No BS, he's not in the Computer Science department, literally.
Wonder how he learned to code? Given he is listed as a Senior Software Engineer
although his last job was Senior Systems Architect; Computing Lead: Advanced Camera for Surveys. WTF??
Systems Architect isn't coding. It's building computers and loading operating systems.
For fukz sake RedHat. You hiring amateurs?
What's your point? Are you saying that people can't do development without a CS degree? That'd rule out a *lot* of very skilled developers. A guy I used to work with was an Arts major with a PhD in something literary, no formal science qualifications at all. Didn't stop him from being one of the best coders I've ever had the pleasure of working with...
Besides, I've seen plenty of lower-primates graduating with CS degrees, yet prove to have no practical use whatsoever. I'd much rather have someone self-taught from a different discipline, than some of the morons who studied CS theory and think they know what they're doing.
Quite a few modules (e.g gnome-panel, gnome-applets, metacity) can be discarded entirely, though since they're separate modules, they're not that big a deal for maintenance. But the best example I know of is Nautilus, which under fallback is responsible for rendering the desktop icons - since this is unnecessary under Shell, there's a heap of code that can be removed with this decision.
From my reading of desktop-devel-list, there's also a lot of small stuff scattered through Gnome's configuration and session management code (control-panel, gdm, gnome-session, etc).
Yes, actually I will. Lack of discipline that comes with the education is part of the reason GNU, Xorg, and various other projects are in their current states.
Would you want a doctor who never attended Medical School?
Had you completed a basic Computer Science education track, you'd have taken a Senior level class called Software Engineering.
They teach you the basics about deliverables, requirements gathering, and project management.
Essentially, you learn all the phases of actually developing software from providing time-lines to delivering an installation media.
Hence the problem with Gnome 3. Who gathered the requirements? Who was the customer?
thanks, i look forward to you outlining your magnificent (and magnificently-managed) projects to explain why you're in such a position of authority to be passing judgement on others.
(for the record, i do know the class schedule, as i was doing a software engineering degree, just didn't complete it. i spent the next few years actually scoping, discussing, planning, implementing, and completing projects instead. thanks for the advice tho.)
internally I think gnome shell is better than gnome 2 (I cannot guarantee this, I read it somewhere and judging by so many devs jumping onto gnome shell I think it's true)
translation: i haven't the faintest clue what i'm talking about and have never touched code but here's my pointless ill-informed thoughts on code anyway. blah blah blah everything is terrible blah blah amateurs blah blah i could do better blah blah lol not really i have no idea.
far less used maybe, but it's been *the other GTK* DE/WM for at least 5 years
Xfce 4.0 turned a CDE clone into a Gnome 2.x clone. Using Xfce then was mostly pointless because Gnome 2.x was already there.
Polls I've seen over the years indicate that Xfce in the past had a user base of 3%–10% and after Unity and Gnome Shell a user base of 10%–20%. Obviously single polls are hardly representative but IMO the general trend is: Xfce is gaining users and the once dominating Gnome desktop (with ~50%, depending on the poll) split its user base into 3 factions (standard Gnome, Unity, and Xfce) with roughly equal size.
So I keep my position: Not knowing about Xfce two years ago is IMO understandable.
What is this arrogance that nobody is allowed to criticize your work? Are you some kind of an ideal?
You are allowed, but he's equality allowed (rightly or wrongly) to dismiss your opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong but in some areas you get a nasty culture where you risk getting your head bitten off if you dare to disagree with a reviewer. Everyone has an opinion and the freedom to express that opinion should cut both ways.
This is my opinion... and like everyone one with an opinion I know I'm right :P
Fallback mode... I felt it was "make Gnome3 partially usable again" mode...
I'll probably look at switching to xfce or something. I've used Gnome for years, but with Gnome3, it starting getting completely cumbersome and hard to use. I guess it depends on how you use it though. Though that is probably because I am much more comfortable with launch and running everything from a terminal and command line.
It just feels clumsy. Especially when you using 2-4 monitors. I mean, Linux and Unix machines(that run X) have usually always had at least two monitors. It seems they are making these changes with out thinking additional displays. Even Microsoft has made Windows work nicely with multiple displays in the last 10 years.
Well, I guess I won't need to worry about it too much, RHEL 5 and 6 are on Gnome2. Which is what I need to do most all my work on.
I do like gnome 3 if gnome-shell don't eat too much cpu time( for this reason, I return to fedora 16 from f17), how about gnome 3.6 and 3.7 (and 4.0)?
I really think gnome 3 is far much better than gnome2. Don't drop the fallback mode please, let it better and faster, and more beautifull.