Why develop both olive-gtk and bzr-explorer?

Asked by Lee Hyde

Dear Developer(s),

I am curious, what is the purpose of developing *two* separate GUI tools for bzr, namely olive-gtk and bzr-explorer? It seems a duplication of efforts. For the record, I've always found olive-gtk to be the (much) more intuitive GUI.

Kind Regards,

Lee Hyde.

Question information

English Edit question
Ubuntu olive Edit question
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
marcus aurelius
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
marcus aurelius (adbiz) said :

it provides people an option on what they want to use. some may like one more than the other, just as you indicated that you like olive and not the other.

Revision history for this message
Lee Hyde (anubeon) said :

Is there indication that this is the case though? I prefer olive-gtk as its interface more closely reflects that of a standard file-manager, it stands to reason that most (if not all) users of bzr are already familiar with this type of interface. Thus a priori one would assume olive-gtk to be the superior interface. In contrast I find bzr-explorers interface convoluted and counter-intuitive (a critique not an insult).

Of course this all amounts to so much personal opinion and subjective assessment, but I am curious as to why the two efforts haven't merged. Has such a merger ever been considered? Are olive-gtk and bzr-explorer intended for different markets (i.e. one's for experts and the other for layman such as myself)? I know that these are largely esoteric questions, but I assumed that there was at lease *some* formal relationship or link between the two projects. After all, they were both once part of the same collection (bzr-gtk).

Revision history for this message
Best marcus aurelius (adbiz) said :

there's no need to discuss this any further.

i'm sure you know there are people who prefer to use the chrome browser and other people prefer firefox, and still others who will use internet explorer.

are you trying to control the world? do you work for microshaft?

Revision history for this message
Lee Hyde (anubeon) said :

No! Don't be ridiculous!

The difference here is that Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, et. al. all share a common interface design (that of an internet browser) and so preferences tend to focus on support for add-ons and plain old personal taste. This may well be true for olive-gtk and bzr-explorer also, although the latter has a *very* distinct interface design. The prior (olive-gtk) on the other hand has a *very* familiar interface design, being *very* similar to file managers like Nautilus, Thunar, et. al., and in my humble opinion that interface design is superior, as it represents a steep learning curve.

I was not attempting to direct development in any way. The best way to acheive that would be to become a developer myself, and I have neither the time nor inclination (presently) to do so. I was simply curious as to why two, utterly different, interfaces were under concurrent development with one being a clear winner (a statement of opinion, supported by my attempts at objective reason above) and the other being rather unintuitive. That was not intended as an attack on the bzr-explorer developers, and if it has been taken as so please accept my sincerest apologies.

Since it appears this question has been forcibly answered, I shall bid you adieu. I shall think twice before eliciting intelligent discussion on this answers page in the future!

Kind Regards,

Lee Hyde.

P.S.: I hate to break it to you *marcus aurelius*, but I doubt Microsoft would be interested in using entrist strategies to topple the mighty olive-gtk or bzr.