| 1 |
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:24:26 -0500 |
| 2 |
Barry Schwartz <chemoelectric@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> It’s not just that, but the Gnome approach is like the Microsoft/Apple |
| 6 |
> approach, of reducing choice while at the same time forcing one into |
| 7 |
> pet project, non-standard software. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Those are my sentiments completely. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Gnome, however, is a desktop environment, and, as far as I'm concerned, |
| 13 |
all desktop environments are excessively bulky and totally unnecessary. |
| 14 |
There is nothing that can be done with a DE that can't be done without |
| 15 |
a DE. I never use a DE. A simple windows manager is good enough -- and |
| 16 |
Linux/GNU is the only OS that allow me that choice. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
However, what does concern me is that the "Gnome approach" will also |
| 19 |
be the approach taken by Wayland/Weston, and indeed by anything that |
| 20 |
is associated with the freedesktop project. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Many will say: "If you don't like it, then fork it." The problem is that |
| 23 |
a graphical subsystem like X or Wayland is not the simplest of matters to fork. |
| 24 |
A graphical subsystem requires a lot of resources and expertise to develop and |
| 25 |
those few that possess those resources also will have the power to control the |
| 26 |
destiny of Linux/GNU. It is not a satisfying thought. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Frank Peters |
Archives