Originally posted by bwat47
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
GNOME Playing Around With New Middle-Click Action
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostPlugins and extension development tooks are available for anyone willing to input above ideas. When deemed effective, it can be ported into the core.
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
-
Originally posted by johnc View PostThat speaks volumes about GNOME developers.
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
-
Originally posted by Honton View PostWhy should anything change? Gnome's level of freedom and number of contributor s is higher than any alternative.
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
-
Originally posted by intellivision View PostThat'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.
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
-
Originally posted by intellivision View PostThat'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#
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
-
Originally posted by Honton View PostYou 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.
And there are no more 'embarrassing bugs' in KDE then there are in Gnome, unless you would like to prove otherwise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bwat47 View PostYeah, 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Honton View PostWell, 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.
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
Comment