On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Ben Maurer wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 02:00, Ben Maurer wrote: [...]
>>> In the long term, Mono can potentially reduce our performance problems.
>>
>> In the short term, there are performance problems and Mono will worsen
>> them.
>
> In the short term, Mono will deliver
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Steve Fr?cinaux wrote:
Ben Maurer wrote:
Please read my previous emails. Designing everything in C will not help.
Evolution, OpenOffice and Firefox are evidence that writing your app in
C does not make it memory efficient. In the long term, a moving GC may
be b
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Steve Fr?cinaux wrote:
Andrew Cowie wrote:
Which, to be honest, I feel makes this whole discussion a bit pointless.
I realize that GNOME release engineering is holy ground, but don't you
see? Everyone already ships Beagle. Which means they ship Mono. Which
mea
Ben Maurer wrote:
> Please read my previous emails. Designing everything in C will not help.
> Evolution, OpenOffice and Firefox are evidence that writing your app in
> C does not make it memory efficient. In the long term, a moving GC may
> be beneficial.
Does "using a GC" really mean you have t
Iain wrote:
> Kathy's talk on passionate users, Apple's "Mac vs PC" adverts and
> their success with making things cool have shown us that people don't
> care about what a computer can do, but what they can do with a
> computer (there may be more of a difference in my mind, I'm just
> lacking
Andrew Cowie wrote:
> Which, to be honest, I feel makes this whole discussion a bit pointless.
>
> I realize that GNOME release engineering is holy ground, but don't you
> see? Everyone already ships Beagle. Which means they ship Mono. Which
> means it's a part of the GNOME desktop. fait accompli
Hi
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Steve Fr?cinaux wrote:
Iain * wrote:
I'm not really against having C# apps in the core (in fact I don't
really mind), what I'm more frightening about is having applications
that run all the time, using managed languages, and, as a consequence,
taking up a f
Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> Iain * wrote:
>
>>> As for .NET, even Microsoft themselves had to pull back from using it for
>>> core
>>> functionality due to performance reasons - why do we think we will do any
>>> better?
>> As someone who is running mono based applications fairly regularly, I
>> ha
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 16:51 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [1] Of course we are still eager waiting for the Open Sourcing of Java ;)
I suppose.
Meanwhile, Free Java rocks and java-gnome builds and runs on Free Java
no problem at all, both {JITing,}VMs and in native via GCJ.[2]
Cheers,
AfC
Lo
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 11:57 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> IMO we should allow modules to depend on any of the official bindings.
Since I want to see GNOME opened to new audiences and new contributors,
I'm broadly in favour of the inclusive view which encourages innovation
across the board.
Howeve
> Kathy's talk on passionate users, Apple's "Mac vs PC" adverts and their
> success with making things cool have shown us that people don't care about
> what a computer can do, but what they can do with a computer (there may be
> more of a difference in my mind, I'm just lacking a good way of exp
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:37:34PM +0100, Iain * wrote:
> Some questions that I don't have answers for:
>
> Does GNOME have a "product" to market? How many people really get
> GNOME from GNOME as opposed to the distros? Is it more the distros
> place to take the software we write and put it togeth
Iain * wrote:
>> As for .NET, even Microsoft themselves had to pull back from using it for
>> core
>> functionality due to performance reasons - why do we think we will do any
>> better?
>
> As someone who is running mono based applications fairly regularly, I
> haven't noticed any major perfor
Hi,
Elijah said:
> And the big question: We currently allow desktop modules to depend on
> the pygtk bindings, but no others. Should we extend that to include
> the gtk# ones (assuming, of course, that gtk# is added to the bindings set)?
Let me rephrase that question:
(Language X) is par of t
> I would like to announce an IRC meeting that will take place tomorrow
> Friday, 14th July 2006, at 20:00 GMT, at #freedesktop on Freenode (IRC).
Simos,
Just wanted to say thanks for your cross-silo outreach efforts, it's badly
needed, and you're doing a great job bridging communities that lov
Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
> Does it make sense to you to use have three or four different DOM
> parsers in memory at the same time?
No, it doesn't, but we already have three XML(ish) parsers linked into
every C-based GNOME app (libxml2, expat, and GMarkup). And yet, GNOME is
*better* now than
Stuff I've been thinking about for a while, from things people (luis,
havoc to name the two I can think of) had said, things I'd seen and
then also Kathy's talk at GUADEC, and I guess the recent what apps are
we including this time round mails have got me thinking about it some
more. This will prob
> Joe Shaw wrote:
>
>>> It is a very different situation. While the power manager support
>>> provides new functionality, GTK# would only provide duplicate
>>> functionality for another development framework that overlaps with
>>> GNOME.
>>
>> Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this argument d
Dear All,
I would like to announce an IRC meeting that will take place tomorrow
Friday, 14th July 2006, at 20:00 GMT, at #freedesktop on Freenode (IRC).
To find the exact local time for your country, see
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2006&month=7&day=14&hour=20&min=0&s
Joe Shaw wrote:
>> It is a very different situation. While the power manager support
>> provides new functionality, GTK# would only provide duplicate
>> functionality for another development framework that overlaps with
>> GNOME.
>
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this argument doesn't make an
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 02:00, Ben Maurer wrote: [...]
>> In the long term, Mono can potentially reduce our performance problems.
>>
>
> In the short term, there are performance problems and Mono will worsen
> them.
In the short term, Mono will deliver us applications many times more innovative
Hello Alvaro at Sun.com,
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1820607,00.asp
>
> ==
> Everything in Longhorn was supposed to be written in C# and to be
> managed code. But managed code was going to require machines that
> weren't going to be available for five years or more. So
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 10:28 +0100, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
> It is a very different situation. While the power manager support
> provides new functionality, GTK# would only provide duplicate
> functionality for another development framework that overlaps with
> GNOME.
Perhaps I am
On 7/12/06, Darren Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm concerned about the inclusion of GTK# - and hence all the rest of Mono
> into
> the core GNOME.
It doesn't pull mono into the core of gnome anymore than having python
applets pulls python in.
> And it worries me that this is opening a do
Rodrigo Moya wrote:
>On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 10:21 +0100, Darren Kenny wrote:
>
>
>>I'm concerned about the inclusion of GTK# - and hence all the rest of Mono
>>into
>>the core GNOME.
>>
>>It's been mentioned many times before that we already have too many component
>>models in the GNOME platform
I just rebuilt all of the python bindings:
[install] complete for pyorbit.
[install] complete for pygobject.
[install] complete for pygtk.
[install] complete for gnome-python.
[install] complete for gnome-python-extras.
[install] complete for gst-pyt
Rodrigo Moya wrote:
>On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 14:16 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
>
>>And the big question: We currently allow desktop modules to depend on
>>the pygtk bindings, but no others. Should we extend that to include
>>the gtk# ones (assuming, of course, that gtk# is added to the binding
gnome-vfsmm-2.14.0 has been patched in GARNOME CVS-HEAD to build and run
with gnome-vfs-2.15.3. See
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=347360
-Joseph
==
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 15:17 +0200, Vincent Unt
I patched gnopernicus-1.1.0 in GARNOME CVS-HEAD. See attachment.
-Joseph
=
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 15:54 +0300, remus draica wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 19:34 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>
> > + gnopernicus needs a new r
Le jeudi 13 juillet 2006, à 09:52, Andy Wingo a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 22:36 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
> [gtkmm breakage with new gnome-vfs]
> > Turns out to be caused by the bonobo changes in gnome-vfs-2.15.3
>
> This happened to the python bindings as well, and likely will ha
Hi Remus,
Le jeudi 13 juillet 2006, à 15:54, remus draica a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 19:34 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>
> > + gnopernicus needs a new release. Or we'll release with 1.0.4.
> >http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=341942
> >
> Last gnopernicus versions are 1.0.6 for
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 19:34 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> + gnopernicus needs a new release. Or we'll release with 1.0.4.
>http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=341942
>
Last gnopernicus versions are 1.0.6 for gnome-2-14 branch and 1.1.0 for
head.
Regards,
Remus
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 09:46 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> Sounds like a great thing to propose for 2.18. Unfortunately, it
> looks like you missed the deadline for 2.16 proposals as it was about
> 2 months before GUADEC. See http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointFifteen and
> http://mail.gnome.org/archi
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 14:16 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> So, to start of the discussion, the proposed modules AFAIR are:
> * orca (as a replacement to gnopernicus)
> * alacarte
> * gnome-power-manager
> * Tomboy
> * Gtk#
* nm-applet
The NetworkManager applet. I proposed inclusion at GUADE
Ben Maurer wrote:
>> It makes sense to me that Mono should remain on the out-skirts of
>> GNOME for this very reason - core GNOME should only use native
>> languages, and more specifically C, as to to do otherwise is likely
>> to effect the already perceived poor performance of GNOME.
>
> Excess m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Is there a definition of that is acceptable as a core GNOME
>> application - other than it's based on consensus? I think we are
>> badly in need of a definition that defines the needs of the core
>> GNOME Desktop?
>
> There is no doubt we need to establish a definition
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 02:00, Ben Maurer wrote:
[...]
> In the long term, Mono can potentially reduce our performance problems.
In the short term, there are performance problems and Mono will worsen
them.
[...]
> IMHO, we should define a process that does not start "Python is bloated,
> C# is blo
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 22:36 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
[gtkmm breakage with new gnome-vfs]
> Turns out to be caused by the bonobo changes in gnome-vfs-2.15.3
This happened to the python bindings as well, and likely will happen for
other bindings...
--
Andy Wingo
http://wingolog.org/
_
38 matches
Mail list logo
