Hi all, On 8 March 2009 19:28:14 Mathias wrote: > 1. The name. > "Qt Jambi". > A powerful, mature, reliable and solid piece of software cannot be called > "Jambi". Whoever made that decision must have been out of his mind. > Something like "QTJ" or "JQT" or even just a simple "Qt for Java" would have > been A LOT better.
I agree. I was often wondering where this "jambi" suffix came from. The present name is really not something that makes it simply to figure out or remember what the product is about. A serious product is better with a matter-of-fact type of name, QtJ or JQt would have been much better choices. > 2. Creating visibility, fostering adoption, seeding a community > Jambi doesn't even have its own proper website. It has a reference > documentation pages. If it does have a "reference projects" list somewhere I > haven't found it. > There is no community. As some of you have pointed out, traffic on this list > is extremely low for a project with the punch potential of Qt for Java. This > is not the fault of Gunnar or Eskil who I think do an excellent job on their > end. It's a MARKETING job to reach out to the target group, get them excited > and bring them on. > There's a few things. Once it is community driven only, what kind of presence is QtSoftware going to give it on their site? Is QtSoftware really the best place for it to be hosted/controlled from after they cease development? It is perhaps a nice gesture that QtSoftware offers to host it as a community project after they stop development, but how can those interested in participating be sure that it will be run in an open manner? For instance, what kind of reaction is there going to be if new developers want to change the name or make radical changes not inline with the desires of the host. > IMHO there are a lot of opensource projects that do a much better job in > marketing themselves than Trolltech has done with Qt Jambi. > I can understand that a tech company has a tech focus (and I do think the > Trolltech people know their stuff with regard to anything related to code) > and that they might lack some competence in non-tech functions. However, I > would think that maybe Nokia, being the mother and a consumer brand company > with HUGE marketing experience, should be able to offset at least some of > the deficiencies. > Nokia really should have put something behind this project instead axing it in its promising infancy. It is poor judgement to me, not to mention something of a slight to the developers who worked hard on it. Personally, I am willing to help participate in the future development of this project once it is under community control. A list of particpants and roles needs to be assigned, suggestions and possible future directions. Who else is willing to help? Can someone on the present development side of things help those who are interested now to get started? That is, give us a little more information about what QtSoftware is intending to have in place for the community version and let us all get hooked up and running ahead of time. I'm in, what about you? Cheers, Raymond _______________________________________________ Qt-jambi-interest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-jambi-interest
