Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME "Flashback" Released, GNOME Panel 3.8

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    This tread, comment #5:
    XFCE is not actively developed anymore.
    How is this not a general statement on XFCEs development?

    Comment


    • #17
      Learn reading.
      I never said it's unmaintained, that's your interpretation.
      And behind the whole sentence "XFCE is dying" I placed a quotation mark, as your proclaimed inactivity should IMHO be a sign of dying, which I wanted to put into question. If it is not I want to hear your definition of dying, as I already asked once. KDE is dying but developed more actively than XFCE, which is not dying...

      Comment


      • #18
        Not being familiar with either project, I apologize in advance if I come off as ignorant, but doesn't GNOME Flashback have a lot of overlap with Consort? My understanding of Consort was that it was the original project attempting to maintain and progress GNOME Fallback mode after the later was abandoned. Do we really have two projects aiming to do the same thing, or are there sufficient differences between them to make each one worthwhile?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Honton View Post
          Consort was a fork, not an attempt to maintain. Consort was disruptive cry for attention, teen age style. The echo sounded for a week until it flat lined.
          Are you able to answer my question directly, and if so, will you please do so?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Serge View Post
            Not being familiar with either project, I apologize in advance if I come off as ignorant, but doesn't GNOME Flashback have a lot of overlap with Consort? My understanding of Consort was that it was the original project attempting to maintain and progress GNOME Fallback mode after the later was abandoned. Do we really have two projects aiming to do the same thing, or are there sufficient differences between them to make each one worthwhile?
            Reusing GNOME infrastructure is a major advantage. It makes it easier for contributors associated with GNOME (people interested in maintaining the panel because they have specific requirements, translators etc) to get involved even via drive by contributions which can add up and if you just want to maintain a older components, getting commit access is pretty easy typically and you don't have the headache of maintaining your own infrastructure as prior attempts including Consort did. It also makes it easier for distributions to just continuing updating instead of going through a re-review, importing a set of new packages etc.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Serge View Post
              Not being familiar with either project, I apologize in advance if I come off as ignorant, but doesn't GNOME Flashback have a lot of overlap with Consort? My understanding of Consort was that it was the original project attempting to maintain and progress GNOME Fallback mode after the later was abandoned. Do we really have two projects aiming to do the same thing, or are there sufficient differences between them to make each one worthwhile?
              Wasn't Consort a Fuduntu project? Fuduntu is dead. Its members joined openSUSE to help KLyDE.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                Wasn't Consort a Fuduntu project? Fuduntu is dead. Its members joined openSUSE to help KLyDE.
                Take a min to check up. Consort wasn't created by Fuduntu. https://lwn.net/Articles/533620/

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                  Reusing GNOME infrastructure is a major advantage. It makes it easier for contributors associated with GNOME (people interested in maintaining the panel because they have specific requirements, translators etc) to get involved even via drive by contributions which can add up and if you just want to maintain a older components, getting commit access is pretty easy typically and you don't have the headache of maintaining your own infrastructure as prior attempts including Consort did. It also makes it easier for distributions to just continuing updating instead of going through a re-review, importing a set of new packages etc.
                  Thank you, Rahul, for explaining it in a clear and concise manner. At first I was worried that this might be politically motivated, but your explanation makes a lot of sense and I can understand the advantage when it is described like this.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X