinking, and theirs. Aaron was insistent that the spec cover only the communication channel and leave the presentation entirely up to the visualisation component. And that was completely unacceptable to Dan and Mattias, who felt that a spec that didn't cover the presentation was not usable.

Given those two uncompromising viewpoints, I don't think there was ever any chance of the two sides agreeing.

Reply Parent Score: 5

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

No, Aaron makes clear that the aim of the spec is to FIX the current situation, not duplicate it in another way. They all agreed the current situation sucked with every app basically having full control of the systray (hence the systray container having no control at all).

In short, they were being stubborn and (probably on purpose) overly negative and shortsighted. If you have the vaguest idea of what is wrong with the systray (just read up a bit on Aaron's blogs over the past 5 years) then you can only say that they are being idiots in every way. And again, I think you can blame them for that as unlike most of the readers here they actually know what Aaron is talking about.

Reply Parent Score: 6