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 465694
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Why no GNOME Perspective?
by Delgarde on Thu 10th Mar 2011 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why no GNOME Perspective?"
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