Also why do they refer to GNOME as a "research" project?
As you say, others responded with external vs. internal interfaces, but what is an external and internal interface for things like Gnome or KDE? They have only one API that's used by both their other libraries/applications and application writers.
Which is a problem they without doubt did not inherit from the kernel team.
There is little doubt that the GNOME guys have been using kernel practices to justify their actions. The point being made here is that they are wrong to do so.
Interesting point, Windows, OS X, iOS etc. get derided for having internal private APIs that they try to prevent external devs from using, and not doing the same thing is now a 'problem' for GNOME and KDE? Isn't the whole point of Linux for developers, freedom to use it as you see fit?
I've yet to hear of a philosophy that allows you to both 1) use everything as you see fit, even things marked as "internal" or "private" and 2) give you the right to complain about your software getting broken because you relied on things marked as "internal" or "private".
In other words, you can either restrict yourself to the published APIs and demand compatibility or you can use the guts of the system and have no expectations of stability when the guts change.
To my mind this argument is the greatest argument against OSS for anything but hobbyist application.
To see the Gurus of the Linux world squabbling like this makes it abundantly clear why this format will never take on the established desktop OS.
And yes, figuring out why Linux soars on servers but stagnates on the desktop is a question worth finding an answer for.
Why does public debate disqualify a technology?