4 ms·

[Article author here] > Red Hat didn't "create" GNOME I didn't say they did. > SuSe didn't "save" KDE I never claimed they did. (And it was SuSE, now just

[Article author here] > Red Hat didn't "create" GNOME I didn't say they did. > SuSe didn't "save" KDE I never claimed they did. (And it was SuSE, now just SUSE. When attempting to rebut, attention to detail is paramount.) > Microsoft's legal threats were not what motivated the shift [[Citation needed]] > considering it came out 5 years later. How long do you think this stuff takes? > GNOME3 shifted because of design philosophies in a good chunk of the core developers [[Citation needed]] Or at least wanted. I'd like to know. I've met with the team, at their invitation and expense, and asked them personally, and I still didn't get a straight, coherent answer. > a desire to have a more cohesive/user friendly experience a la Mac OS. Well that failed then, didn't it?

deaddodo 3y ago
> I didn't say they did. You sure as hell heavily implied it then: >> so Red Hat refused to bundle it or support it, and wrote its own environment instead. Unless by "wrote its own environment" you mean "packaged GNOME instead of KDE". > (And it was SuSE, now just SUSE. When attempting to rebut, attention to detail is paramount.) Got me. Except I'm not the "journalist". > How long do you think this stuff takes? Considering development on it didn't begin until late 2008, about two years after the supposed "drastic need to shift"? 2.5-3yrs, give or take. > Well that failed then, didn't it? And so did the Zune. Yet it was still designed as an iPod-killer. > [[Citation needed]] You're making the claims in your half-researched/personally-biased article. You cite them, ideally in the "article" itself.
bkor 3y ago
> > Microsoft's legal threats were not what motivated the shift > > [[Citation needed]] You made that claim, it's on you to prove your claim. Instead, you claim something and pretend it is true unless someone provides proof about a claim that just isn't true. > > GNOME3 shifted because of design philosophies in a good chunk of the core developers > > [[Citation needed]] A release team member mentions that this is true. What more do you need? I was also a release team member for 10+ years. I've never heard of anything like what you claimed. I spoke to loads of people. Further, you're confusing GNOME 3 with gnome-shell. Also, GNOME 3 took ages to come out while you're pretending it was something quickly developed. Lastly, GNOME classic. As shipped with RHEL 7. GNOME 3 with a more classical interface. Meaning, pretty close to GNOME 3.
- fweimer 3y ago
  Did you meant to write “pretty close to GNOME 2”? Either way, it doesn't really matter. RHEL 6 was released in 2010 with a traditional menu for starting applications, long after the alleged cutoff date that, according to the article, should have made this impossible.

deaddodo 3y ago

> I didn't say they did. You sure as hell heavily implied it then: >> so Red Hat refused to bundle it or support it, and wrote its own environment instead. Unless by "wrote its own environment" you mean "packaged GNOME instead of KDE". > (And it was SuSE, now just SUSE. When attempting to rebut, attention to detail is paramount.) Got me. Except I'm not the "journalist". > How long do you think this stuff takes? Considering development on it didn't begin until late 2008, about two years after the supposed "drastic need to shift"? 2.5-3yrs, give or take. > Well that failed then, didn't it? And so did the Zune. Yet it was still designed as an iPod-killer. > [[Citation needed]] You're making the claims in your half-researched/personally-biased article. You cite them, ideally in the "article" itself.

bkor 3y ago

> > Microsoft's legal threats were not what motivated the shift > > [[Citation needed]] You made that claim, it's on you to prove your claim. Instead, you claim something and pretend it is true unless someone provides proof about a claim that just isn't true. > > GNOME3 shifted because of design philosophies in a good chunk of the core developers > > [[Citation needed]] A release team member mentions that this is true. What more do you need? I was also a release team member for 10+ years. I've never heard of anything like what you claimed. I spoke to loads of people. Further, you're confusing GNOME 3 with gnome-shell. Also, GNOME 3 took ages to come out while you're pretending it was something quickly developed. Lastly, GNOME classic. As shipped with RHEL 7. GNOME 3 with a more classical interface. Meaning, pretty close to GNOME 3.

fweimer 3y ago
Did you meant to write “pretty close to GNOME 2”? Either way, it doesn't really matter. RHEL 6 was released in 2010 with a traditional menu for starting applications, long after the alleged cutoff date that, according to the article, should have made this impossible.