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 465644
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Why no GNOME Perspective?
by olau on Thu 10th Mar 2011 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why no GNOME Perspective?"
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

olau Member since:
2011-03-10

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.


Sure. I actually think he had a fair point in that collaboration means you may have to eat stuff you don't like, wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

It's just that he pointed fingers, failing to say that he himself in the particular case he mentions hadn't been overly receptive to the kind of collaboration where you try very hard to see the point from the other side. ;)

To be honest, I think the big mistake in this whole mess is that way people are arguing over it. If you really want to change the way people go about their business, engaging them privately in a manner where egos and tempers won't self-inflate immediately just seems much more effective. I just hope the whole thing manages to push people into starting those conversations...

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

TheBlackCat Member since:
2011-03-11

Except for the fact that the spec was usable and was, in fact, in extensive use by that point. The whole claim that the spec could not work was demonstrably false.

Further, despite repeated requests they refused to provide any reasons or use-cases to show how it wouldn't work. Aaron provided extensive reasoning and use-cases for why he thought it needed to be the way it did. The others refused to do so, they just stated the claim and expected to to be accepted as unquestionable fact.

So on one side we have several working implementations that show it does work, detailed explanations about the reasons for the structure, and specific use-cases that support this decision. On the other hand we have a claim that it is impossible to implement (despite the fact that it already has been implemented), no reason for this claim, no use-cases for this claim, and no response to the other sides reasons or use-cases.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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