Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Mar 2011 12:59 UTC
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 465665
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why no GNOME Perspective?
by Mystilleef on Thu 10th Mar 2011 21:46
in reply to "RE[3]: Why no GNOME Perspective?"
Member since:2005-06-29
RE[5]: Why no GNOME Perspective?
by HappyGod on Fri 11th Mar 2011 05:49
in reply to "RE[4]: Why no GNOME Perspective?"
Member since:2005-10-19
Well you provided quotes from Aaron (kde) and Mark (ubuntu) and none from any gnome developers involved in this issue. How can you pretend this is balanced?
Totally agree with you Mystilleef. It's sad to see some of your comments voted down when the points you made were perfectly valid. The STFU response from Thom was also pretty dissapointing.
This piece can only be described as opinion. It comes down hard on Gnome, and definitely does not present their side of the story in any way.
While I happen to agree that Gnome is in the wrong on this issue, authors have to decide when writing a piece like this whether they are going to provide opinion (which is fine), or balanced news.
The distinction between the two is rarely, if ever, made on OSNews.
RE[5]: Why no GNOME Perspective?
by segedunum on Sat 12th Mar 2011 00:11
in reply to "RE[4]: Why no GNOME Perspective?"
Member since:2005-07-06
Well you provided quotes from Aaron (kde) and Mark (ubuntu) and none from any gnome developers involved in this issue.
1. Dave Neary's blog posting is in both those links.
2. They don't want to respond for obvious reasons.
3. They have made their feelings clear in the comments on those blog entries - they claim that things that others had said had been agreed never took place and that's all. Have a read.
4. They hope this will all kind of go away by giving vague answers.
Member since:
2005-06-29
Oh go boo-hooing somewhere else.
Cry me a fricking river.