5 ms·

Canonical have nothing to do with Wayland. Mark Shuttleworth wrote a blog post saying they wanted to use it (in a ridiculously unrealistic timeframe), but they'

by jdub 16y ago

Canonical have nothing to do with Wayland. Mark Shuttleworth wrote a blog post saying they wanted to use it (in a ridiculously unrealistic timeframe), but they've contributed nothing to meeting that goal. They haven't tried to "force KDE/GNOME to work together on a notification API". They did their own thing, then later on adopted and modified a KDE protocol (which in the first place didn't even do the primary thing they were aiming for -> menus), then complained about GNOME not adopting their code (which is a separate issue to the protocol). They're basically doing their own thing now, not paying a lot of attention (let alone contributing) to upstream projects.

chrismsnz 16y ago
For those playing along, Jeff is heavily involved in the GNOME project and thus have a strong opinion on all these things. Much has been written on the indicator spat and the tension between GNOME and Canonical, and it seems that's there's not and end to be seen of it. Mark Shuttleworth has some thoughts (from the other side of the coin) on his blog here: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/654 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/654 I'm not going to join in, but I have trouble reconciling the arguments "GNOME not adopting their code/protocol" and "not contributing to upstream projects".
- jdub 16y ago
  GNOME rejected the libappindicator code and approach (largely because it was irrelevant and badly timed), but not the StatusNotifier protocol (as defined mostly by KDE, then once modified, the basis for libappindicator). The "not contributing to upstream" comment has a much broader context than that particular issue though. One late attempt to push something fairly irrelevant upstream does not define the entire context for their engagement. :-)
- jdub 16y ago
  (By the way, as stated on all of my posts about these issues, I am no longer involved in the GNOME project at all.)

by jdub 16y ago

chrismsnz 16y ago

For those playing along, Jeff is heavily involved in the GNOME project and thus have a strong opinion on all these things. Much has been written on the indicator spat and the tension between GNOME and Canonical, and it seems that's there's not and end to be seen of it. Mark Shuttleworth has some thoughts (from the other side of the coin) on his blog here: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/654 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/654 I'm not going to join in, but I have trouble reconciling the arguments "GNOME not adopting their code/protocol" and "not contributing to upstream projects".

jdub 16y ago
GNOME rejected the libappindicator code and approach (largely because it was irrelevant and badly timed), but not the StatusNotifier protocol (as defined mostly by KDE, then once modified, the basis for libappindicator). The "not contributing to upstream" comment has a much broader context than that particular issue though. One late attempt to push something fairly irrelevant upstream does not define the entire context for their engagement. :-)
jdub 16y ago
(By the way, as stated on all of my posts about these issues, I am no longer involved in the GNOME project at all.)