One thing that I think this argument sorely misses is an honest discussion of how e.g. bad (or perhaps unliked) decisions get made that have big impacts here.
For example, count me in with those folks who think the "new" GNOME sucks. Now, maybe you disagree and that's fine -- but so often those discussions start and end with "Well it's open source and so because you're not making anything better you can't even talk."
No. Some big players put their thumb on the scale and had a vision and a direction for GNOME and what role it would or should play; someone thought it was a good idea to try to out Steve Jobs Steve Jobs.
THOSE moves need more discussion and transparency in order to REALLY talk about "the Linux Desktop."
For example, count me in with those folks who think the "new" GNOME sucks. Now, maybe you disagree and that's fine -- but so often those discussions start and end with "Well it's open source and so because you're not making anything better you can't even talk."
No. Some big players put their thumb on the scale and had a vision and a direction for GNOME and what role it would or should play; someone thought it was a good idea to try to out Steve Jobs Steve Jobs.
THOSE moves need more discussion and transparency in order to REALLY talk about "the Linux Desktop."