SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
joekiser writes:
"Antoine Jacoutot has given a status update for GNOME users of OpenBSD, including a short video. The GNOME release has been updated to 3.10.2, and auto-mounting of devices is now supported through a new helper program, toad. Now is a great time for desktop users to test the upcoming OpenBSD release. The ports tree was recently locked for stability testing ahead of the 5.5 release, meaning that recent -CURRENT builds are very close to what will be released in May. Antoine also addresses the upcoming issues non-Linux systems face with GNOME, such as the upcoming hard dependency on systemd."
[ED Note: I ran an OpenBSD router box years ago when tinkering about with an old PII with four NICs seemed worthwhile. The OS lived up to it's rep, but it never occurred to me to use it for a desktop system. Are any Soylentils using OpenBSD for a GNOME-based workstation?]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bobintetley on Friday February 21 2014, @01:47PM
If a userbase are comfortable with a project, then it should never change?
I'm not arguing that either way, it's a difficult question to answer. My feeling is that projects with minimal change tend to stagnate, users drift off to the new shiny (which can be both a good and a bad thing) and the project loses relevancy.
The GNOME team did keep the "classic" mode, that basically allows you to use a desktop that looks and works like GNOME2, but with GTK3 etc, however I'm not sure whether that was an option earlier on and it doesn't seemed to have appeased the folks who claim they still want GNOME2 anyway.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by efitton on Friday February 21 2014, @03:58PM
The GNOME team did not have "classic" mode for years until Mate and Cinnamon ate their lunch. My understanding is that "classic" is not fully functional or compatible compared to GNOME 2. For example, they moved the clock back to the default spot of GNOME 2 but did NOT allow users to move the clock. They missed the point with classic.
I think there is a huge difference between stagnation and wholesale changes. I also think GNOME did themselves no favors by keeping the name. They went from a proven full featured desktop to an experimental desktop but did kept the same name. Changing the direction of a project while keeping the name and expecting the same treatment, including being the default DE shipped by distributions, will certainly bring resentment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @07:24AM
I don't think Classic was about MATE or Cinnamon. I think it was something that Red Hat's customers demanded. Red Hat compelled Gnome to develop a Classic desktop lest they lose business.