Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by lproven | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lproven

[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?

View on HN

> > 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.

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.

> 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.