Closing the thread.
--
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> At a technical level, I wish that GNOME made it easier to relate
> the visible GUI level to the underlying level of the command line
As an aside, one thing I find myself doing a lot of is:
$ cd ~/some/path
$ command
$ another
Hm. This w
El mié, 03-03-2010 a las 02:36 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 18:19 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> > People are not interested in having this argument and you are causing
> > people to unsubscribe to the Foundation List and to quit
> > participating.
>
> That's their actio
On 3/2/10 4:39 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> Philip, I think a lot of people are saying they'd rather not see these
> arguments on the Foundation list.
That's not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing are personal attacks and loose
rhetoric (e.g. "pissing contest") in response to pretty reasoned att
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 18:19 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> Because you are being disruptive on the Foundation List.
Again. That's your believe. Good for you.
> People are not interested in having this argument and you are causing
> people to unsubscribe to the Foundation List and to quit
> parti
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I wonder why *nobody* so far is going into the things that I said in my
> last reply, but why everybody so far is instead going into this.
>
Because you are being disruptive on the Foundation List. People are not
interested in having this
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 17:39 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> 2010/3/2 Philip Van Hoof
>
> > Stop dragging the GNOME Foundation list down these off topic
> > roads and stop this pissing contest.
> I think you, and many other people, are misinterpreting this
>
2010/3/2 Philip Van Hoof
>
> Stop dragging the GNOME Foundation list down these off topic roads and
> stop this pissing contest.
>
>
>
> I think you, and many other people, are misinterpreting this as a pissing
> contest. It's not. It's a quite serious debate.
>
> And I think it's insulting of y
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 18:58 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
Hey John,
I'm keeping most of the original E-mails. I have been misquoted and my
quotes have been taken out of context too often for [CUT] to be useful.
It's sad, but truth.
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Philip Van Hoof
> wrote:
>
>
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 22:59 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to free info is a
> > bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the thread into that
> or
> > into a battle
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 22:59 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to free info is a
> bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the thread into that or
> into a battle about how much we should promote Free Software or non Free
> al
It would make more sense perhaps to ask why you need a centralised web
site for this rather than tying it together distributed sites and people
together through links in the same way that rss permits news to be
aggregated without there being some central repository of the world's
The information about Facebook and the CIA comes from The Guardian.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook.
Since it was proposed to write software specifically to talk with
Facebook, I mentioned the issues this would raise. But Facebook is an
example of a more general poin
IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to free info is a
bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the thread into that or
into a battle about how much we should promote Free Software or non Free
alternatives.
In my fantasies, the free software movement might
Take this stuff off list please.
--
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 19:20 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
[cut]
> Thing is that Philip had been using the word 'we' quite a lot in the
> recent endless discussions ... [cut]
> I didn't complain so far because it wasn't always 100% clear if he
> means 'all GNOME developers' by 'we' until no
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
[...]
> I'm surprised that a suggestion that a specific site be singled out by GNOME
> for extra-special treatment, including warning messages, based on what
> amounts to unsourced gossip, is being treated with even a moment's serious
> consider
>A solution that IMHO has much better chances of success is to
> create a free alternative to facebook. However, who is going to do it
> and more importantly who is going to pay for this effort? :(
You would have the same problem as taking on ebay or replacing the
internet. The economic value
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Le dim. 28 févr. 2010 à 19:20:39 (+0200), Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit:
>> Thanks for your clarification. Thing is that Philip had been using
>> the word 'we' quite a lot in the recent endless discussions as part of
>> his crusade to
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> So say we all! Unfortunately, I don't see any free (or even close)
> alternatives out there. The closest I can find are some local social
> networking websites[1] but they've traditionally concentrated on
> localization
Le dim. 28 févr. 2010 à 19:20:39 (+0200), Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit:
> Thanks for your clarification. Thing is that Philip had been using
> the word 'we' quite a lot in the recent endless discussions as part of
> his crusade to draw a thick border between Free Software and GNOME[1].
> I didn'
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Jonathon Jongsma
wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 03:11 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:02 +0200, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > > I don't think we need ethics-teachings about this. We GNOME
>> > programmers know. We do
Okay, I had hoped this might simply die out, but instead, it's becoming
increasingly absurd as well as increasingly personal in tone. First, Philip
didn't ask anyone to stop saying things, he expressed some dismay at what
was being said, and not without reason.
Beyond the suggestionwhich Philip h
Empathy is an instant messaging client, Facebook now allows access to
its chat network via XMPP. I meant that on filling your info Empathy
would configure an account for you so you can chat with your friends in
Facebook using a free software client, Empathy, instead of the web based
So say we all! Unfortunately, I don't see any free (or even close)
alternatives out there. The closest I can find are some local social
networking websites[1] but they've traditionally concentrated on
localization rather than internationalization.
Social networking sites are not
Le dim. 28 févr. 2010 à 02:43:40 (+0100), Philip Van Hoof a écrit:
> I don't need the demeaning ethics-teachings that I should somehow be
> religiously in love with this "free software" stuff. Why?
So when you don't like/need something that others say, said others have
to stop saying what they say
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 03:11 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:02 +0200, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > > I don't think we need ethics-teachings about this. We GNOME
> > programmers know. We do.
> >
> > I can't say for others but I for one find it extremely i
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:02 +0200, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> > I don't think we need ethics-teachings about this. We GNOME
> programmers know. We do.
>
> I can't say for others but I for one find it extremely insulting when
> Mr. Van Hoof represent me without my concent. I really w
Hi everyone,
> I don't think we need ethics-teachings about this. We GNOME programmers
> know. We do.
I can't say for others but I for one find it extremely insulting when Mr. Van
Hoof represent me without my concent. I really want to know who in the the hell
made him the GNOME developers' re
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 19:48 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
Hey Diego,
> El dom, 28-02-2010 a las 00:49 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
[cut]
> > I wish you and the FSF would focus more on user rights and licensing of
> > (meta
El dom, 28-02-2010 a las 00:30 +, Alberto Ruiz escribió:
> I'm going to call for an end of thread,
>
> If people want to sort out what their personal points of view on what
> GNOME should be, I would suggest them to follow up that discussion in
> private and not in this list anymore.
>
+1. D
Hey Philip,
El dom, 28-02-2010 a las 00:49 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If people are going to use Facebook, they should access it with free
> > software.
> > And it is useful for GNOME to do a good job of that.
>
> Richard,
>
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 00:30 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> I'm going to call for an end of thread,
I think you're wrong, this thread should not be closed yet.
> If people want to sort out what their personal points of view on what
> GNOME should be, I would suggest them to follow up that discussion
I'm going to call for an end of thread,
If people want to sort out what their personal points of view on what
GNOME should be, I would suggest them to follow up that discussion in
private and not in this list anymore.
If people want to contribute to a strategic roadmap for GNOME, I think
we all w
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If people are going to use Facebook, they should access it with free software.
> And it is useful for GNOME to do a good job of that.
Richard,
I wish you and the FSF would focus more on user rights and licensing of
(meta)data coming fro
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 09:26 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> but none has actually stepped up to write actual code (as Martyn says,
> everytime you start writting something, you hit the legacy wall).
>
> It sounds like this might be a case of conflicting goals that cannot
> all be satisfie
Hi,
>> It is also important to give equally good support to other systems
>> people can use for telling each other about events; for instance,
>> social networking sites of the free software community, and
>> peer-to-peer methods. This way, GNOME won't favor Facebook over those
>> other methods.
Hey Richard,
El vie, 26-02-2010 a las 21:32 -0500, Richard Stallman escribió:
> If people are going to use Facebook, they should access it with free software.
> And it is useful for GNOME to do a good job of that.
>
> At the same time, using Facebook is a harmful practice. It gives a
> misleadin
At a technical level, I wish that GNOME made it easier to relate
the visible GUI level to the underlying level of the command line.
When I designed GDB, previous debuggers for C programs had C-level
commands (viewing source code, specifying line numbers, examining data
using symbol names and displ
If people are going to use Facebook, they should access it with free software.
And it is useful for GNOME to do a good job of that.
At the same time, using Facebook is a harmful practice. It gives a
misleading impression of privacy, it has close ties with the CIA and
probably lets the CIA look at
> A. Try to make GNOME better in practical ways too.
>
> B. Teach him to appreciate freedom, so he will recognize that the
> proprietary programs are inherently inferior ethically.
however, point B is pretty much like saying that instead of coming up
with Copyleft you shoul
I value the potential market we can cater as highly important, as this
directly determines the size of the economical ecosystem we can build
around F/OSS. While most of us are not in this to become rich, we all
have to eat and feed the bills. If we want our project to have
signi
If the freedom offered needs to be taught and be appreciated, there is a
fundamentally flaw with that. True freedom should be obvious once it is
tasted.
If we had made that our criterion, it would have led us to reject many
past advances in our understanding of human rights. Society
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 16:40 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
Hi there,
> I agree with Frade, for example among my university friends facebook is
> quite important, it's how you interact with a lot of people you don't
> see daily and some times the way to find out about meetings, parties,
> et
El jue, 25-02-2010 a las 22:29 +0200, Ivan Frade escribió:
> Hi,
>
> The big idea behind GNOME3 can be to offer a completely new User
> Experience. GNOME2 did well with the usual Menus/panel/folders
> approach, it brought stability, performance and we built the basic
> blocks of a Desktop. Now co
Hi,
The big idea behind GNOME3 can be to offer a completely new User
Experience. GNOME2 did well with the usual Menus/panel/folders approach, it
brought stability, performance and we built the basic blocks of a Desktop.
Now comes the time to use those blocks to revamp how the user interact with
i
2010/2/25 Stormy Peters :
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Juanjo Marin
> wrote:
>>
>> This thread is about how can we set a strategic roadmap. It is more
>> about innovation vs stability. We are doing pretty well on the stability
>> side with our six-months cycle schedule. We are even addi
OnOn Thu, 2010-02-25 at 09:26 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> A free computing environment is always better than proprietary
> alternatives. It is better ethically and socially, because of
> freedom. Of course, we would like to make it better in practical ways
> too. But we should not treat fr
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Juanjo Marin wrote:
>
> This thread is about how can we set a strategic roadmap. It is more
> about innovation vs stability. We are doing pretty well on the stability
> side with our six-months cycle schedule. We are even adding some
> innovation, but we must find
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 09:27 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I tried to keep myself out of the philosophical debate this time, but
it's reaching new levels of purism with zero regard for pragmatism.
[CUT]
> I don't think anyone suggested that we should not bother trying to
> make GNOME convenient
On 02/25/10 02:26 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
B. Teach him to appreciate freedom, so he will recognize that the
proprietary programs are inherently inferior ethically.
If the freedom offered needs to be taught and be appreciated, there is a
fundamentally flaw with that. True freedom should
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 09:27 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> but it will never capture a significant market, which in the
> end just means that you'll slowly become irrelevant.
>
> Is your standard of relevance based solely on "market" success?
>
> Only a few percent of computer users run
2010/2/25 Richard Stallman :
> A. Try to make GNOME better in practical ways too.
>
> B. Teach him to appreciate freedom, so he will recognize that the
> proprietary programs are inherently inferior ethically.
>
> It makes sense to work on both of them in parallel, according
> to the opportunities
How about a healthy dose of ambition and aim for becoming the best
platform of choice, regardless of the freeness?
If you mean that we would like GNOME to be better than the other
desktops in practical terms, of course we would like that.
That is an answer to the question, "Where would we
While freedom is an important factor in life, it is not the only
defining factor for quality of life. At the end of the day, most of us
want a certain level of comfort too.
We need a strong vision and strategy to become best of breed in
software. Merely being free will only ple
Freedom from slavery is a means to an
end, the "end" being a just society with no racial discrimination and
equal opportunity for all.
Freedom is not merely a means to achieve something else. It is
necessary in its own right. Mere equality of opport
but none has actually stepped up to write actual code (as Martyn says,
everytime you start writting something, you hit the legacy wall).
It sounds like this might be a case of conflicting goals that cannot
all be satisfied. If so, we might be able to enable progress to start
by making a d
Hi!
> I don't know if I'm an outlier, but what's always annoyed me about UI
> programming in GTK+ is container widgets, and the need for me to worry
> about them in the IDE. I don't understand why I can't drag & drop
> widgets, and have the IDE take care of deciding what container widgets I
> need
Hi,
Juanjo Marin wrote:
> Possibly Alberto is right. Anyway, the original message of this thread
> is that GNOME doesn't have long term goals. It seems that the
> improvement of GTK attact a lot of attention.
Proposed short-to-mid-term goal: Make the GNOME platform exciting to
alpha-dog applicat
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:09 -0500, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
> > How about a healthy dose of ambition and aim for becoming the best
> > platform of choice, regardless of the freeness?
>
> All desktops are aiming for that, free or not. And honestly, most
> desktops are "good enough".
>
>
>
How about a healthy dose of ambition and aim for becoming the best
platform of choice, regardless of the freeness?
All desktops are aiming for that, free or not. And honestly, most
desktops are "good enough".
We're already the most free and open platform out there.
But we seem embarrassed
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:04:44 +0100 Dave Neary wrote:
> What features/removal of bugs are desired for GTK+?
Though that may seem boring and not shiny enough to excite people, my
personal number one missing feature is general purpose undo/redo
support at a low level in the stack.
Currently, some a
Em 24-02-2010 10:16, Dave Neary escreveu:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
>> Software freedom is a means to furthering our vision of providing
>> technology to all, regardless of means, physical and technical
>> capability or culture.
>>
>> Freedom can lead to more available technology, but i
2010/2/24 Juanjo Marin :
> Possibly Alberto is right. Anyway, the original message of this thread
> is that GNOME doesn't have long term goals. It seems that the
> improvement of GTK attact a lot of attention.(BTW, Alberto's
> presentation on GUADEC about this is _REALLY_ a good starting point [1],
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 08:30 -0500, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
> On 02/24/2010 01:05 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Software freedom is a means to furthering our vision of providing
> > technology to all, regardless of means, physical and technical
> > capability or culture.
> >
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:16 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Software freedom is a means to furthering our vision of providing
> > technology to all, regardless of means, physical and technical
> > capability or culture.
> >
> > Freedom can lead to more a
Possibly Alberto is right. Anyway, the original message of this thread
is that GNOME doesn't have long term goals. It seems that the
improvement of GTK attact a lot of attention.
Maybe, this can be one of our long term goals. There are technical
issues that are better discussed on the development
On 02/24/2010 01:05 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
Software freedom is a means to furthering our vision of providing
technology to all, regardless of means, physical and technical
capability or culture.
Freedom can lead to more available technology, but it is vital in its
own right.
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 12:41 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> Hi all,
> I think that this sort of discussion belongs to the gtk-devel mailing list,
> besides, all of this "nice to have" have been discussed in the past
> but none has actually stepped up to write actual code (as Martyn says,
> everytime y
Hi all,
I think that this sort of discussion belongs to the gtk-devel mailing list,
besides, all of this "nice to have" have been discussed in the past
but none has actually stepped up to write actual code (as Martyn says,
everytime you start writting something, you hit the legacy wall).
The point
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 13:04 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:07 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
> >> I think it is important to do releases when you have progress in the
> >> project not just because you have some new shiny feature to give to
> >
Hi,
Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:07 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
>> I think it is important to do releases when you have progress in the
>> project not just because you have some new shiny feature to give to
>> people.
>
> Yes, releases are good, but we don't have to call t
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:07 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:03 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
[CUT]
> I think it is important to do releases when you have progress in the
> project not just because you have some new shiny feature to give to
> people.
I'm more in favor o
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:07 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
> I think it is important to do releases when you have progress in the
> project not just because you have some new shiny feature to give to
> people.
Yes, releases are good, but we don't have to call them stable.
--
murr...@murrayc.com
On 24/02/10 10:11, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:03 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
At some point you have to clean up your code base, that's been the
case
in every project I have worked on. I don't think it is a bad thing
that
GTK+ is released just "more cleaned up", but others di
Hello,
The GTK+ GSEAL work is almost done [1], and the cleaning work have
been started in the 2-90 branch [2]
I think that we only need more hands to do all the remaining job :)
The good news is that you don't need to be a expert to help removing
deprecated code or moving GSEAL'd members to privat
Hi,
Richard Stallman wrote:
> Software freedom is a means to furthering our vision of providing
> technology to all, regardless of means, physical and technical
> capability or culture.
>
> Freedom can lead to more available technology, but it is vital in its
> own right. It is littl
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:03 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
> At some point you have to clean up your code base, that's been the
> case
> in every project I have worked on. I don't think it is a bad thing
> that
> GTK+ is released just "more cleaned up", but others disagree and want
> 3.0 to have x
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:03 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
> On 23/02/10 22:52, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:53 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
Hi Martyn,
> > Don't be confused: most of this reply isn't directed at you personally.
>
> Sure, but I will indulge all the same ;)
T
On 23/02/10 22:52, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:53 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
Hi Martyn,
Hey Philip,
Don't be confused: most of this reply isn't directed at you personally.
Sure, but I will indulge all the same ;)
When talking to some of the core maintainers, they of
Software freedom is a means to furthering our vision of providing
technology to all, regardless of means, physical and technical
capability or culture.
Freedom can lead to more available technology, but it is vital in its
own right. It is little benefit to have technology available
if
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:53 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
Hi Martyn,
Don't be confused: most of this reply isn't directed at you personally.
> On 23/02/10 16:09, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> > Le mar. 23 févr. 2010 à 14:12:47 (+), Martyn Russell a écrit:
> >> Actually, I think that the Red Hat mai
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:38 +0200, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
> El mar, 23-02-2010 a las 17:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
Hey Claudio,
> > > On 23/02/10 12:36, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> > > > I often hear complaints about how the RedHat guys turn down patches
> > > > from other contributors (most
On 23/02/10 16:09, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Le mar. 23 févr. 2010 à 14:12:47 (+), Martyn Russell a écrit:
Actually, I think that the Red Hat maintainers of the toolkit had an
interest in stability (for ISVs) and that stifled development. As
such developing anything in GTK+ takes a lot longer th
El mar, 23-02-2010 a las 17:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
>
> > On 23/02/10 12:36, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> > > I often hear complaints about how the RedHat guys turn down
> patches
> > > from other contributors (mostly from members of companies
> competing
> > > with them),
>
> Well if that's
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 13:20 +0100, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:37:46PM +, Martyn Russell wrote:
>
> > > seems gtk+'s object model overhead (for example, object method
> > > invocation) is too high, especially visible on mobile platforms...
> > > it should be possible to
Le mar. 23 févr. 2010 à 14:12:47 (+), Martyn Russell a écrit:
> Actually, I think that the Red Hat maintainers of the toolkit had an
> interest in stability (for ISVs) and that stifled development. As
> such developing anything in GTK+ takes a lot longer than it should
> and that's why it is al
I'll be replying to both Martyn and Alberto here.
> On 23/02/10 12:36, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
[CUT]
> > As promising as the situation was, I don't think they seriously
> > invested in the toolkit itself AFACT, during all this years RedHat
> > (through mclasen and alexl) and individual contributors
Hi!
> Actually, I think that the Red Hat maintainers of the toolkit had an
> interest in stability (for ISVs) and that stifled development. As such
> developing anything in GTK+ takes a lot longer than it should and that's
> why it is always hard to get into development there or to fix somethin
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Andrew Savory <
andrew.sav...@limofoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps we should reach out to the mobile and embedded community and
> ask them to contribute e.g. "how to get GTK running on a smartphone"?
> Getting a few of those guys over to GUADEC might stimulate
On 23/02/10 12:36, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
2010/2/23 Dave Neary:
I'd like to point out something though.
As promising as the situation was, I don't think they seriously
invested in the toolkit itself AFACT, during all this years RedHat
(through mclasen and alexl) and individual contributors on their
2010/2/23 Dave Neary :
> Hi,
>
> Martyn Russell wrote:
>> On 22/02/10 19:27, Dave Neary wrote:
>>> Have we lost the mobile battle? It certainly appears that GTK+ has lost
>>> the mobile battle,
>>
>> I don't think that's so true. Just because Nokia decided to buy
>> Trolltech because it could be bo
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:37:46PM +, Martyn Russell wrote:
> > seems gtk+'s object model overhead (for example, object method
> > invocation) is too high, especially visible on mobile platforms...
> > it should be possible to optimize to reduce this overhead...
>
> I agree with Emmanuele.
>
Hi,
Richard Stallman wrote:
> What's important
> to GNOME is the vision and the philosophy of open access,
>
> The philosophy of GNOME is that the user should have freedom.
> If we talk in terms of "open" or "access" then we omit what is
> most important.
Software freedom is a means to f
Hi,
Martyn Russell wrote:
> On 22/02/10 19:27, Dave Neary wrote:
>> Have we lost the mobile battle? It certainly appears that GTK+ has lost
>> the mobile battle,
>
> I don't think that's so true. Just because Nokia decided to buy
> Trolltech because it could be bought, doesn't mean the rest of th
Hi,
I'd like to jump in here with some data points. Rudely cc'ing GNOME
Mobile list so the right guys see this.
On 22 Feb 2010, at 22:52, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 20:27 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
>
>> Juanjo Marin wrote:
>>> * GTK is losing popularity. It is perceived by a
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 20:27 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Juanjo Marin wrote:
> > * GTK is losing popularity. It is perceived by a lot of people as old
> > and difficult. I think we need any kind of action on this area because
> > is a cornerstone issue. Less programmers means less applications and
>
What's important
to GNOME is the vision and the philosophy of open access,
The philosophy of GNOME is that the user should have freedom.
If we talk in terms of "open" or "access" then we omit what is
most important.
Stormy asked people to suggest a vision for 5 years from now. I can't
co
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 13:39 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
Hi Lefty,
> I hesitate to reopen this discussion, frankly. Look at the archives for
> December and January.
We need to consider that that wasn't our community.
In that Alberto has a point that our community itself isn't negative or
hostile t
I hesitate to reopen this discussion, frankly. Look at the archives for
December and January.
On 2/22/10 1:12 PM, "Alberto Ruiz" wrote:
> 2010/2/22 Lefty (石鏡 ) :
>> Well, we've certainly managed to place GNOME at an enormous disadvantage
>> with respect to an alternative, quasi-open-source plat
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
