Think in terms of Ext3 to Ext4. There are massive improvements but massive regressions. FVWM1 and FVWM2 are essential just about the same but FVWM2 has massive improvements.
Originally Posted by Tony54465
Forking is the heart of Open Source. The ability to freely fork software and code has made the Linux ecosystem what it is today, even forks that previously seemed futile and divisive (see Beryl). Let the best libraries and code win out on their own merits. If GTK3 is that much better it'll win out for new development. If someone wants to keep GTK2 alive then by all means let them do so. Isn't that what sets it apart from all other OS Environments?
Originally Posted by Tony54465
Please don't feed the spambots. The trolls need the food more.
Pray tell me, what "massive regressions" does gtk3 have?
Originally Posted by squirrl
I don't know why people are focusing on GTK2 vs GTK3 when the real argument for forking Gnome2 was maintaining the usability.
I'm also not sure why certain people think Mate will be frozen in time.
I'm getting tired of hearing things like 'classic/stangnant desktop' in relation to Gnome2/Windows/OSX. Please stop trying to reinvent the wheel! (& ending up with rectangles)
I don't understand the love for Gnome anymore. Sure it's the default for most Distros but I think that has to be reevaluated. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Gnome2 the default because it was fairly easy to use & had most of the features *nix users needed out of a DE?
KDE was always a bit too buggy & slow (whenever I tried it anyways), & went the other direction - too many settings. XFCE wasn't mature enough & neither were the other DE's. (XFCE4 is nice & mature now)
I don't understand the 'we should focus on developing extensions for Gnome3' either. Why? Why do we have to hack Gnome3 to get usability back?
I think the major Distros' time woul be better spent working with XFCE. At least the XFCE devs seem to give a shit about what their userbase desires.
because its a lot less work to keep using something that works, than to start from scratch.
Originally Posted by srg_13
except you can't just keep using it. it needs some small modifications so that it does not clash with new stuff, and it needs packaging. Still far less work (1 person managed it on his own in not much time), than writing brand new software, testing it, fixing bugs, convincing Gnome to accept it and packaging it.
Except that it won't keep working when the underlying stuff changes - networkmanager, dbus, udev, no idea what exactly Gnome2 uses. But Gnome3 will adapt to new developments anyway. In the longer term the up-front additional work needed for a Gnome3-based solution will pay off (especially since small projects tend to have the most drive in their beginning - perfect fit).
Originally Posted by ssam
Who cares about GNOME2?
The GNOME developers did a major relase to dump old unmaintainable stuff. They know the code best and they decided to leave some of it behind. No GNOME3 haters can pick up the task of maintaining GNOME2. And MATE is already dying. Here is a clue for you. GNOME2 is DEAD! Lucky for all GNOME3 is way more configurable than GNOME2 was. Grab what you need at extensions.gnome.org and stop whining.
GNOME3 gave you simplistic defaults and a nice way to add extensions. Hating that is hating choice.