3 ms·

I'm writing a series of posts about the issue, largely as a result of extraordinary comments (attacking GNOME and individual participants) made by Mark over the

by jdub 16y ago

I'm writing a series of posts about the issue, largely as a result of extraordinary comments (attacking GNOME and individual participants) made by Mark over the last week. It is an attempt to correct the record and set a path forward. http://bethesignal.org/blog/2011/03/12/relationship-between-canonical-gnome/ http://bethesignal.org/blog/2011/03/12/relationship-between-...

SkyMarshal 16y ago
Post it to HN and link the HN link here so we can find and upvote it.
- jdub 16y ago
  Will probably do that when it's more complete. :-)
joe_the_user 16y ago
So is your argument that canonical developed their stuff in private and only wanted it approved once it was finished whereas the appropriate approach would have been to develop it in public (or within the Gnome process) so you could see what they were doing, comment and tweak it so it fit the gnome vision?
- jdub 16y ago
  They did that, but they also didn't even try to upstream a whole bunch of stuff. Then in 2010, after not laying any groundwork, they were annoyed that the very first thing they proposed which was (even only partly) related to their UX work was rejected. Then Mark accuses GNOME or people within GNOME of playing politics.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Well, how could you imagine they might make up for this now? This is something of a dilemma in any team-based development. Everyone thinks they have the right to go off and do their own thing. And everyone does have this right. But once someone has created something, how do they work that into the "mainstream"?
    - jdub 16y ago
      Unity? I don't think they want to upstream it, let alone upstream wanting to take it... and that's not such a bad thing. All kinds of downstream users of GNOME have made totally different environments with the platform. But what about stuff they want to upstream? I just hope they learn from this experience and do it better in future, like others have learned before them -- like Red Hat and Novell in GNOME, lots of Linux kernel contributors... That's the technical side of things. The social side of it all is much harder for them.

by jdub 16y ago

SkyMarshal 16y ago

Post it to HN and link the HN link here so we can find and upvote it.

jdub 16y ago
Will probably do that when it's more complete. :-)

joe_the_user 16y ago

So is your argument that canonical developed their stuff in private and only wanted it approved once it was finished whereas the appropriate approach would have been to develop it in public (or within the Gnome process) so you could see what they were doing, comment and tweak it so it fit the gnome vision?

jdub 16y ago
They did that, but they also didn't even try to upstream a whole bunch of stuff. Then in 2010, after not laying any groundwork, they were annoyed that the very first thing they proposed which was (even only partly) related to their UX work was rejected. Then Mark accuses GNOME or people within GNOME of playing politics.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Well, how could you imagine they might make up for this now? This is something of a dilemma in any team-based development. Everyone thinks they have the right to go off and do their own thing. And everyone does have this right. But once someone has created something, how do they work that into the "mainstream"?
  - jdub 16y ago
    Unity? I don't think they want to upstream it, let alone upstream wanting to take it... and that's not such a bad thing. All kinds of downstream users of GNOME have made totally different environments with the platform. But what about stuff they want to upstream? I just hope they learn from this experience and do it better in future, like others have learned before them -- like Red Hat and Novell in GNOME, lots of Linux kernel contributors... That's the technical side of things. The social side of it all is much harder for them.