Donated a bit. Some of my friends and family rock Gnome 3.x and love it.
Kde was the default desktop. Gnome has just created fragmentation, with the dishonestly name Unity, Mate, Cinnamon lxde xfce etc. We need convergence: one default display server, one window manager, one desktop, one office suite, one init system, one package manager, one file manger.
If we could get Linux up out of the 1-2% then we could support numerous minority options and choices, but there needs to be one coherent, properly tested default distro that new users, hardware manufacturers and application developers can focus on.
Of course you mean the i3 WM in conjunction with Compton (at least until i3 gets its own compositing), am I right?one window manager,no one needs that, so we can happily dismiss that to get more resources for other things.one desktop,I guess you are fine with Calligra, aren't you?one office suite,Sure, let's go for SystemV init with BSD style scripts, or maybe something like OpenRC.one init system,Slackware's pkgtools are just fine and easy to work with, let's go for that.one package manager,OK, I vote for Ranger.one file manger.
Oh, I guess that isn't what you wanted, of course those "standard" things should be the ones you want to use, am I right?
It is rather simple to get what you describe: Switch to Windows or OS X. I take my Linux as it is already: Free choice for everyone, no forced "standards".
And I support the projects that I like. I couldn't care less about Gnome's Shell design, I don't use it. What I care about is their attitude: Don't listen to your users, don't listen to the developers that also use "your" toolkit, ... .
They want money? Easy, fix your problems, become a more attractive project, the money will come almost automatically.
it would kill choice, not to mention projects on a holocaust level... unless mass murder is the road to paradise, lol
as far as system level choices go, it would be good. and this part is already in progress with systemd and wayland (and probably btrfs as default file system)
- how would distro like gentoo use same package manager as the rest?
- so you either enforce one "does all" or "lacking features" office on everyone?
- window manager... just for appetizer. which one do you enforce tiling or non tiling?
- desktop? kde which has too many features, gnome which has too few, cinnamon which lacks apps,...
all but basic system level would much better be served in common specs, where not one party is deviating away unless it 100% supports spec as standalone which was agreed by all contenders... in short freedesktop which actually acts as one instead of free dumping ground as fdo is
Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. This is precisely the defining difference between the two. From then GNU website:
The political agenda against free software of this blog being known, I am not surprised by the tone of most comment here. I'm sorry for so few people standing for free software, but I don't think there's anything inherently bad with their feeling (reading them doesn't affect my level of "hope")... we are still better off with open source enthusiasts disagreeing with us but making free software more visible than being alone.The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success.
As for Gnome: I love it and it perfectly meets my needs as a programmer who need a reliable, snappy, versatile environment with no frills added (but with more functionality than Xmonad)... I am very happy they follow their vision rather than conforming to users' wishes, as that exposed me to something I would not have imagined myself. That said, their programmers would most certainly benefit from some more "style" in communicating with the community at large.
One of the things to consider though is dependability.
Donations, even huge ones, are often one-time incomes. In order to do a proper budget and respective planning, more stable forms of income are preferable, e.g. in case of GNOME joining the Friends of GNOME program.
A momentary increase in donations will resolve the current crisis more quickly.
An increase in FoG members will improve the situation in the long run, i.e. making it less likely that such a crisis will happen again.
Basically the "give a man a fish" principle.
Why donate money?
gnome is a redhat business so they can give them some money They gain hundred of million each year, they are a big multinational company and then they ask poor users for donation!