Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 17:27:36 -0400
> Bill Davidsen<email@example.com> wrote:
>> I am not too surprised about GNOME3, but I thought the Fedora
>> decision making group were better people than that and would offer
>> GNOME2 for some length of time rather than offer no option at all but
>> retrain. That might make sense for developers who learn new stuff all
>> the time,and hobby users who are just playing or learning, but for
>> people using Fedora to do things important to them, there is a huge
>> time cost and no gain.
> There are two issues with such a option:
> 1) It would be a great deal of work to get gnome2 and gnome3 to
> co-exist side by side, as they share a lot of things that would need to
> be made to work for both.
> 2) There are no people (or very few) willing to maintain it. Upstream
> is working on gnome3, all the fedora gnome maintainers are working on
> gnome3. If a group of interested and qualified folks wanted to work on
> providing gnome2 I would think it would be possible, but I know of no
> such group.
> The "Fedora decision making group" has no power to hire a team to work
> on gnome2.
They have the power to say "not ready" though. And the alpha of fc15 shipped
with a GNOME3 which runs in a VM and doesn't require a magic video card. Was
that capability deliberately removed from the final fc15, or was it part of the
official GNOME3 release and absolutely unfixable? Because running a GNOME3
desktop in a VM would be a low impact teaching tool, users could get their feet
wet without a full install on bare iron.
Bill Davidsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
users mailing list
To unsubscribe or change subscription options: