I wonder why everything I post is interpreted as an agressive move. Too sensible subjects ? My bad grasp of english ? I thought I had written this last diary entry with a clearer
intent. I question Eazel's contribution to Free Software, not Nautilus's capabilities. And yet I am attacked on Nautilus.
Here are a few points : You specifically mention Nautilus
1.0 without mentioning that this is the OLD Nautilus
developed by Eazel. All your points are ONLY valid about the OLD Nautilus, and even then they're skewed at best.
I thought it was obvious that I am referring to the old Nautilus developed by Eazel. I was referring specifically to an interview where all the modifications that have gone into Nautilus 2.0 are explained.
Why don't we compare KDE1 or KDE2 Konqueror with the Nautilus you bash ?
The thing I was willing to compare was specifically the development made by Eazel, not the features of Nautilus 2.0 . Something equivalent to compare would be for example the developments made by the Kompany. They have the same problem, they usually do not use KDE's technologies. They do not integrate much with KDE. TheKompany now develops everything using Qt only, so KDE integration is even more limited. Just like for Eazel.
One big difference between TheKompany's contribution to KDE and Eazel's contriubtion to Gnome is that none of TheKompany's applications are named "core KDE applications". The fact that they are not under a free licence certainly helps. :-)
Yes, you are right that the original Nautilus 1.0 developers didn't put integration with the rest of GNOME high on their priority list. That is because Eazel was foremost a COMPANY trying to make MONEY on Eazel services served by Nautilus.
Which was exactly my point. I was not willing to discuss further than that. Now another question is, should Gnome accept this ? Given that Eazel did not care about Gnome's goal, should have Nautilus been in Gnome ? My personal answer is no. I have no problem with any company making money building an application that does not integrage with Gnome, but then it should not be distributed as part of the Gnome desktop. This is contrary to the goal of the dekstop thing.
Now, the maintainers are spending effort to integrate Nautilus properly. Had the eazel guys done Nautilus the right way, this effort could be spared.
You say "it is not possible to reuse parts of it". Well, ha ha ;) All code that is reusable has been abstracted out into other libraries which now are used throughout Gnome.
Are you speaking about Nautilus 2.0 or Nautilus 1.0 ? I was referring specifically to Nautilus 1.0 . I understand from the interview that most of the problems of Eazel's Nautilus are being addressed. That's good news.
Anyway, I made my conclusions based on the interview I read. This is not the result of a five month research on Nautilus, but a diary entry reflecting what I understand from an interview. The interview makes it clear it is not possible to reuse the icon view of Nautilus. I find this surprising because Gnome has all the technologies to make this possible. Does Nautilus (1 or 2) use bonobo in any way ? I thought this was exactly the thing bonobo was created for.
You should have picked another application to try to bash on integration issues, because Nautilus is a really good example on how to do integration nicely.
I am still under the impression that Nautilus integration into Gnome could be far stronger than what it is.
You do both KDE and Gnome a disservice by trying to instigate some sort of fight based on very skewed assumptions and giving a lot of reasons that are easily disproved. Code talks, and my code disproved your point.
Sorry but I was talking neither about Gnome, nor about KDE but about the way Eazel contributed to the Free Software. I think they have missed the culture and people like the current Nautilus maintainers have to come after them to clean things up. That's a pity.
I think Ximian did a far better work with Evolution. Not only do I find evolution more useful than Nautilus, it also integrates properly with Gnome.