I don't think the desktop needs reinvention. Enhancements and modernizations are great but our workflows are so refined at this point the cost of reinvention is ridiculously high. If you take away something that works for the user and replace it with something new they better be sure it's so much better the users are willing to throw away existing workflows and experience. I've yet to see anything that would justify throwing it all away. Within the constrains of keyboard/pointer input on a 2D display it's going to be tough to make that huge leap forward. I suspect the next big leap forward will be AI advanced enough to just eliminate the need for these carefully crafted workflows. If I could tell my computer what I wanted to achieve and let it sort out the workflow I wouldn't care as much about the UI. Even then I would still need a classic desktop interface available for tasks too complex to explain to the computer -- or too complex for it to figure out on its own.
Whose workflows and at what point? Do we think the children born today will be satisfied with GNOME 2 (or GNOME 3 for that matter)? I agree that we're playing fast and loose with the definition of "reinvention" here (and that GNOME 3 is clearly not a reinvention of anything--to be fair, he started it!), but I think there's room for better than incremental improvements in all facets of computing, including the desktop.
That's true. GNOME is a lot closer to a modernization than reinvention. Windows 8, pure Metro, is definitely closer to a reinvention. I'm not too worried about the future generations because if we have a very good tools for the job they will stay relevant. For example way more people are using vi today than they did back in 1976. It has evolved and stood the test of time because it's a good tool. An evolved traditional desktop UI may be with us for much longer than anyone thinks is possible.
For workflows I just think of some complex things I do that may end up being a 30-40 step process with tons of key presses and clicks. It's probably way more complex than it needs to be but I know it so well that I use the complexity to my advantage. So for example I know step 15 is a good spot to do a backup because step 16 might be a destructive process. The granularity this offers is so powerful. If I could replace it with a 10 step process I might lose the granularity. If I replace it with a new 30-40 step process it wouldn't really benefit me.
The success of this reinvention hinges on being able to attract the next generation of hackers. The future belongs to them and they should be encouraged to invent is as they see fit. The risk is that throwing away the existing way of doing things pushes away people who are active contributors and have know how about the codebase. So far the desktop is losing because the next generation of talent seems to be fixated on the web stack at this point.
