Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Spider <spider@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:02:52
Message-Id: 20030828230303.2cb6a611.spider@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop by dams@idm.fr
1 begin quote
2 On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:35:05 +0200
3 dams@×××.fr wrote:
4
5 > Spider <spider@g.o> said:
6 >
7 > >
8 > > 9) Decisions and communications
9 > > All theese things need to be properly discussed and in the open. I
10 > > was shocked to find out I suddenly got a manager who thought I was
11 > > to run my decisions about including applications to the Gnome
12 > > desktop by them, as well as the idea of a single uniformed Gentoo
13 > > desktop is completely-appalling- to me.
14 >
15
16 > What does that mean? do you already hate me ? :)
17
18 No, this was in no way a personal assault and I'm very sorry that you
19 choose to take it as such, and continued with the replies out of order
20 when doing so.
21
22 I tried to carefully keep issues here apart, in order to further a
23 discussion about points I had.
24
25
26 >
27 > Sad but true, the only answerwe have is that we don't want their
28 > desktop. But every propositions to change things from the vanilla
29 > state won't fit everybody. So the bottom line is the vanilla state,
30 > for now.
31
32 ok, thats a good start. I hope you refer to my point above here that
33 decisions about changing this "for now" are made in the open and
34 including the developers who are in line for it. I really don't want to
35 find myself in a situation where there are global allcompassing
36 decisions made about things like this without open discussion and
37 communication. I realize that for as long as this is a privately held
38 company, and perhaps even after that, Daniel has final say.
39
40 > I'm trying to make you all react so that we can find something else.
41
42 Erm, I wish to think I did react here before, and also tried to be
43 constructive in how I looked at things. Perhaps you disagree.
44
45
46
47 > Why change the background of frame buffer, loader, and not the DE
48 > background?
49
50 I consider Splash-screens (Grub, Lilo, "Starting Gnome" , "loading
51 KDE" ) and Login prompts to be good places for branding because they do
52 not infere with the function of the desktop, and don't intrude on our
53 users.
54
55 This is also why I'm opposed to changing the desktop background, and
56 default theme's and icons.
57
58
59
60 > I'd say : let don't do "gentoo desktop"! we just maintain the desktop
61 > vanilla stuff. Default config is the vanilla one, changed to fit the
62 > (non desktop) modification that have been done to the core gentoo. If
63 > the guy wants an unified menu, he emerges the menu system, we provide
64 > the good config file. If he wants a background for the frame buffer,
65 > he can put one himself...
66 >
67 > That's the best solution : let's customize every pieces without
68 > thinking about the global desktop experience. The user will choose
69 > which pieces to put together.
70
71 This is a good way of doing it, and one I agree with completely.
72
73 (That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see a uniform theme for Grub,
74 bootsplash and GDM screens, so the computer doesn't look like its doing
75 a fast-forward between themes on bootup ;)
76
77 > I think that's the debian desktop. That's not that bad, debian desktop
78 > is rock solid, stable, good looking once configured, and powerfull if
79 > you install the powerfull stuff.
80 >
81 > But you seem to want something else...
82
83 I think I stated the things I'd like to see pretty well in the previous
84 post to the list.
85
86
87
88
89 > > In this regard the ruling cabal (ie, management)
90 > > have flunked completely and their actions , and more
91 > > importantly, inactions are to be questioned. This whole process
92 > > could have been dealt with far nicer.
93 >
94 > I'm sorry about that, I learned I could be the desktop leader 10 mins
95 > before we argue together on irc.
96
97 No reason to be, you weren't the one behind this decision.
98
99 //Spider
100
101 --
102 begin .signature
103 This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
104 See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
105 end

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop dams@×××.fr