Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Playing Around With New Middle-Click Action

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

  • #71
    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
    And with KDE I have to spend ages messing around in its cluttered settings to change its many poor defaults

    KDE3 > KDE4 was a similar situation
    Yeah I've never spent more than 30 minutes in a KDE desktop in my life. Never really did anything for me.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by finalzone View Post
      Plugins and extension development tooks are available for anyone willing to input above ideas. When deemed effective, it can be ported into the core.
      I've given-up on plugins since they refuse to provide stable hooks that allow deep changes.
      Besides, it's not my job to do this, and my point was to their way of working and how broken it is (like not recording their irc sessions).
      They can message this all they want but that isn't the issue, and it won't bring people back.
      Let's see what happens with Fedora (as the major distribution who uses Gnome) over the next few releases with regards to how they ship gnome.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by johnc View Post
        That speaks volumes about GNOME developers.
        Not really... it happens to any large project. KDE went through the same process with each of it's major revisions, fixing the things that couldn't be fixed without API breakage. It's (mostly) not a problem of bad coding - it's that things change, new code is written to allow for those changes, but you can't get rid of the old code because it's part of your published API that people are supposed to be able to depend on.

        It's even worse in the Windows world, where Microsoft find themselves having to preserve compatibility with their old bugs, the broken behaviour having become a defacto API that they can't touch.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by Honton View Post
          Why should anything change? Gnome's level of freedom and number of contributor s is higher than any alternative.
          That's debatable, if you're going off contributors Gnome has a higher number but if you're going off commits then KDE blasts Gnome out of the water.
          https://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?proj...oject_1=GNOME#

          And level of freedom is also highly debatable. One could say that Gnome isn't free enough with two reasons, the first being that LGPL doesn't allow static linking without a license change to LGPL compared toolkit that uses a more permissive license such as libagar, and it could also be said that since Gnome allows software to use dynamic linking without a license change that it also isn't free enough as Juce which uses the GPL, which explicitly states that dynamic linking is not permitted unless the application that does so is also licensed under the GPL.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by intellivision View Post
            That's debatable, if you're going off contributors Gnome has a higher number but if you're going off commits then KDE blasts Gnome out of the water.
            Um, I don't know what you mean when you say "blasts Gnome out of the water" since KDE and gnome according to your own link have about the same commits and gnome has even more over the past month:

            12 months

            KDE=52,385 commits
            Gnome=51,356 commits

            30 days

            KDE=3,245 commits
            GNOME=3,409 commits


            It seems like people here use deception and hyperbole to paint such an inaccurate depiction of gnome. If you don't have time to be accurate, why do you have time to comment at all?

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by intellivision View Post
              That's debatable, if you're going off contributors Gnome has a higher number but if you're going off commits then KDE blasts Gnome out of the water.
              https://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?proj...oject_1=GNOME#
              Only on the "all time" scale. Look more recently (e.g at the "twelve months" or the charts), and it's pretty much even.

              It's not really a very useful benchmark though, since it depends a lot on the habits of the developers in question - some might commit a thousand line patch once a day, others commit fifty small patches in the same time...

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by Honton View Post
                You are right. KDE have so much more code to maintain that they need to patch so much more. Im leaving it up to you to decide whether it is good or bad to have have so many more lines of code to ever fewer contributors. Hint: There is a reason to why KDE does not add new features and is full om embarrassing bugs.


                Gnome is more free than say KDE and Unity because they stand against contributor agreements.
                The FSF uses contributor agreements, yet there's no massive backlash against that. Unless you want to use a double standard, you can't like one and hate the other.

                And there are no more 'embarrassing bugs' in KDE then there are in Gnome, unless you would like to prove otherwise.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                  And there are no more 'embarrassing bugs' in KDE then there are in Gnome, unless you would like to prove otherwise.
                  GNOME Shell is one big massive bug.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                    Yeah, I don't see why they didn't just start based on gnome-fallback. gnome-fallback was far from perfect and not nearly as polished as gnome 2, but it was already all ported to gtk3 and would have been a much easier starting point for MATE. Forking gnome 2 and then removing all the cruft *again* was just silly. I get the feeling forking gnome 2 was a purely emotional reaction from the founders of MATE, and then they soon realized how bad gnome 2 had become under the hood lol. One of the main reason gnome 3 was totally re-written was because the gnome 2 codebase had become an un-maintainable mess.
                    because in 2011 the GNOME2 code was the most stable, well tested, feature complete GNOME2 style desktop (obviously). GNOME3 fall back was in no way a drop in replacement. The only problem with the GNOME2 was that you could not install it along side GNOME3, and effectively could not install it into a distro that had GNOME3 in its repositories. There were too many name conflicts.

                    the quick practical solution was to do a huge find and replace on the code base, and voila, you have a stable, well tested GNOME2 style desktop that you can run along side GNOME3. (ok there were a few awkward corners and small bugs introduced).

                    Now they are porting to GTK3, and can use the work GNOME has already done as a reference. But they can do it without ripping out features at the same time.

                    Also if GNOME2 is an unmaintainable mess, that must suck for Redhat. They will be maintaining GNOME2 in RHEL6 for most of the next decade.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by Honton View Post
                      Well, there is a backlash against FSF for this. However FSF does make a legal binding promise to never commercialize on this. Qt and Unity is a the opposite. They hate the idea of fairness and code staying free so they demand contributor agreements to be signed. THAT is a double standard.

                      Gnome fights for true freedom and transperency. KDE and Unity are just puppets for companies hating free software so much they need a back orifice to close up the code.
                      Qt and KDE have a legally binding clause with its new parent organisation Digia which states that if there are feature differences between the commercial and LGPL libraries then the source code of both are legally allowed to be distributed with a MIT license, which would ruin any monopolistic commercial venture that they could have with those products, so it provides incentive to keep both in sync.

                      And your statement about a backlash against the FSF about copyright assignment is fanciful gibberish. It's done to facilitate the change of licences to later GPL versions which they see as a necessary step in keeping their software free. Would you rather that they had contacted the thousands of developers who had worked on GCC just so they could bump up the license from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+?
                      Such distributed arrangements only serve to waste the time of the project managers, time better spent on other ventures.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X