Re: forking

[Sergei Steshenko]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>
> To: Francesco Potortì <address@hidden>; Dan Muresan <address@hidden>
> Cc: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:40 PM
> Subject: Re: forking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: Francesco Potortì <address@hidden>
>>  To: Dan Muresan <address@hidden>
>>  Cc: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
>>  Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:45 AM
>>  Subject: forking
>> 
>>>  As far as "you can always fork it", let's get real: once 
> a 
>>  project of
>>>  such force (user-wise and community-wise) is in place, the marginal
>>>  utility for any would-be dissenter is much, much smaller than the
>>>  incentives for joining in. I will change my opinion when I see a major
>>>  open-source project with a large active community (like Linux) forked
>>>  successfully for the  long term.
>> 
>>  Okay, this is off-topic, but it's interesting.  I know of at least two
>>  major free software projects having forked and still being alive in both
>>  braches.  The most ancient is Emacs vs. Xemacs, the second is Openoffice
>>  vs. Libreoffice.  Anyone knowing more examples?
>> 
> 
> 
> ImageMagick <-> GraphicsMagick ?
> 
> --Sergei.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
>

Gnome 2 fork called "mate" <-> Gnome 3 ?

By the way, I am amazed at the amount of curses against Gnome 3 (though I am a 
KDE guy) ; it looks like Gnome 3 falls well into cargo cult programming 
category (unnecessary mobile devices UI implementation on a desktop systems).


Regards,
  Sergei.