3 ms·
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 indicat
by chrismsnz 15y 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 15y agoGNOME 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 15y 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.)