>Why stop at the browser or IM client though? Technically, Gnome itself only exists because of that same mindset (not being satisfied with KDE's initial license).
The trouble with "why stop there" arguments though is that they can make any reasonable suggestion seem absurd.
There was a valid reason to create Gnome, but is there a valid reason for Epiphany?
>I would never presume that people who are predominantly volunteering their time and efforts to work on Gnome have a responsibility to rely on non-Gnome applications for fundamental desktop functionality
The creators of Gnome have no responsibility to their users, but as users we have the privilege of providing them with feedback.
If 99.999% of Gnome users are providing the development team with the feedback that they will not use Epiphany no matter how much more polished it becomes then what should Gnome do?
The way I say it there are three options.
1. Do nothing, continue to develop and polish an application which no one will ever use.
2. Retire Epiphany and then have no "official" Gnome web browser.
3. Retire Epiphany and chose one of the major browsers which most of their user base are already happily using, and then try to make the experience of that browser on their desktop as good as possible.
Maybe I am narrow minded, but are there really any other options?
I would argue that there is just as valid a reason for Epiphany as there was for Gnome. Epiphany was created after Galeon (another Gnome web browser that nobody used).
Gnome worked to create Human Interface Guidelines, and wanted a web browser (which is a fairly fundamental part of a desktop environment in this day and age) that used those guidelines to provide a cohesive experience.
Here was an announcement email which explains some of the reasons for it's existence:
I would say that options 2 and 3 that you propose are nonstarters.
I feel weird that I've found myself in a position defending Epiphany. I don't mean to be, it's a shitty browser.
I just don't find it puzzling that a desktop experience project would want to be in control of their own web browser which uses their own underlying technologies.
Because I hate crappy viral games that make tones of money, I should shut up and make a crappy viral game in hopes of making tones of money?
No thanks.
If you had just said "Shut up and make your own game" I could respect that sentiment even though it is quite rude and basically shuts me down from having an opinion which (strangely) I thought was one of my rights.
But suggesting that I start making viral games for Facebook after I go through the trouble of writing an article explaining that I hate those types of games is just stupid.
It's not stupid. It's rational. You're lamenting the fact that the market is demanding games that you, as a craftsman, think are crap. Crappity crap crap.
On the other hand, if you make one of these simple, crappy games and it is successful, you will have millions of dollars that you can use to fund any type of game development you want.
I suppose you see that as compromising your principles or something. In any case, the fact that you "hate it" is an artificial barrier to your own success. If you really believe it's easy for you to make one of these games (and therefore easy to make millions of dollars), why wouldn't you?
I'm sure you'll rationalize it by saying "I don't want that kind of success" or "If I have to compromise my beliefs about game design even once to be successful, I don't want it."
Well, alright, that's fine, but you should see how you're limiting yourself strategically. The market is screaming right now, "HEY! MAKE THESE GAMES!" You're free to ignore it.
As for being rude, well, your article insulted a lot of quality game designers I know whose work, I'd wager, has touched more lives than yours ever has or will. So I'm not too worried about being rude, especially since I think your attitude is what's crappy, not these games.
"I never thought I'd see the day when a Linux distribution would be serving Microsoft search results by default, even though it is through the thinly veiled disguise of Yahoo."
What do you think the Linux Desktop landscape will look like in 5 years if Ubuntu continues to rise at the same pace or even nearly the same pace that it is now?
Well I'm sorry to see you brush off my opinion piece without actually addressing even a single point.
Just for clarification though: My point isn't that Ubuntu is related to Windows, my point is that it seems Ubuntu is specifically targeting ex-Windows users as prospective clients, and that this fact could explain some of its recent behavior.
And no, I dont think it matters which desktop I'm running, but I do think it matters that the Linux desktop community stay a deverse field, and if the trends we are seeing continue for a few more years that may no longer be the case.
Actually, I'm all for diversity. My points still stand, I think:
1. Ubuntu is not targeting Windows users more than any other desktop operating system does. Ubuntu tries to create a really great desktop in a world in which the overwhelming majority of desktops run windows. If Ubuntu is converting users of existing operating systems (as opposed to gaining users who have never used personal computers before) then most of them are likely to be users of Windows. The same is true for Fedora and any other desktop operating system.
2. It doesn't matter what distro you're running. It's great that you experiment with different distros and I definitely think the GNU/Linux community benefits from this diversity, but it doesn't really matter in large scale. Most computer users don't choose which operating system to use - they get it with their computer.
I see your point, but I think if there was more unification, The Linux Movement" would maybe stand a chance at gaining more ground on the desktop market.
I think sysadmins and the server market would keep "Linux" as a whole from becoming a monoculture. But I think "Linux On The Desktop" would probably fare far better as a monoculture. That's my opinion, obviously. I'm generally an Operating system agnostic. I have OS X and Windows 7 dual booting on my MacBook. I'm writing this post from an old workstation running Ubuntu Jaunty (because I'm too lazy to upgrade manually and the in-place upgrade to Karmic has broken 2 of my virtual machines), I have an XP Pro workstation and OpenBSD server next to me, and a Sun Ultra 5 running Solaris on the top shelf. I play with this stuff ALL DAY LONG. Most of the other OSes I listed in this post are "a monoculture" and seem to be doing just fine.
Android is, in a way, a Linux distro that is growing strong now and is likely to grow even more now that Google is selling sexy branded phones running it. The same might be true in the future for Chrome OS (an Ubuntu derivative but a very different beast none-the-less). I don't think the evolution of Linux ends with Ubuntu.
I'd be more than happy to hear more about the stories behind Epiphany and Empathy that you hinted about if you have some more time!