On 30/05/2016 17:07, Benjamin wrote:
On 29 May 2016 at 00:37, Dirk Hohndel <d...@hohndel.org
<mailto:d...@hohndel.org>> wrote:
I have been focused on other things for a while (and the why and
the what will become public fairly soon) and decided to use that
chance to figure out what would happen if I just stopped paying
attention here for a while.
So what should we be working on...? Should we...
(1) just shut this down and move on?
(2) move things to maintenance mode, abandon Subsurface-mobile,
fix bugs in Subsurface whenever we find time but otherwise declare
victory? It won't be too painful to track libdicecomputer and keep
making 4.5.x releases for a while, I guess...
(3) focus on Subsurface-mobile, release the iOS version, update
the Android version and see if there is a single person besides me
who is willing to invest time into that?
(4) focus on Subsurface 4.6, fix the dive site management and
create a list of prioritized features that we want to get in place?
(5) focus on Subsurface 5.0, write a completely new UI and abandon
what we have in 4.5?
If your vote is for 3, 4, or 5 I assume that you are volunteering
to carry some of the work that is needed to get there.
If you don't vote, I will count that as a vote for 1.
Good afternoon all,
As one of the many lurkers, I suppose that my 2 cents is worth
slightly less than that. To be honest, my life and work balance went
to hell in the past few months for various reasons.
Having said that, I would vote for 4 and 3, in that order. 5 sounds
like a fun challenge, but as both KDE and Gnome have shown, it is
rather painful...
Given some time, I'm more than willing to help. I just need to a.) get
through this mess that I'm currently stuck in (Let's hear it for work
politics...), and b.) learn how the hell the QT interface code works
(are there any good tutorials for C/assembly programmers?).
Benjamin
The decision for the future of Subsurface depends on how we see dive log
software is likely to operate in future. Currently, by far the largest
degree of innovation is on the different forms of mobile platforms. I
would expect that this trend will continue for at least another decade.
I would expect that smartphones will become more powerful, screen
management and UI will develop significantly, and that the standard
laptop and desktop will become less ubiquitous and used mostly by
individuals with a serious IT function in some way. For subsurface this
means that, in the longer term, the mobile versions could likely become
more important and more frequently used than the desktop version. If one
has to guess at the future, I would think: chug away steadily at the
desktop version (perhaps making location management more intuitive and
more robust [works well for me because I (think) I understand it as is].
I am not convinced that a totally redesigned UI is the priority now.
While updating the desktop version, keep an eye on what our own needs
are, what new hardware turns up and what other dive computers and dive
management software do that may be cool. Then, at the same time focus on
the mobile versions. As we all know, this is the conundrum. Amongst us,
the skills base for mobile development is pretty meagre. I see this as
the major challenge going forward. Knowing nothing about mobile software
design, the current KDS-Qt platform appears pretty sophisticated, mostly
because it offers cross-platform functionality starting with C++ with
which many are familiar. For me, personally, the open source aspect of
this is also important. Therefore I am very uncomfortable with myself to
ask the question: is the current Qt platform the one that will serve
future development of Subsurface the best? I do not have the insight to
be able to say anything coherently about this, but I really hope Qt is
indeed the viable route. For Subsurface to advance, several
diver-developers will have to either learn how to do mobile software
development, or we need to find divers who have these mobile skills and
who are prepared to contribute materially.
A hardware-based implementation of libdivecomputer appears very
attractive, given that digital technology at the OS level appears to
change much faster than the dive computers that are still being used (on
occasion I still deal with a VR3). I suspect that IrDA will be used
quite some time into the future for one reason: several of the dive
computers that use IrDA have proved to be either workhorses for
technical and other more demanding diving, or are still very popular in
(at least in some circles, e.g. Poseidon). A hardware solution therefore
offers opportunities for significantly extending the life of dive
computers using older technology.
So my vote goes for a combination of 3 and 4.
Kind regards,
willem
_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
