Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Monday, February 08, 2016 22:41:08 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Monday, February 08, 2016 21:42:58 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > I understand that you're saying it doesn't have a place in KDE.
> >
> > Sebas, you may have missed that I explicitely mentioned eigen in the mail
> > you replied to ?
>
> No, I've missed that. Sorry...
>
> > I don't understand what's so hard about this: we can say "we consider A, B
> > and C to be our core efforts.". That does not mean that everything which
> > is outside that "core" must be kept out of KDE. Of course it means that
> > software or efforts that support A, B or C, are very welcome. OTOH
> > projects
> > which don't support the core do not need to be part of KDE, they can as
> > well use github or something else.
> >
> > I think this can only be avoided by not having some technical direction at
> > all.
>
> I think that the technical arguments don't make a lot of sense here, at
> least they're not providing the clarity needed:
>
> - Qt-based, so it should be OK? But why exactly, just because it uses the
> same libraries?
> - "Supports the core", what is the core? Who makes this call?
that's the 4 items in the draft. It's a draft, a proposal, so they are not set
in stone.
> Where do you
> draw the technical line? (You gave some examples, but most of them feel
> quite vague to me, and I'd draw the line at different points.
Sure it is vague since the examples were intentionally "interesting" cases.
The draft is called "focused": some things are clearly in the focus (just some
random examples I could come up with: Scribus, LxQt, libqwt).
Other things are, to me clearly far outside the focus: e.g. the eCos RTOS,
bash, joomla.
The line between "in focus" and "out of focus"/"not supporting the core" is
not a sharp line, it's blurry. We can spend weeks on discussing those.
> I think one (not the most important) benefit is that drawing the dividing
> line by asking "What is your goal?" makes it a lot easier to identify
> projects, they can self-select ("Do we identify with these goals?"), and
> also be measured internally ("Does this software actually contribute to
> *our* goal?") is easier.
I think e.g. offering applications which provide a consistent look-and-feel,
following the same e.g. HIG, etc. is a worthwhile goal too.
We achieve this by using a common set of libraries (Qt and our KDE libraries).
We get more done because we gather developers which are familiar with the same
technologies: again, the libraries, and in big parts also the programming
language.
So, the technical aspect is important to me.
Alex
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Monday, February 08, 2016 21:42:58 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > I understand that you're saying it doesn't have a place in KDE.
>
> Sebas, you may have missed that I explicitely mentioned eigen in the mail
> you replied to ?
No, I've missed that. Sorry...
> I don't understand what's so hard about this: we can say "we consider A, B
> and C to be our core efforts.". That does not mean that everything which
> is outside that "core" must be kept out of KDE. Of course it means that
> software or efforts that support A, B or C, are very welcome. OTOH projects
> which don't support the core do not need to be part of KDE, they can as
> well use github or something else.
>
> I think this can only be avoided by not having some technical direction at
> all.
I think that the technical arguments don't make a lot of sense here, at least
they're not providing the clarity needed:
- Qt-based, so it should be OK? But why exactly, just because it uses the same
libraries?
- "Supports the core", what is the core? Who makes this call? Where do you
draw the technical line? (You gave some examples, but most of them feel quite
vague to me, and I'd draw the line at different points.
I think one (not the most important) benefit is that drawing the dividing line
by asking "What is your goal?" makes it a lot easier to identify projects,
they can self-select ("Do we identify with these goals?"), and also be
measured internally ("Does this software actually contribute to *our* goal?")
is easier.
Most importantly, I think that software is a means to an end, and if we don't
approach our raison-d'etre from that point of view, we're turning KDE into a
self-fulfilling prophecy out of touch with what we can give to the world.
Even the world domination joke is not an end goal, but a means to offer
Freedom solutions. World domination brings with it some interesting network
effects, so it is beneficial to the whole idea of "Freedom for everyone" as
well.
--
sebas
Sebastian Kügler|http://vizZzion.org| http://kde.org
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Monday, February 08, 2016 10:56:01 Sebastian Kügler wrote: > On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:49:55 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > Still we don't see linear algebra libraries or build tools as the main > > goal > > KDE is trying to achieve (...says the guy who maintained the KDE > > buildsystem for more than 7 years). > > Next counter-example: The Eigen library, a linear algebra library which was > initially developed under KDE. It has moved out at some point -- I don't > know the reasons. In KDE software, it's used in Krita, Step and Kalzium and > a few smaller bits, as far as I could find out. Point in case: this other > random example is flawed. > > I understand that you're saying it doesn't have a place in KDE. Sebas, you may have missed that I explicitely mentioned eigen in the mail you replied to ? I don't understand what's so hard about this: we can say "we consider A, B and C to be our core efforts.". That does not mean that everything which is outside that "core" must be kept out of KDE. Of course it means that software or efforts that support A, B or C, are very welcome. OTOH projects which don't support the core do not need to be part of KDE, they can as well use github or something else. I think this can only be avoided by not having some technical direction at all. Alex ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:49:55 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote: > Still we don't see linear algebra libraries or build tools as the main goal > KDE is trying to achieve (...says the guy who maintained the KDE > buildsystem for more than 7 years). Next counter-example: The Eigen library, a linear algebra library which was initially developed under KDE. It has moved out at some point -- I don't know the reasons. In KDE software, it's used in Krita, Step and Kalzium and a few smaller bits, as far as I could find out. Point in case: this other random example is flawed. I understand that you're saying it doesn't have a place in KDE. Would you welcome it if it used Qt? -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:16:41 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday, February 04, 2016 07:53:06 Martin Graesslin wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > > > I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not > > > participated in the development of these proposals might miss the > > > important difference between them. > > > > > > The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any > > > aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and > > > not), knowledge management systems, etc. > > > > > > The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and > > > applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop, > > > tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future. > > > > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI, > > the vision draft we present here is not a long term vision which changes the > future of computing. > It presents ambitious, but realistic goals for the next few years. Currently our vision is the one Matthias set out for us in the initial starting of KDE mail. So we have a vision which served us for 20 years. It worked for us for about 15 years (didn't fit mobile). So I think any vision we come up to replace the existing one should aim for helping us for at least the next 15 years including future technology transitions. Cheers Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
Ingo, you may be right here. If we extract the vision statement from the proposal, it would be something like: "An end user will have free software apps and shells/launchers on any device they use". Note, this is what I came up just now when writing this reply. This needs more thought, but the main idea is there. On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Thursday 04 February 2016 21:16:41 Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> the vision draft we present here is not a long term vision which changes the >> future of computing. >> It presents ambitious, but realistic goals for the next few years. >> Currently KDE applications and the desktop are successful on desktop Linux >> (and BSD etc.). But there is so much territory to conquer beyond that, while >> (for now) staying focused on GUIs. >> Let's make KDE applications as well known as Firefox or LibreOffice. >> >> (This also implies that a vision statement needs updating over the years as >> circumstances change.) > > Please (re-)read > https://topnonprofits.com/examples/vision-statements/ > and tell me which of those 30 vision statements you think need "updating over > the years as circumstances change." > > As I wrote in my other message, I believe that what you propose is more a > mission statement. And mission statements do indeed need to be updated from > time to time. > > > Regards, > Ingo > > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote: > I wonder why you say that they are not welcomable within the KDE family. Since > when Trinity and Clementine stopped being developed within KDE? And both are not KDE projects, per our manifesto ;) ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Thursday 04 February 2016 21:16:41 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > the vision draft we present here is not a long term vision which changes the > future of computing. > It presents ambitious, but realistic goals for the next few years. > Currently KDE applications and the desktop are successful on desktop Linux > (and BSD etc.). But there is so much territory to conquer beyond that, while > (for now) staying focused on GUIs. > Let's make KDE applications as well known as Firefox or LibreOffice. > > (This also implies that a vision statement needs updating over the years as > circumstances change.) Please (re-)read https://topnonprofits.com/examples/vision-statements/ and tell me which of those 30 vision statements you think need "updating over the years as circumstances change." As I wrote in my other message, I believe that what you propose is more a mission statement. And mission statements do indeed need to be updated from time to time. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Friday, February 05, 2016 08:40:21 AM Alexander Dymo wrote: > You > can satisfy all the requirements in the manifesto, but still be a bad > candidate for a KDE project. As the extreme example, one could fork > Plasma and want to join KDE. There are less extreme cases. I wonder why you say that they are not welcomable within the KDE family. Since when Trinity and Clementine stopped being developed within KDE? Bye, -Riccardo ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
Answering the first part of your email: Vision and mission would help us determine whether the project that wants to join KDE shares the same goals and follows the same path. You can satisfy all the requirements in the manifesto, but still be a bad candidate for a KDE project. As the extreme example, one could fork Plasma and want to join KDE. There are less extreme cases. On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote: > On Friday, February 05, 2016 08:01:49 AM Alexander Dymo wrote: >> As Lydia put it, it will be a clear frame of reference to make >> choices in. > > No way. > > Quoting Ben Cooksley: > > This criteria has already been laid out by the KDE Community, in a > document called the Manifesto. > It lays out fairly clearly what the project acceptance requirements are. > > The fact that someone might want to define the criteria for accepting > new projects within a vision goes contrary to what most people would > define as a vision (usually an overarching direction they want to go > in rather than the details of how to go about it, which is what the > criteria would be). > > > Let me also add a couple more questions: > > * What would happen to existing KDE projects which are not compatible with > your vision? > > * What about projects which start within a KDE project but later fork off as > separate? (e.g. an extension developed within WikiToLearn) > > * I'd also like to see what you expect sysadmin to do (as ultimately they'll > end up doing this removal, should it end up being necessary). > > > I think that your answers to this will crucial to understand the consequences > of what we're doing. > > > Bye, > -Riccardo > > ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Friday, February 05, 2016 08:01:49 AM Alexander Dymo wrote: > As Lydia put it, it will be a clear frame of reference to make > choices in. No way. Quoting Ben Cooksley: This criteria has already been laid out by the KDE Community, in a document called the Manifesto. It lays out fairly clearly what the project acceptance requirements are. The fact that someone might want to define the criteria for accepting new projects within a vision goes contrary to what most people would define as a vision (usually an overarching direction they want to go in rather than the details of how to go about it, which is what the criteria would be). Let me also add a couple more questions: * What would happen to existing KDE projects which are not compatible with your vision? * What about projects which start within a KDE project but later fork off as separate? (e.g. an extension developed within WikiToLearn) * I'd also like to see what you expect sysadmin to do (as ultimately they'll end up doing this removal, should it end up being necessary). I think that your answers to this will crucial to understand the consequences of what we're doing. Bye, -Riccardo ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
As Lydia put it, it will be a clear frame of reference to make choices in. On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote: > On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:53:57 AM Alexander Dymo wrote: >> Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the >> "inclusive" proposal such a project will be welcomed. Under "focused" >> - no. > > The vision document will never be a metric to accept or refuse a project. > > The manifesto is the only document which lists metrics on how to accept new > projects. > > -Riccardo > > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:53:57 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: >> Let's take one of your examples: some imaginary sensory tech that >> follows your mind. It's going to be a competitive advantage to both >> Plasma and applications, for sure. Can it be a KDE project? Yes, >> because it clearly brings KDE closer to its goal. And actually, both >> visions/missions would support inclusion of such a tech into KDE. > > Now that you make it more clear that the focus of a technology would be > whether it helps for example Plasma I need to chime in. > > As a maintainer of Plasma and as the maintainer of the largest single piece of > software inside Plasma I want to say that I'm against a focus on Plasma. I do > not want to see KDE decide for projects whether they give a "competitive > advantage" to Plasma. I thought we had left this years behind us. Although my > work is focused on Linux I'm happy for the Windows and OSX and Android efforts > and want KDE to be strong in these areas. I'm afraid that any focus on Plasma > will harm KDE and thus also Plasma. > > Furthermore I must observe that the KDE community as large does not care about > Plasma and a focus on Plasma. Please have a look on how many devs contribute > to e.g. KWin and the Wayland effort. It's what will take the desktop to the > next level, but hardly anybody works on it. So from my perspective: a focus on > the desktop is in all way wrong for KDE. That's not KDE. Alexander didn't mention only the desktop. Unless I'm mistaken he also mentions applications. There do seem to be contributions in that area. -- Vishesh Handa ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:53:57 AM Alexander Dymo wrote: > Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the > "inclusive" proposal such a project will be welcomed. Under "focused" > - no. The vision document will never be a metric to accept or refuse a project. The manifesto is the only document which lists metrics on how to accept new projects. -Riccardo ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
Hi, On Thursday, February 04, 2016 07:53:06 Martin Graesslin wrote: > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > > I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not > > participated in the development of these proposals might miss the > > important difference between them. > > > > The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any > > aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and > > not), knowledge management systems, etc. > > > > The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and > > applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop, > > tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future. > > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI, the vision draft we present here is not a long term vision which changes the future of computing. It presents ambitious, but realistic goals for the next few years. Currently KDE applications and the desktop are successful on desktop Linux (and BSD etc.). But there is so much territory to conquer beyond that, while (for now) staying focused on GUIs. Let's make KDE applications as well known as Firefox or LibreOffice. (This also implies that a vision statement needs updating over the years as circumstances change.) > I'm thinking of areas like: > * speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera) Alex D. already replied to this, I agree with him. If it helps to achieve the goals, great. Speech recognition certainly does. (but still speech recognition is not the focus of KDE). > * IoT What exactly do you have in mind ? Is that covered by the statements on "portable applications incl. touch" and "user interface for embedded Linux" ? > * Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost > there) Some years ago I was programming sensors by pushing bits on a wire from a PIC uC and looking at them with the oscilloscope... What do you have in mind with regard to KDE ? Alex ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On 4 February 2016 at 20:49, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Thursday, February 04, 2016 20:38:52 Boudhayan Gupta wrote: > ... >> Under the "focused" proposal, such a software would have no place in >> the KDE Project. In fact, a software, developed within KDE to address >> KDE's (not KDE users but the KDE Project itself) needs cannot be a >> part of the KDE Project. Do we want this situation to arise? > > just answering for myself, but it seems to be the same as Alex D. is saying: > the four points listed in the draft are where we see the focus of KDE. > It would be stupid to exclude projects which support those. > KDE never did that, why should we start with that (arts, unsermake, icecream, > eigen, etc...) > Still we don't see linear algebra libraries or build tools as the main goal > KDE is trying to achieve (...says the guy who maintained the KDE buildsystem > for more than 7 years). Build helpers in a form of cmake scripts are part of the KF5 product, if I understand correctly. That's good. Not sure it was already raised: even while having focus on traditional apps: - server software can act as enabler for some KDE apps. Any multi-user app is in this group (not that KDE rules this 'market', sure there can be improvements, who codes decides); - mobile/embedded software can be enabler for some KDE apps, e.g. think of 1. remote-controlling presentation software with a mobile/embedded app 2. remote-data-entry mobile app for an inventory management app/ (and KF5 can further grow by the way; it's exciting to see how KDE is rather good at making new frameworks this way!) > > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community -- regards, Jaroslaw Staniek KDE: : A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators : and facilitators committed to Free Software development - http://kde.org Calligra Suite: : A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org Kexi: : A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi Qt Certified Specialist: : http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Thursday, February 04, 2016 20:38:52 Boudhayan Gupta wrote: ... > Under the "focused" proposal, such a software would have no place in > the KDE Project. In fact, a software, developed within KDE to address > KDE's (not KDE users but the KDE Project itself) needs cannot be a > part of the KDE Project. Do we want this situation to arise? just answering for myself, but it seems to be the same as Alex D. is saying: the four points listed in the draft are where we see the focus of KDE. It would be stupid to exclude projects which support those. KDE never did that, why should we start with that (arts, unsermake, icecream, eigen, etc...) Still we don't see linear algebra libraries or build tools as the main goal KDE is trying to achieve (...says the guy who maintained the KDE buildsystem for more than 7 years). Alex ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
And here is where I, perhaps surprisingly to you, agree with you. Like, 100% agree. I wrote "Plasma and applications", but should have written "applications and Plasma". It's the KDE apps that shine these days. Krita, Digikam, Kdenlive, K3B, Kate, Okular, and many and many others. In my opinion KDE as a whole will also shine if it brings our amazing software to as many platforms as we can. And many people in the community already do this work. The "focused" vision is about lifting the importance of this movement towards other platforms and devices, and actually focusing on it. It is, IMHO of course, not about going back to "let's just work on Linux desktop". I wouldn't call that a "vision", that would be "conservation". On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:53:57 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: >> Let's take one of your examples: some imaginary sensory tech that >> follows your mind. It's going to be a competitive advantage to both >> Plasma and applications, for sure. Can it be a KDE project? Yes, >> because it clearly brings KDE closer to its goal. And actually, both >> visions/missions would support inclusion of such a tech into KDE. > > Now that you make it more clear that the focus of a technology would be > whether it helps for example Plasma I need to chime in. > > As a maintainer of Plasma and as the maintainer of the largest single piece of > software inside Plasma I want to say that I'm against a focus on Plasma. I do > not want to see KDE decide for projects whether they give a "competitive > advantage" to Plasma. I thought we had left this years behind us. Although my > work is focused on Linux I'm happy for the Windows and OSX and Android efforts > and want KDE to be strong in these areas. I'm afraid that any focus on Plasma > will harm KDE and thus also Plasma. > > Furthermore I must observe that the KDE community as large does not care about > Plasma and a focus on Plasma. Please have a look on how many devs contribute > to e.g. KWin and the Wayland effort. It's what will take the desktop to the > next level, but hardly anybody works on it. So from my perspective: a focus on > the desktop is in all way wrong for KDE. That's not KDE. > > Cheers > Martin > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:53:57 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > Let's take one of your examples: some imaginary sensory tech that > follows your mind. It's going to be a competitive advantage to both > Plasma and applications, for sure. Can it be a KDE project? Yes, > because it clearly brings KDE closer to its goal. And actually, both > visions/missions would support inclusion of such a tech into KDE. Now that you make it more clear that the focus of a technology would be whether it helps for example Plasma I need to chime in. As a maintainer of Plasma and as the maintainer of the largest single piece of software inside Plasma I want to say that I'm against a focus on Plasma. I do not want to see KDE decide for projects whether they give a "competitive advantage" to Plasma. I thought we had left this years behind us. Although my work is focused on Linux I'm happy for the Windows and OSX and Android efforts and want KDE to be strong in these areas. I'm afraid that any focus on Plasma will harm KDE and thus also Plasma. Furthermore I must observe that the KDE community as large does not care about Plasma and a focus on Plasma. Please have a look on how many devs contribute to e.g. KWin and the Wayland effort. It's what will take the desktop to the next level, but hardly anybody works on it. So from my perspective: a focus on the desktop is in all way wrong for KDE. That's not KDE. Cheers Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
Hi, At this point, I need to butt in. On 4 February 2016 at 20:23, Alexander Dymo wrote: > Let's consider another example. This time it will be the imaginary > free Github replacement. This time the tech is too far away from > user-end apps and shells. Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the > "inclusive" proposal such a project will be welcomed. Under "focused" > - no. There does exist a similar project, not yet widely publicised, yet is being developed as a KDE Project. It's called Propagator, and it manages a fleet of Git mirrors. We developed it ourselves because we needed to make our Anongit infrastructure more reliable, log sync failures, retry syncs on fail after with ever increasing backoffs, and also sync to GitHub (we do have a mirror there). It's here: https://phabricator.kde.org/diffusion/PROPAGATOR/. At this point only a few people know of this (mostly in the Sysadmin team) and I was going to give it a proper unveiling at conf.kde.in next month, but now the cat is out of the bag. The point is, Propagator is server software. It uses no KDE libs, is written in Python, and was developed to serve the sysadmin team's specific needs. Along the way, we realised that this could be made general-purpose enough to the extent we can offer it as a standalone product, being managed as part of the KDE Project. Under the "focused" proposal, such a software would have no place in the KDE Project. In fact, a software, developed within KDE to address KDE's (not KDE users but the KDE Project itself) needs cannot be a part of the KDE Project. Do we want this situation to arise? Propagator won't be the last piece of custom server software KDE will need. Being involved with the sysadmins to some degree, I've identified a few more areas where we'll need custom code that's extensive enough to be published as products in their own right. If we're only going to be "focused" on end-user software, we shoot ourselves in our foot by denying a home to software we've developed to solve our own problems, where the solutions are generic enough to be used by others. -- Boudhayan Gupta ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
Let's take one of your examples: some imaginary sensory tech that follows your mind. It's going to be a competitive advantage to both Plasma and applications, for sure. Can it be a KDE project? Yes, because it clearly brings KDE closer to its goal. And actually, both visions/missions would support inclusion of such a tech into KDE. Let's consider another example. This time it will be the imaginary free Github replacement. This time the tech is too far away from user-end apps and shells. Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the "inclusive" proposal such a project will be welcomed. Under "focused" - no. PS: I did not say that _all_ new tech should be developed outside of KDE. What I wanted to say that for the free software project to succeed, it does not have to be included into any larger project/community. On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 7:52:34 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: >> Focused does not mean exclusive. Every technology (and not only >> technology) that gets us to the point where all users use KDE shells >> and apps (because of their superiority) is welcome. IMHO, of course. > > sorry, but I cannot follow you. What you wrote here is inclusive again. So > what you want now: focus on a technology or being inclusive to everything? > >> >> Another point is that not everything needs to be built in house. When >> I started free software development, it was harder for independent >> small projects to survive. It was much better for them to join the big >> groups, like GNU, GNOME, KDE, etc. Now this is not the case. So I'd >> expect some of the technologies that KDE can use to be actually >> developed elsewhere. > > And here you basically say any development on new technologies should happen > outside of KDE. Which is pretty excluding and contradicting to what you write > above. > > To me this is really confusing as I don't see how that can aid us in finding a > direction. > > Further clarifications are appreciated. Right now I'm more confused than > before. > > Cheers > Martin > >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Martin Graesslin > wrote: >> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: >> >> I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not >> >> participated in the development of these proposals might miss the >> >> important difference between them. >> >> >> >> The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any >> >> aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and >> >> not), knowledge management systems, etc. >> >> >> >> The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and >> >> applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop, >> >> tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future. >> > >> > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI, >> > I'm thinking of areas like: >> > * speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera) >> > * IoT >> > * Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost >> > there) >> > >> > Cheers >> > Martin >> > ___ >> > kde-community mailing list >> > kde-community@kde.org >> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community >> >> ___ >> kde-community mailing list >> kde-community@kde.org >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community > > > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 7:52:34 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > Focused does not mean exclusive. Every technology (and not only > technology) that gets us to the point where all users use KDE shells > and apps (because of their superiority) is welcome. IMHO, of course. sorry, but I cannot follow you. What you wrote here is inclusive again. So what you want now: focus on a technology or being inclusive to everything? > > Another point is that not everything needs to be built in house. When > I started free software development, it was harder for independent > small projects to survive. It was much better for them to join the big > groups, like GNU, GNOME, KDE, etc. Now this is not the case. So I'd > expect some of the technologies that KDE can use to be actually > developed elsewhere. And here you basically say any development on new technologies should happen outside of KDE. Which is pretty excluding and contradicting to what you write above. To me this is really confusing as I don't see how that can aid us in finding a direction. Further clarifications are appreciated. Right now I'm more confused than before. Cheers Martin > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > >> I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not > >> participated in the development of these proposals might miss the > >> important difference between them. > >> > >> The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any > >> aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and > >> not), knowledge management systems, etc. > >> > >> The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and > >> applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop, > >> tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future. > > > > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI, > > I'm thinking of areas like: > > * speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera) > > * IoT > > * Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost > > there) > > > > Cheers > > Martin > > ___ > > kde-community mailing list > > kde-community@kde.org > > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community > > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
Focused does not mean exclusive. Every technology (and not only technology) that gets us to the point where all users use KDE shells and apps (because of their superiority) is welcome. IMHO, of course. Another point is that not everything needs to be built in house. When I started free software development, it was harder for independent small projects to survive. It was much better for them to join the big groups, like GNU, GNOME, KDE, etc. Now this is not the case. So I'd expect some of the technologies that KDE can use to be actually developed elsewhere. On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: >> I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not >> participated in the development of these proposals might miss the >> important difference between them. >> >> The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any >> aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and >> not), knowledge management systems, etc. >> >> The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and >> applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop, >> tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future. >> > > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI, I'm > thinking of areas like: > * speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera) > * IoT > * Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost > there) > > Cheers > Martin > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote: > I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not > participated in the development of these proposals might miss the > important difference between them. > > The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any > aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and > not), knowledge management systems, etc. > > The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and > applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop, > tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future. > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI, I'm thinking of areas like: * speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera) * IoT * Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost there) Cheers Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
[kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")
I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not participated in the development of these proposals might miss the important difference between them. The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and not), knowledge management systems, etc. The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future. First proposal is internally called "inclusive", as it defines KDE as an entity that can include any free software project that shares its goals and wants to join the KDE community. Second proposal is internally called "focused", as it limits the focus of KDE to GUI software, but at the same time emphasizes that users should be able to use KDE software on all their devices. Both proposals aim at giving KDE a new direction. Inclusive proposal is about going breadth-first, focused - depth-first. PS: this summary is my opinion, and it is not endorsed by any of the two vision groups. ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
