"Online Desktop" is an abstraction. First, let me try to convince you that it's more specific than what GNOME purports to be about right now. Then I'll suggest a way to avoid architecture astronauting the Online Desktop abstraction.
Right now it says on gnome.org:
GNOME offers an easy to understand desktop for your Linux or UNIX computer.
This is aimless, in my opinion. As Alex Graveley said in his keynote, the "easy to understand" (i.e. usability) point is a feature, like the color of a car. It doesn't give any direction (sports car or truck?). "Runs on Linux" is a feature too, like "car that drives on roads."
Chop out the two features, and the only direction here is "desktop" - that word by itself just means "a thing like Windows or OS X" - it's a category name, and thus defined by what's already in the category. It dooms us to cloning, in other words.
Here's what I offered at GUADEC as an alternative:
GNOME Online Desktop: The perfect window to the Internet: integrated with all your favorite online apps, secure and virusfree, simple to set up and zero maintenance thereafter.
This is still a conceptual mission statement (or something), not a product. I went on and had a series of slides about possible products that fit into the above mission - the idea is that end users would get the products, and would be marketed a product. Here are the products I mentioned:
You can probably imagine how to improve the above products, or even come up with a few more.
In deciding what to hack on next, we should probably always be thinking of one of the specific products, rather than the Online Desktop abstract mission statement concept.
If you were selling GNOME to someone, you'd want to tell them about one of these products, not the "window to the Internet" blurb.
I proposed the Online Desktop abstraction because 1) a high-concept mission sounds more exciting to many people and 2) the specific products each exclude some of the primary GNOME constituents. The GNOME project can support several of these products. The Online Desktop abstraction is meant to be something a large part of the GNOME community can have in common, even though we're working on a variety of different products. But we should keep working on products, not abstract missions.
Even though Online Desktop is an abstraction, I think it's both more specific and a better direction than the current abstraction on www.gnome.org - "a desktop." "Perfect window to the Internet" is still vague, and I'm sure can be improved on, but at least it isn't a pre-existing product category that's already been defined by proprietary competitors.
You may notice that I tacked a bunch of features onto the Online Desktop definition: "integrated with all your favorite online apps, secure and virusfree, simple to set up and zero maintenance thereafter." I guess these are more illustrations than anything else. The point is to capture what the various products built around GNOME could have in common.
Talking to lots of developers at GUADEC about their designs, I'm reminded of the hardest thing to get right in software engineering: when are you doing too much of it?
The "agile development" model is to always do as little as possible, adding code and design complexity only as needed. I'm a big fan of this, especially for apps. It breaks down a bit for libraries and APIs, though; it's too hard to get anybody to try the API until you have it fairly far along, and then it becomes too hard to change the API. A good approach that helps a bit is to always develop an API as part of writing an app - for example we've developed HippoCanvas as needed while writing Mugshot, Big Board, and Sugar. Compared to a written-in-a-vacuum API the core turned out very nicely IMO, but one consequence of as-needed development is that the API has a lot of gaps. Still, an API founded in as-needed development would often be a better start for a productized API than a from-scratch design.
Another guideline I use is that the last 5% of your use cases or corner cases should be addressed with hacks and workarounds. Otherwise you will double your complexity to cover that last 5% and make the first 95% suck. The classic Worse is Better paper says about the same thing, without the made-up percentages. Typical hacks in this context might include:
I bet someone could write (or has written) a whole book on "complexity avoidance patterns."
I've tried different complexity levels in different projects. For example, libdbus is flexible in various ways and even adds probably 30% more code just to handle rare out-of-memory situations. (The GLib and GTK+ stack reduce API and code complexity that other C libraries have by punting the out-of-memory issue.) While Metacity doesn't even use GObject to speak of, just structs in a loose object-oriented style. (I frequently prefer a struct with new/ref/unref methods to GObject in application code, though not in APIs.)
It's a useful thing to think about and experiment with.
Lost my voice last night talking to people about our GNOME Online Desktop keynote. I'll try to remember some interesting things people brought up.
Some commenters thought the talk wasn't alarmist enough and should have more strongly stressed the urgency of the situation. I don't think we need to panic but I do think a lot of hard work is in order, in either the online desktop direction (or some other focused direction others may propose).
Aren't many web services proprietary? was a good question raised during the talk Q&A. My short answer to this is yes, but ignoring the real user benefits of these services will result in everyone using them anyway, while not using GNOME or any other open source software. We have to engage with where the world is going and what users want to have. That will put us in a position to affect openness. Taking a "stop progress!" attitude won't help.
Even among GNOME developers, almost everyone uses Google or Flickr or something. Expecting a wider non-geek audience to forego these services on ideological grounds while we aren't even doing it ourselves doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
Also, web services may well not be proprietary in the sense of the Open Source Definition, but are proprietary in effect. See below, on the need for an Open Service Definition.
I don't want to put my data on someone else's server and other security issues are a common concern. Let's be clear that of course it will always be possible to keep your data locally, or run your own server.
But I think the privacy issues are very solveable, even for people who care deeply about them. An Open Service Definition or the like might address these. And of course you can do strong cryptography - though for the average consumer, the prospect of losing 5 years of data when they lose their private key is not acceptable, Mozy is an example of a service that gives you an option to strongly encrypt with your own private key. They don't default to that choice since it's too risky for an average person.
As with the issue of proprietary web services, though, a "stop progress!" attitude won't put us in a position to affect security or privacy. If we want to affect these things, we first have to offer the user benefits and be a project people really care about. And then we can affect what other participants in the industry do.
Several people suggested the argument against security concerns is "do you use online banking?" and that seems like a good point, since most people do use it.
We need a Free Services License, Open Service Definition, Free Terms of Service, or whatever we want to call it. I see more and more people talking about this, even aside from the GNOME Online Desktop conversation. Topics to cover in an Open Service Definition might include ability to export your personal data, your right to own your data's copyright, etc. There may also be a requirement to use an Affero GPL type of license. This is very open-ended and unclear at the moment.
To me the reason open source works is that multiple parties with competing interests can collaborate on the software. What would make multiple parties interested in collaborating on a service? Probably a fairly radical-sounding set of requirements. But the GPL was pretty radical-sounding too, many years ago.
Running servers that require real bandwidth, hardware, and administration will be hard for the open source community. This is absolutely true. On the other hand, I can imagine a lot of ways we can approach this, and we don't need very much in the way of servers to get started. As I said in the talk, if we produce something compelling people will be excited about it and we'll have a number of opportunities to work with for-profit and nonprofit funding sources to get the server problem solved. If we don't produce something compelling, then there won't be a scalability issue.
There are some precedents, the main one being Wikipedia, but I'm also thinking of the Internet Archive, iBiblio, and ourmedia.org as examples of nonprofit services.
What about just using a WebDAV home directory or syncing files around? If you start to prototype this, I would bet it produces a distinctly different and probably worse user experience than building around domain-specific services like calendar, photos, etc., for a variety of reasons. But it could be part of the answer and is certainly worth prototyping.
For those not at GUADEC, we put up some slides and screencasts from our talk about GNOME Online Desktop.
Since it's come up at GUADEC, I wanted to post a bit about D-Bus licensing. D-Bus is dual licensed under your choice of the GPL or the Academic Free License 2.1. The AFL is essentially an MIT/X11 style license, i.e. "you can do almost anything" - however, it has the following patent clause:
This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the date You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim, against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work infringes a patent. This termination provision shall not apply for an action alleging patent infringement by combinations of the Original Work with other software or hardware.
In other words, if you sue claiming that D-Bus infringes your patent, you have to discontinue distributing D-Bus. The patent clause does not affect anything "outside" of D-Bus, i.e. it does not affect patents on stuff other than D-Bus, or your right to distribute stuff other than D-Bus.
Versions of the AFL prior to 2.1 had a more scary patent clause. However, I have not heard any objections to this more limited one in 2.1.
Let's compare the situation here to LGPL. LGPL is a dual license; the LGPL license plus GPL. Quoting from LGPL:
You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library.
As I understand it, this is why the LGPL is GPL-compatible. If you link your GPL app to an LGPL library, you are using the library under GPL.
I believe if you distributed D-Bus under GPL or LGPL, you would be making a patent grant of any patents affecting D-Bus. The AFL patent clause does not require you to make a patent grant; it still allows you to sue. You just have to stop distributing D-Bus while you do it. With the GPL or LGPL, you can never distribute in the first place, without giving up the right to sue at all. Unless I'm missing something, there's no way the AFL patent clause can be a problem unless LGPL or GPL would be a problem in the same context.
That said, there may be some advantages to relicensing D-Bus, some of the options would be:
For the record, I'm not against any of these in principle. I would just say, 1) it's a lot of work due to all the authors, so someone would have to volunteer to sort this out (and figure out what to switch to), and 2) I think some people are not understanding the current licensing - in particular, at the moment it isn't clear to me at least what LGPL would allow you to do that the current licensing does not. AFL is much less restrictive than the LGPL, and the GPL is not compatible with the LGPL either - the GPL is only LGPL-compatible because LGPL programs are dual-licensed under GPL, just as D-Bus is.
I may be confused on point 2): it would seem the implication is that if your app is "GPL + exception" you can't use an LGPL library such as GTK+, except by adding another exception to allow using GTK+ under LGPL rather than GPL. This is the same with GPL+AFL. But people don't worry about linking their GPL+exception apps to GTK+, and they do worry about linking them to D-Bus. What am I missing?
Historically, the intent of using AFL rather than LGPL was to be less restrictive (and vague) than the LGPL, and the intent of AFL rather than MIT/X11 was to retain some very minimal patent protection for patents that affect D-Bus itself while keeping the MIT/X11 concept otherwise. Also, AFL is a slightly more "legally complete and correct" way to write the MIT/X11 type of license.
There isn't any ideology here, just an attempt to pick the best license, and we can always revise the decision.
When I set up the Mugshot client build I noticed that the automake manual suggests a non-recursive setup, so I thought I'd try it. I've used a non-recursive setup for every project since. The automake manual points to the classic 1997 paper, Recursive Make Considered Harmful, if you want the detailed rationale.
My first attempt at the Mugshot client build had one big Makefile.am with every target inline in it; that was a downside. Owen nicely fixed it with a convention: for build subcomponent "libfoo" put "include Makefile-libfoo.am" in the Makefile.am, then put the build for stuff related to "libfoo" in "Makefile-libfoo.am".
I recommend doing your project this way. I've spent a lot less time messing with weird build issues; nonrecursive make "just works" as long as you get the dependencies right, while recursive make involves various hacks and workarounds for the fact that make can't see the whole dependency graph. In particular, nonrecursive make supports "make -jN" without extra effort, a big win since most new computers have multiple cores these days.
Nonrecursive make has the aesthetic benefit that it keeps all your build stuff separate from your source code. On top of that, since srcdir != builddir will work more easily, you can make a habit of building in a separate directory. Result: your source tree contains source and nothing else.
GNOME unfortunately makes nonrecursive automake painful. Two issues I've encountered are that "gtkdocize" generates a Makefile that is broken in a nonrecursive setup, and that jhbuild always wants to do srcdir=builddir even though my project is nice and clean and doesn't require that.
I'm not sure why GNOME started with recursive make and everyone has cut-and-pasted it ever since; it's possible automake didn't support nonrecursive make in older versions, or maybe it was just dumb luck.
With "weird build bugs due to recursive make" knocked off the list, my current top automake feature requests:
These are obviously pretty minor quibbles.
gnomedesktop.org linked to a VentureCake article on ways to improve GNOME. While the article covers a lot of ground, as a kind of aside it brings up the age-old "X would be faster if it knew about widgets and not just drawing" theory.
I wonder why this theory comes up repeatedly - it is one hundred percent bogus. In fact the direction over the last few years is the opposite. With Cairo, the X server is responsible for hardware acceleration and the client side implements operations like drawing a rectangle. Moving more logic client-side was one of the reasons for the switch to Cairo.
Must be a lesson here somewhere about the value of applying intuition to performance.
(And yes, some things may be slower and others faster in recent Cairo-using apps vs. older apps, but I assure you it has nothing to do with whatever you think it has to do with - unless your thinking is based on profile results from solid benchmarks.)