The article seems to gather a number of unrelated assumptions and keeps repeating them until they must be true.
For instance, a statement like "...the radical rewrite that is the GNOME 3 desktop seems to have pleased almost no one." is backed up with no data at all. And that's exactly the problem. Without data, who is anyone to claim that GNOME is gaining or losing users? Or market share, for that matter. Personally I love GNOME 3, but what I personally think doesn't matter one bit.
And while I respect Linux (sic) Torvalds as much as anyone, the fact that he is a kernel hacker means he is as far away from GNOME's desired target audience as anyone could be. His dislike of GNOME 3 could almost be seen as a positive sign.
I think the articles touches on many interesting things, such as:
- How and why did a number of distributions decide to go their own way? How does GNOME plan to respond? Maybe being the default for a smaller number of distros means less restrictions and less need for compromise, who knows.
- GNOME seems to focus on being great on touch devices, but how will they end up on those devices if they don't sell hardware?
- How can GNOME measure its success to know they're heading the right way? How do they define "success"? If it's the number of users, how can it gather usage data?
Those are the things I'd like to know more about. Not empty claims of users leaving in droves, or the suggestion that the only way GNOME will survive would be to return to its old ways (because back in the day, GNOME 2 dwarfed Windows and OS X, right?).
(I've read it a number of times now, and I am still completely in the dark as to how Apple ties in to all this. Surely Apple must be important, since it's mentioned in the title.)
For instance, a statement like "...the radical rewrite that is the GNOME 3 desktop seems to have pleased almost no one." is backed up with no data at all. And that's exactly the problem. Without data, who is anyone to claim that GNOME is gaining or losing users? Or market share, for that matter. Personally I love GNOME 3, but what I personally think doesn't matter one bit.
And while I respect Linux (sic) Torvalds as much as anyone, the fact that he is a kernel hacker means he is as far away from GNOME's desired target audience as anyone could be. His dislike of GNOME 3 could almost be seen as a positive sign.
I think the articles touches on many interesting things, such as:
- How and why did a number of distributions decide to go their own way? How does GNOME plan to respond? Maybe being the default for a smaller number of distros means less restrictions and less need for compromise, who knows.
- GNOME seems to focus on being great on touch devices, but how will they end up on those devices if they don't sell hardware?
- How can GNOME measure its success to know they're heading the right way? How do they define "success"? If it's the number of users, how can it gather usage data?
Those are the things I'd like to know more about. Not empty claims of users leaving in droves, or the suggestion that the only way GNOME will survive would be to return to its old ways (because back in the day, GNOME 2 dwarfed Windows and OS X, right?).
(I've read it a number of times now, and I am still completely in the dark as to how Apple ties in to all this. Surely Apple must be important, since it's mentioned in the title.)