Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Jul 2012 12:41 UTC
Gnome Honest question. Do you think the GNOME project is as healthy today as it was, say, 4 years ago? Benjamin Otte explains that no, it isn't. GNOME lacks developers, goals, mindshare and users. The situation as he describes it, is a lot more dire than I personally thought.
Thread beginning with comment 528493
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by zizban
by zizban on Fri 27th Jul 2012 13:03 UTC
Member since:

Gnome 3 should have been the tablet gui version of Gnome, ala what kde did.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Comment by zizban
by shmerl on Fri 27th Jul 2012 22:35 in reply to "Comment by zizban"
shmerl Member since:

Yes, but possible Gnome was already understaffed to pull through both efforts (desktop and mobile designs). Or they considered it not important. KDE made that distinction clear from the start (i.e. Plasma for desktop and PlasmaActive for mobile). Unfortunately for Gnome, ignoring that distinction is a bad idea.

Edited 2012-07-27 22:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by zizban
by sj87 on Sat 28th Jul 2012 05:03 in reply to "RE: Comment by zizban"
sj87 Member since:

KDE folks didn't make any distinction either - KDE4 was designed around 2006-2007 when there were no such things as tablets or touch interfaces. To my mind the KDE desktop is out-dated and legacy, not something we should make a glorified example of Things Done Right.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by zizban
by iswrong on Sat 28th Jul 2012 06:20 in reply to "RE: Comment by zizban"
iswrong Member since:

I think the underlying toolkit (Qt) helped enormously in this case. TrollTech and later Nokia were already adding support for declaratively defined touch interfaces via Qt Quick.

KDE could quickly leverage Quick for touch interfaces, and there already is a sort of separation in the Qt toolkit between the old Qt (desktop) widgets and Qt Quick.

Reply Parent Score: 2