On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 4:37:33 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > So a vision which would ensure that also future technologies could be
> > served, would not harm that? Let's just not close doors.
>
> Sure. But let's also not spread thin. Do you think it makes sense to
> find a middle groun
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 08:01:01 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 10:22:20 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Monday, February 15, 2016 15:11:47 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > Maybe you could start thinking about that. What does it mean if THE GUI
> > >
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:12:06 Mario Fux wrote:
> On Montag, 15. Februar 2016 21:25:52 CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > Hallo Ingo,
>
> Morning Alex and Co
>
> > On Monday, February 15, 2016 14:31:09 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 21:35
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:12:06 AM Mario Fux wrote:
> As I see it the "graphical user interfaces and applications" (which is an
> enumeration of different paradigms/things anyway could/should be
> substituted with "software" and there would be an agreement more or less
> between the two
On Montag, 15. Februar 2016 21:25:52 CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hallo Ingo,
Morning Alex and Co
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 14:31:09 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
>
> > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 21:35:22 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> ...
>
> > > I think your concern is that the vi
On Monday, February 15, 2016 10:22:20 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 15:11:47 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> ...
>
> > Maybe you could start thinking about that. What does it mean if THE GUI
> > maintainer doesn't want that? Maybe he has a better look on it with THE
> >
On Monday, February 15, 2016 15:11:47 Martin Graesslin wrote:
...
> Maybe you could start thinking about that. What does it mean if THE GUI
> maintainer doesn't want that? Maybe he has a better look on it with THE GUI
> knowledge?
>
> Please don't completely dismiss my feedback. Think about it.
Y
Hallo Ingo,
On Monday, February 15, 2016 14:31:09 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 21:35:22 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
...
> > I think your concern is that the vision does not function as
> > differentiation from other free software communities. That's correct,
> >
On 15 February 2016 at 20:40, Alexander Dymo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:51 AM, A. Spehr wrote:
> > "World domination through free software."
> >
> > Maybe that's too flippant, or more the vision of Linux and not KDE, but
> that
> > was my first thought as I glanced at this in the middle
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:51 AM, A. Spehr wrote:
> "World domination through free software."
>
> Maybe that's too flippant, or more the vision of Linux and not KDE, but that
> was my first thought as I glanced at this in the middle of the night, while
> half asleep. Who doesn't want to take over t
On Monday, February 15, 2016 2:31:09 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Ok.
> I doubt anybody wants to fight about the definition, whether its the vision,
> or the mission, or the product vision, or vision+mission combined.
>
> What our group wants to have, is getting some more attention back to t
On Feb 15, 2016 5:55 AM, "Sebastian Kügler" wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 05:51:57 AM A. Spehr wrote:
> > "World domination through free software."
> >
> > Maybe that's too flippant, or more the vision of Linux and not KDE, but
that
> > was my first thought as I glanced at this in the mi
On Monday, February 15, 2016 05:51:57 AM A. Spehr wrote:
> "World domination through free software."
>
> Maybe that's too flippant, or more the vision of Linux and not KDE, but that
> was my first thought as I glanced at this in the middle of the night, while
> half asleep. Who doesn't want to tak
On Feb 15, 2016 5:30 AM, "Alexander Neundorf" wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 21:35:22 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > On Monday 08 February 2016 17:07:26 Alexander Dymo wrote:
> ...
> > > Defining it in writing as the goal of KDE adds neither value nor
> > > attractiveness to KDE as a project.
[
Hi Ingo,
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 21:35:22 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Monday 08 February 2016 17:07:26 Alexander Dymo wrote:
...
> > Defining it in writing as the goal of KDE adds neither value nor
> > attractiveness to KDE as a project.
>
> Well, that's debatable (and I disagree with it), bu
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 9:35:22 PM AMT Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Monday 08 February 2016 17:07:26 Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > > We define the goal for KDE not in technical terms, but in terms of
> > > Freedom, user control and privacy.
> >
> > I understand this part clearly. I just say that th
On Monday 08 February 2016 17:07:26 Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > We define the goal for KDE not in technical terms, but in terms of
> > Freedom, user control and privacy.
>
> I understand this part clearly. I just say that this goal is too
> broadly defined, and, therefore hardly reachable by a singl
> So a vision which would ensure that also future technologies could be served,
> would not harm that? Let's just not close doors.
Sure. But let's also not spread thin. Do you think it makes sense to
find a middle ground between two proposals?
___
kde-co
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:00:52 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 07:55:08 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> ...
>
> > This was more a rhetorical question. Apparently it didn't make it through.
> > I'm worried about your vision closing a path for the future. Your visio
On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 07:55:08 Martin Graesslin wrote:
...
> This was more a rhetorical question. Apparently it didn't make it through.
> I'm worried about your vision closing a path for the future. Your vision
> setting a focus on past technologies, which will result in stagnation,
> shrin
Sorry, I think we simply cannot understand one another. We repeatedly
expressed the same idea several times.
We keep coming up with different words? That's natural. We're at the
"draft" stage, right?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Monday, February 8, 2016 5:09:35 P
On Monday, February 8, 2016 9:43:55 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Monday, February 08, 2016 09:26:50 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> ...
>
> > From the replies I read I have a feeling that you haven't made up your
> > mind
> > yet what the "focus" means. It gives me a feeling that each project t
On Monday, February 8, 2016 1:02:47 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > why you think KDE should not be a leader in future technologies.
>
> What are these future technologies?
> I think you're just not convinced this is the future, right?
S
On Monday, February 8, 2016 5:09:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> In that mail I omitted the "GUI" somewhere near the "free software".
> We do agree with Alex N about that.
Just follow the last three replies to that thread and try to understand why I
think your answers are contradicting and ther
In that mail I omitted the "GUI" somewhere near the "free software".
We do agree with Alex N about that.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
> On Monday, February 08, 2016 01:12:51 PM Alexander Dymo wrote:
>> We pointed many times that the focus is on free software
>> for mo
> We define the goal for KDE not in technical terms, but in terms of Freedom,
> user control and privacy.
I understand this part clearly. I just say that this goal is too
broadly defined, and, therefore hardly reachable by a single
organization like KDE. Most free software communities, including K
On Monday, February 08, 2016 01:12:51 PM Alexander Dymo wrote:
> We pointed many times that the focus is on free software
> for mobile: hybrid laptop, tablet, phone, and any existing or future
> personal computing device.
So your vision wants KDE to target mobile computing? What about desktops,
On Monday, February 08, 2016 13:12:51 Alexander Dymo wrote:
> The "inclusive" vision naturally doesn't have this problem because its
> attitude is: "let's have everybody on board".
You're misunderstanding this draft then, let me clarify:
We define the goal for KDE not in technical terms, but in
On Monday, February 08, 2016 13:02:47 Alexander Dymo wrote:
> More devices will arrive, each requiring a shell/launcher and the
> apps.
I think devices without a graphical user interface, driven by speech or
sensors will be more and more common.
The point really is, are we sure that important fu
On Monday, February 08, 2016 09:26:50 Martin Graesslin wrote:
...
> From the replies I read I have a feeling that you haven't made up your mind
> yet what the "focus" means. It gives me a feeling that each project to join
> would be questioned in detail, whether it matches the perceived "focus". No
Martin, I think you either misunderstood, or misinterpreted what I and
AlexN wrote. We pointed many times that the focus is on free software
for mobile: hybrid laptop, tablet, phone, and any existing or future
personal computing device.
We're talking about "focused" KDE vision and mission. We're t
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> why you think KDE should not be a leader in future technologies.
What are these future technologies? Our group thinks that personal
computing devices are a big thing. Apps working on these devices are
going to be even more important than t
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 2:00:43 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Saturday, February 06, 2016 19:39:35 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > On Samstag, 6. Februar 2016 16:47:31 CET Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > Yes. I think the vision statement needs to be complemented by a mission
> > > statement. But I
Hi,
thank you for your replies. Unfortunately I don't find these satisfying
answers. I asked for explanations why not. This is completely missing. A we
should do GUI is no explanation on why we should not be a leader in the next
big thing. So please explain in more detail, why you think KDE sho
On Saturday, February 06, 2016 19:39:35 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Samstag, 6. Februar 2016 16:47:31 CET Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > Yes. I think the vision statement needs to be complemented by a mission
> > statement. But I think, before we tackle the mission statement, we should
> > nail down the v
On Samstag, 6. Februar 2016 16:47:31 CET Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> Yes. I think the vision statement needs to be complemented by a mission
> statement. But I think, before we tackle the mission statement, we should
> nail down the vision.
That exactly was our (the "inclusive vision group") plan.
And
On Friday 05 February 2016 23:16:06 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > A possible vision for KDE derived from your draft but being more in line
> > with the example would be
> > "KDE enables everyone to make best use of their digital devices without
> > compromising their privacy."
>
> I have to admit,
A couple of years ago everybody though people will do all their tasks
through the web browser. That turned out not to be the case.
Applications made a huge comeback to mobile, and now to desktop. I
agree with AlexN that this is where KDE's opportunity lies. Not in a
cloud, not in knowledge manageme
Hi,
...
> Thus now my question: How will this vision provide us guidance for the next
> disruption? How will we be able to use this vision to be a leader in the
> next disruption? Please explain why you think that the vision will help in
> the next disruption. If you don't think that the vision is
Hi Ingo,
On Friday, February 05, 2016 16:43:06 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 February 2016 22:05:20 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > KDE is an end-user focused, openly governed community of free software
> > enthusiasts
>
> This is a description of what you (and me) think KDE is (or should b
On Wednesday 03 February 2016 22:05:20 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> KDE is an end-user focused, openly governed community of free software
> enthusiasts
This is a description of what you (and me) think KDE is (or should be), but
not what its goal (vision) is, unless you think that our goal should
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:05:20 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>
> KDE is an end-user focused, openly governed community of free software
> enthusiasts that strives to provide graphical user interfaces and
> applications for end-users for all types of computers across the device
> spectr
On donderdag 4 februari 2016 07:45:54 CET Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:05:20 PM CET Alexander Neundorf
wrote:
> > We are happy to get comments or any other feedback on this draft, and
we
> > are looking forward to a lively and constructive discussion about the
> > f
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:05:20 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> We are happy to get comments or any other feedback on this draft, and we are
> looking forward to a lively and constructive discussion about the future of
> KDE.
I'm sorry to say, but I don't see any vision in your documen
Hi Adriaan,
On Wednesday, February 03, 2016 23:18:26 Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 February 2016 22:05:20 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > Let's make KDE rule the world of free GUI software !
>
> I'll be a little flippant and say that this is a second vision, different
> from the first o
On Wednesday 03 February 2016 22:05:20 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Let's make KDE rule the world of free GUI software !
I'll be a little flippant and say that this is a second vision, different from
the first one presented in your mail.
But on-topic: Just a quick question: the paragraphs between
46 matches
Mail list logo