Because it's a legacy code base with a large amount of technical debt, there's not much future development left in it, but plenty of bugs.
It's like maintaining a historic building, sure it's nice, and it'll be a shame if it gets torn down, but somebody will have to put more into maintaining it than they could hope to get out of it. Lots of people like old architecture, and lots of people want someone else to maintain it, but not many people want to do the maintaining themselves, for what should be an obvious reason. Michael Hall mhall...@gmail.com On 12/09/2011 04:28 PM, Ross Burton wrote: > On 9 December 2011 21:24, Tim Murphy <tnmur...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yes, I have used them all and they're all deficient in one way or >> another. I have also used twm, FVWM, ROX, sawfish, gnome1, cde, >> Nextstep, GEM, OSX, GNOME2, GEOS, OS/2, BeOS and half a dozen other >> things and GNOME2 is the least bad that I could find on linux - >> actually pretty good really. > > I'm still not sure why nobody has stepped up and offered to maintain > the GNOME 2.x series going forwards. So many people seem to dislike > GNOME 3 but nobody seems willing to continue supporting GNOME 2 (and > the MATE fork doesn't count). > > Ross > _______________________________________________ > gnome-shell-list mailing list > gnome-shell-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
