Re: New Foundation Members
Le dimanche 20 novembre 2011 à 02:34 +0800, tonghuix a écrit : > Hi all, > > I am very glade to join in GNOME foundation! No pun intended? ;-) glad != Glade http://glade.gnome.org/ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/glad Welcome to the world of GTK+ desktop development! :-p ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Supporting GTK
Le jeudi 26 mai 2011 à 22:06 +0200, Giovanni Papadia a écrit : > Thank's for help and escuseme for English. > I need to compile my application with Eclipse CDT + minigw in Win32/64 > Operative System. > I have problem to linker > The code of compiler error is down > You can help me please.. Hi! This list isn't meant for development of GTK or GNOME, but for discussions about the Foundation. Please ask on gtk-list, where you'll be much more likely to get help. http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list Cheers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question to candidates: on-line services
Le jeudi 26 mai 2011 à 21:02 -0400, Shaun McCance a écrit : > I think Tomboy Online is awesome. I think we should provide > more online services ourselves. I also think there's nothing > wrong with charging money for providing a service. Maybe the > foundation can't do it as a non-profit. Maybe we need to have > a commercial front as well. I don't know. But it's something > we should all talk about. (Speaking as a complete newbie as regards US law about nonprofits.) I don't think being a nonprofit is an issue here. You can charge users for the service you provide, and even use potential benefits in other areas of your activities (hackfests, employees...). But of course you can't get that money out of the foundation (members are not shareholders). So I'd say there's no problem with setting up online services that users would pay for (or only some of them, e.g. above a certain amount of GB used). But I guess the current directors can give more details about the law aspect of it. Regards ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Le dimanche 08 août 2010 à 15:07 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso a écrit :
> Implementation wasn't really long nor complex, but you need to decide
> if you really want to replace distributions as the means to distribute
> your software.
It would be great to find a way to integrate with distributions package
management systems. Add-ons installed on a per-user basis (as Mozilla
add-ons) are very annoying because they get updated when you're running
the app instead of when running system updates, and they become very
messy when you upgrade your whole distribution.
Having one package for every add-on is not practical for distributions,
but maybe addons.gnome.org could be a platform allowing distributions to
collect series of plugins for one app and bundle them into a single
package. It's usually very cheap to install a handful of scripts, even
if you only want one of them. So, approved add-ons for a given
application could automatically be committed to a module that would be
packaged by downstream ("gedit-plugins", "totem-plugins").
This way, updates can go through the standard process (updates,
backports...). OTC, I fear that the extension of the add-ons concept
will break the nice package management model by creating more and more
breaches into it. There's no reason why add-ons shouldn't be handled the
same way as other software.
Another solution would be to extend package management systems to be
more flexible WRT small software pieces like add-ons, e.g. by creating
packages on-the-fly or something, but that's another story.
Regards
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Some notes on GNOME Shell
Le jeudi 03 juin 2010 à 12:12 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit : > Really, how is it different from what's happening in any other module? I > can certainly blame Guillaume and Xavier for not being able to have > metacontacts in empathy today while it's something I asked two years > ago; but they've chosen to do it the way they believe is right, which > happens to take more time. What was the way for me to change this? It's > easy: I could have get more involved and send a patch. > > That's the same for GNOME Shell. (Except that for the design part, you > don't send a patch, you participate in a discussion and the discussion > should be well argued.) I think the difference is that the Shell /is/ the GNOME desktop. It's the main change for the GNOME 3 user experience, and it's influencing everything you may do with your desktop. If you're not happy with Empathy, you can switch to Pidgin and still think you're using stock GNOME. But within one year, if you don't use the Shell, you'll feel out of place. That alone is IMHO enough to justify that the Shell design and development is different from others', and requires discussion - just like designing an API requires some amount of feedback from the developers that will use it. I'm not saying the Shell devs are doing this wrong, but here's how I conceive the situation, which explains that people have higher expectations than for other modules. Regards ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
