Linked by Howard Fosdick on Tue 17th Jul 2012 04:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 527227
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[8]: My complain about unity
by Alfman on Wed 18th Jul 2012 15:25
in reply to "RE[7]: My complain about unity"
Soulbender,
"The overhead and manpower needed to maintain gnome2 by themselves in addition to developing Unity?
Maybe if the GNOME project had maintained the 2.x series alongside 3 it would still had been an option in Ubuntu."
Gone Fishing just installed it and says it works, so it shouldn't have been that difficult for Canonical to work it out back then.
http://www.osnews.com/thread?527223




Member since:
2005-08-18
The overhead and manpower needed to maintain gnome2 by themselves in addition to developing Unity?
Maybe if the GNOME project had maintained the 2.x series alongside 3 it would still had been an option in Ubuntu.
This is really nothing new. The same thing happened when distros changed their default DE from KDE1 to KDE2, KDE2 to KDE3, GNOME to GNOME2 or whatever. You got a new default and if you wanted to stay with the old stuff there was some work to do on your own.
Much OSS software is totalitarian and has always been. Linus (dictator for life, remember?) decides what goes in the official kernel, Theo decides what goes in OpenBSD, Canonical decides the direction of Ubuntu, RedHat decides the direction of RHEL etc etc.