Gnome thro the way

In the mid 1990’s, the Linux desktop experience was provided by such aesthetically striking components as the fvwm window manager, the Xaw toolkit, and the Midnight Commander file manager. That was more than enough for many early Linux users, quite a few of whom, having written their own custom modelines to get X working with their monitors, felt no need for a desktop system beyond what it took to get their xterm windows arranged nicely. Every community has its discontents, though. In this case, one of the first groups to get itself properly organized was the KDE project, which started hacking on an integrated desktop environment in 1996 and which, by the middle of 1997, had some interesting results to show.

The problem with KDE, of course, is that it relied on the Qt toolkit, and Qt was not, at that time, free software. This decision led to epic flame wars that put current squabbles (GNOME 3, or systemd, say) to shame; they just don’t make flames like they used to. Some attempts were made to get Trolltech to change Qt to a free license, but Trolltech was not yet interested in considering such a move. It is interesting to speculate on what might have happened had Qt been relicensed in 1997 rather than three years later; one of the deepest divisions within the free software community might just have been avoided.

Then again, maybe not. We’re not entirely happy without something to fight about, and Emacs-versus-vi, by virtue of predating Linux entirely, was old and boring even in 1997.

The stated goals of the newly-launched GNOME project were straightforward enough: “We want to develop a free and complete set of user friendly applications and desktop tools, similar to CDE and KDE but based entirely on free software.” The project would be based on the GTK toolkit which, to that point, had only really been used with GIMP. The project also planned to make heavy use of the Scheme language — an objective that faded into the background fairly quickly.

GNOME itself remained very much in the foreground. Compared to KDE it had a different license (even after Qt was freed), a different implementation language (C vs. C++), and a different approach to the desktop — all fodder for plenty of heated discussions. Miguel was from early on an admirer of Microsoft’s ways of doing software development and tried to push many of them into GNOME. Companies were formed around GNOME, including Helix Code/Ximian (eventually acquired by SUSE) and Eazel (which followed the classic dotcom trajectory of burning vast amounts of money before its abrupt death). There was clearly a lot of activity around GNOME from the very beginning.

The project produced three major releases: 1.0 in 1999, 2.0 in 2002, and 3.0 in 2011. The 2.0 release provoked a flood of criticism as the result of the project’s focus on removing options whenever possible. A perceived arrogance on the developers’ part (one described some user-requested window manager options as “crack-ridden bogosity”) was not helpful. The GoneME fork was started in response, but did not get very far. Over time, enough features returned to the desktop, and things improved enough overall, that most users made their peace with it and stopped complaining.

The 3.0 release, instead, has provoked a flood of criticism as the result of the removal of options and features. A perceived arrogance on the developers’ part has not helped the situation much. The MATE desktop fork has been started in response; it’s too early to say just how far it will get. Meanwhile, a few features have found their way back into subsequent 3.x releases, and some users, at least, have made their peace with it and stopped complaining. Others, needless to say, have not.


Where to from here?

Fifteen years in, it would be hard to argue that GNOME has not been a success. The project is arguably the most successful Linux desktop available. It has an advanced code base, lots of developers, a well established foundation with a fair amount of corporate support, and more. There must be no end of free software projects that can only dream of the level of success that GNOME has achieved.

That said, there is a visible level of concern within the project. The relentless criticism of GNOME 3 has proved discouraging to many developers, and the millions of new users that GNOME 3 was supposed to attract have not yet shown themselves. Distributors are making noises about trying other desktops, and Ubuntu, arguably the highest-profile GNOME-based distribution, has gone off in its own direction with yet another fork. Meanwhile, the desktop in general looks like a shrinking target; the cool kids have gone elsewhere and GNOME seems to not be a part of it. In this situation, what’s a project to do?

Allan Day’s GNOME OS post shines some light on what at least some of the project’s developers are thinking. Much of it looks like a continuation of GNOME’s recent work — completing the GNOME 3 user experience for example. Some seems like basic sense: making the system easier to build and test would be near the top of list. Others are unsurprising, but may not get the results the project is after.

The post never uses these words, but the GNOME project clearly wants to put together yet another “app store” infrastructure wherein third parties can offer proprietary applications to users. For whatever reason, enabling proprietary applications has always been seen as the path to success; the whole point of the venerable Linux Standard Base exercise was to attract that kind of application. Making it easier to add applications to the system can only be a good thing, but it will not, on its own, cause either users or developers to flock to the platform.

GNOME also clearly plans to target tablets and handsets. Again, the objective makes sense: that is where a lot of the buzz — and the money — is to be found. The problem here is that this space is already crowded with free (or mostly-free) alternatives. Android dominates this area, of course; platforms like Tizen, Plasma Active, webOS, Firefox OS, and ChromeOS are also looking for users. It is far from clear that GNOME has something to offer that will make it stand out in this crowd, especially since Allan does not expect a “touch-compatible” version of GNOME 3 for another 18 months. As Eitan Isaacson put it recently:


Our weak areas are apparent: We are not mobile and we are very far from it. We will never achieve any significant social critical mass, we have had limited successes in embracing web technologies, but the web will always be a better web. Deploying “apps” is a nightmare.

He has an interesting counter-suggestion: GNOME, he says, should aim to be the platform of choice for content creators. There could be some potential here; this is not an area that large numbers of projects are targeting, and incumbents like Mac OS seem vulnerable. Where content creators lead, others will often follow. There are some obvious obstacles (codecs, for example), but this is a target that could possibly be reached.

Most likely, though, GNOME will continue its drive for mainstream success and those millions of new users. The project might just get there: it retains a solid code base, many talented developers, and a supporting ecosystem. One should never underestimate what a determined group of developers can accomplish when they set their minds to it. The rest of us should either support them or get out of the way and let them follow their path. Watch this space over the next fifteen years, and we’ll all see what they are able to achieve.


About pacesettergraam

A good and realistic person

Posted on August 28, 2012, in linux and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: