Yes, an engineer which is great when you're dealing with computers. But a desktop is essentially dealing with humans which is a completely different problem set and I would say a lot harder. In GNOME, it takes an enormous time to get all the details right on a user interface. It is nothing like working with a kernel. It isn't as easy as you think it is.
Man, you really got over the line now. Are you dismissing LInus Torvalds because the "Kernel is not as complicated and easier"?
No one's saying that making Gnome 3 was easy. We were just saying that Gnome 3 was a nightmare - two completely different things,
Dealing with humans is harder than dealing with the kernel. Dealing how they interact with a computer is quite a bit different. It is an entire research subject. GNOME 3's deployment could have gone better. It would have been better to allow people to parallel install both and let them move when they were comfortable. The design itself continues to be a successful work in progress. Next iteration, I will likely make sure that we don't do it this way.
Even the early desktops took all their designs from Windows 95, copying a lot of the look and feel because nobody was trained on how to write a user interface.
I really hope you are not one of the anthropologist that designed the Gnome 3.
The early desktops came from XFCE and OpenSTEP, that came from IBM's CDE and NeXT STEP - both initiatives predates Windows 95 by at least 1 year.
And no, neither CDE nor STEP have any ressembles on Windows 95.
Let me a bit more succinct. I'm saying that the people who were building Linux based desktops took a lot of their design from windows 95, amigaos, and various other desktops that were there before. All the examples you've stated doesn't invalidate what I said. We took our designs from someone else. The most popular ones are based on windows 95, GNOME and KDE.
Even today we're still messing around with the same design.
Wrong again, but not that much. MacOS is, as it was, very different from anything Microsoft did in the past or nowadays. At least, for while and on the Desktop.
And so is GNOME 3. However, the usage patterns completely changed and a lot of people (rightfully) were upset. But over time, it has gained acceptance and winning people back to the desktop. That could have happened faster if we had parallel installable GNOME versions.
I suppose you're just asking Linus Torvalds to re-engineer windows 95 interface, I suppose he could do that. But to do something new, and unique that requires an anthropologist.
Nopes. I just asking Linus to step up and LEAD a Desktop project.
The result will probably be not shiny and new and full of [insert your favorite insult here], but it will be usable, and it will works, and more importantly, it will get the job done without hassle - that what matters when the month ends and I have to pay my bills.
Why? What gives him the expertise to run a desktop project, exactly? Just because they are both software projects doesn't mean that he has the ability to lead a group of people working on UI and middleware projects. I don't think he's remotely interested in running it. Perhaps when I run into him at some conference I'll ask him. Perhaps you can ask him? In any case, I find it amusing that people think Linus is some kind of uber geek. Given the personal feedback he's given me, I know that his requirements are fairly modest compared to some.