On 7/17/06, Havoc Pennington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Havoc Pennington
Or even why is GNOME sidelining things like:
- Maemo
- Elisa
- One Laptop Per Child
- ...
You make it sound active - it's not, it's passive. But that's changing.
I don't
quote who=BJörn Lindqvist
All this talk about the target audience scares the hell out of me.
Because if is decided that the target audience is the white collar office
worker (or some other stereotype I don't belong to) it means that GNOME
wont benefit me anymore.
That doesn't have to be
Havoc Pennington wrote:
My first-order answer is that GNOME thinks of itself as making a
desktop - even though the _reality_ is that the larger GNOME
community/ecosystem is doing way more than that, and that the larger
tech industry is doing still more.
Would you consider junking the
Jeff Waugh wrote:
Picking an audience doesn't necessarily mean picking *only one* audience.
Would it be that while searching for the *this is our audience* block,
we have managed to begin to stop to think about what GNOME really is ?
:Sankarshan
--
http://www.gutenberg.net - Fine
On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
Havoc Pennington wrote:
My first-order answer is that GNOME thinks of itself as making a
desktop - even though the _reality_ is that the larger GNOME
community/ecosystem is doing way more than that, and that the larger
tech
Actually I have to say we should stop idealizing Apple that much, they
are a company which basically has gone from being the desktop leader to
today being a fringe player. They have survived partly by clinging onto
a couple of niches like graphical design and to some degree education.
They have
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
[a snip here]
They have over the last few years managed to grow a little into the
tech geek segment and the multimedia market, but even using things like
iPod and iTunes to push their desktops they seem to have managed little
apart from not slipping
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
If that happened, the platform developers would likely have less
interaction with application developers on mailing lists like this one.
So you'd be more likely to end up like the W3C's HTML Working Group has
with XHTML 2.0 -- spending huge amounts of time
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:54 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
If that happened, the platform developers would likely have less
interaction with application developers on mailing lists like this
one. So you'd be more likely to end up like the W3C's HTML Working
quote who=Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
Actually I have to say we should stop idealizing Apple that much, they are
a company which basically has gone from being the desktop leader to today
being a fringe player. They have survived partly by clinging onto a couple
of niches like graphical
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 09:33 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:30 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On 7/17/06, Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which makes me wonder why we are able to bless some applications and
not others. The point of blessing the application
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
I am not saying we shouldn't take good ideas etc., from Apple, but lets
try to remember that Apple is basically a failure in the desktop market.
What were you smoking when you wrote this?
___
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 08:33 -0700, Rich Burridge wrote:
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
I am not saying we shouldn't take good ideas etc., from Apple, but lets
try to remember that Apple is basically a failure in the desktop market.
What were you smoking when you wrote this?
I
Rich Burridge wrote:
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
I am not saying we shouldn't take good ideas etc., from Apple, but lets
try to remember that Apple is basically a failure in the desktop market.
What were you smoking when you wrote this?
Well, it depends on your success
Havoc Pennington wrote:
Rich Burridge wrote:
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
I am not saying we shouldn't take good ideas etc., from Apple, but lets
try to remember that Apple is basically a failure in the desktop
market.
What were you smoking when you wrote this?
Well, it
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 09:30 -0600, Veerapuram Varadhan wrote:
Take for example Evolution. Using ONE WEEK of hacking, I managed to
reduce its memory footprint with at least 40 MB of ram.
I don't know how many times I need to repeat, because, this keeps coming
in lot different threads
Rich Burridge wrote:
I was talking about things like:
* look and feel. It's a beautiful desktop.
* ease of use. Most things just work.
* integration of different desktop components.
I'm not talking about market share.
This of course is a personal question that everyone has to answer
Rich Burridge wrote:
I've seen GNOME steadily improve over the last few years, but it still
doesn't have a cohesive wholeness to it. One of the problems in this
respect is that different distros customize GNOME as they see fit.
That's totally backwards. GNOME doesn't have a cohesive wholeness
Dan Winship wrote:
Rich Burridge wrote:
I've seen GNOME steadily improve over the last few years, but it still
doesn't have a cohesive wholeness to it. One of the problems in this
respect is that different distros customize GNOME as they see fit.
That's totally backwards. GNOME
On Ter, 2006-07-18 at 13:08 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
[...]
But regardless, if we want to be cohesive,
we have to *integrate*, not keep a wall between the applications
and the rest of the system.
IMHO, GNOME doesn't need to integrate apps onto itself. On the
contrary, apps
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 18:29 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
I'm waiting for the decision (yours) of making this optional using a
compilation flag or at run-time.
Let's do this in the usual manner:
0. Polish the patch in the usual way: make sure it follows the
indentation and naming conventions
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:26 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 18:29 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
I agree with 1,2,..3 and 4. I will make sure 1 will be finished soon.
Probably this evening with a compile-time option (--enable-mmap)
I'm waiting for the decision
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 14:46 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
I have to wonder if it's even worth ever merging the mmap hack into
Evolution at all. If the plan is to finish Zucchi's disk-summary branch,
which also solves the memory problems (afaik) as well as:
1. introducing an API for using
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 16:05 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 14:46 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
I have to wonder if it's even worth ever merging the mmap hack into
Evolution at all. If the plan is to finish Zucchi's disk-summary branch,
which also solves the
Regarding the focus issue, perhaps the distribution needs to drive
this, not GNOME. I'm thinking for example of ubuntu vs edubuntu
(education oriented variant of ubuntu). They're basically the same
distribution, with different default colors and different default set of
apps.
So where
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 11:14 -0700, Rich Burridge wrote:
One of the things I like about the Mac OS X desktop (and Windows Xp desktop
for that matter), is that all applications provided by the vendor have a
consistent
lookfeel. If I'm familiar with one application on that platform, then I
On 7/17/06, Havoc Pennington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question for the list, what is the target audience and benefit to them
of the desktop release?
Current:
- historical UNIX workstation users who want something similar but not
dead
- technology fans who want a set of apps they can
quote who=Havoc Pennington
I tend to think explicit platform-building sucks (vs. accidentally making
a platform in the course of making something useful).
Havoc, I love your desk-pounding focus, but sometimes I think you inspire
people too far up their own arses. ;-)
A fucking amazing
quote who=Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
Regarding the focus issue, perhaps the distribution needs to drive this,
not GNOME.
I'm sorry, but despite the distributions being an absolutely critical part
of the GNOME ecosystem (and we need to work with them very closely, etc), it
is *NOT* in anyone's
Jeff Waugh wrote:
A fucking amazing platform isn't an accident, and we need a fucking amazing
platform to bring more developers to GNOME - both internal developers and
external developers. One of our *crucial* audiences must be FLOSS hackers
and ISDs. If we don't satisfy them, we can't
quote who=Havoc Pennington
We can, and should, do both. :-)
I don't disagree, but I think the natural emphasis of a big horde of
programmers (including myself) is to think 95% of the time about how to
improve the platform to make their own lives nicer, and 5% of the time
about the actual
quote who=Jeff Waugh
That said, culturally we've taken a lot of emphasis and glory away from
the platform since pre-2.0, so it hasn't had the attention it really needs
to improve what we can deliver on top of it. I guess the point of my post
is to make sure we don't completely
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 10:46 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
GNOME Maemo:
I don't know their concept or target audience, but I can
imagine something like -
Create a newspaper replacement device for coffee shops,
the kitchen table, riding the train to work.
Jeff Waugh wrote:
That said, culturally we've taken a lot of emphasis and glory away from the
platform since pre-2.0, so it hasn't had the attention it really needs to
improve what we can deliver on top of it. I guess the point of my post is to
make sure we don't completely
So, after 7 days of deliberations, what are the results?
Is Mono/GTK# going to be included as part of the desktop OR binding 2.16.x
platform, or not? A clear 'yes' or 'no' please.
Is there a person or persons that can take this decision after having read
the public opinion on this matter? If
Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
So, after 7 days of deliberations, what are the results?
Technically we still have 6 more days to deliberate.
Is Mono/GTK# going to be included as part of the desktop OR binding 2.16.x
platform, or not? A clear 'yes' or 'no' please.
AFAIR, the only objections to
36 matches
Mail list logo
