On Feb 4, 2014 7:23 AM, "Alexander GS" <alxgrtnstrngl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 18:31 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Alex GS <alxgrtnstrngl@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > aruiz wrote:
> > > ---
> > > Agreed. Can you point to any single GNOME feature that is tailored
> > > specifically for tablet devices?
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Gnome Shell is a feature/product/package focused on mobile interaction for
> > > hybrids and touch enabled devices including tablets.
> >
> > Argument by repetition does not work. You stated that before and got a
> > response that this is not the case and that you should come up with
> > reasons where you got that from. You simply repeated your statement.
> > This is pointless.
>
> aruiz wrote:
> > > Agreed. Can you point to any single GNOME feature that is tailored
> > > specifically for tablet devices?
>
> I wanted to address this question because I think it's crucial to
> understand why GNOME 2 is the only suitable default choice for Fedora
> Workstation.
>
> Let's revisit the original GNOME 3 (GNOME Shell) design document:
>
> Problem Definition:
>
> "The GNOME Project released version 2.0 of the GNOME Desktop in June
> 2002. It was an important milestone. In the years since then, the
> developer community has continually and incrementally improved the
> experience while learning a great deal about what worked and what
> didn't. The entire personal computing ecosystem has been changing too -
> partly due to a number of new and disruptive technologies. While we
> won't dwell on the particulars of those changes it is important to note
> that there is a growing consensus in the GNOME developer community that
> we needed to make a leap forward in order to fix many of the flaws in
> our designs and to generally bring a lot more awesome into the user
> experience."
>
> https://people.gnome.org/~mccann/shell/design/GNOME_Shell-20091114.pdf
>
> The key phrases in the entire document:
>
> "The entire personal computing ecosystem has been changing too - partly
> due to a number of new and disruptive technologies."
>
> - and -
>
> "we needed to make a leap forward in order to fix many of the flaws in
> our designs."
>
> Mac OS X release back in 2001.
>
> GNOME 2 released in 2002.
>
> Apple released the iPhone back in 2007.
>
> This document was created back in 2009.
>
> The "new and disruptive technologies" were mobile devices such as the
> iPhone. GNOME Shell itself was created as a reaction to the iPhone and
> mobile form-factors.  Clearly the design has that in mind with the focus
> on touch-screen interaction.
>
> The "flaws in our designs" refers to the traditional desktop workstation
> designs found in GNOME 2 that they no longer felt could address the new
> mobile form-factors that were just launched.
>
> Apple released the iPad back in 2010.
>
> GNOME 3 was released in 2011.
>
> Let's look at that in perspective. Mac OS X (10.xx) was released in 2001
> and has been in a continually state of development and refinement for
> over 13 years. If GNOME was Apple then GNOME 2 would still be in active
> development up to at least 2015. The current version of GNOME 2 would
> probably be 2.11 or 2.12.
>
> This is why GNOME 2 is the only suitable desktop for Fedora Workstation.
> It's obvious that GNOME 3 (GNOME Shell) wasn't just created for
> traditional workstations but was an early attempt at a convergence
> concept to meld mobile and desktop interfaces together. This convergence
> concept is still highly experimental and not yet mature.  See Ubuntu's
> Unity and Microsoft's Windows 8.
>
> GNOME 2 is a fully mature and realized traditional desktop workstation
> concept, battle tested and with wide general appeal to fit the
> requirements of the Workstation PRD:
>
> "We want to create a stable, integrated, polished and user friendly
> system that can appeal to a wide general audience."
>
> "Case 3: Small Company Developer"
>
> "Case 4: Developer in a Large Organization"
>
> "Or the work we are doing to provide a high performance graphics
> workstation would be useful to people who want a linux gaming PC."
>
> "Work towards standardizing and unifying the Linux desktop space"
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD
>
> If for some reason it's too controversial to make MATE the default then
> you should give the user choice at the installation phase of GNOME
> Shell, MATE or KDE as per the following requirement in the Workstation
> PRD.
>
> "we want to allow developers to use the tools they prefer for their
> application development yet make them all feel like a natural fit into
> our integrated desktop experience."
>
> Key phrase: "we want to allow developers to use the tools they prefer
> for their application development"
>
> Desktop environments are crucial to developer work-flows and and
> allowing the developer to pick from a limited list of supported options
> at install as stated above (GNOME Shell, MATE, KDE) is the best way to
> optimize that.
>
>

Hi, question from a community member just trying to follow along.

Can you provide a citation ( mailing list archive, maybe ) of the discussion within the MATE project that led to MATE's decision to request inclusion in the GNOME Foundation?

--Pete