> I agree - certainly there's no reason to have it biased towards > windows. My thought was to try to make it "bias-free" to the extent possible.
my 2 cents: first let me shamelessly say that i am bi-platform. whew. glad to come clean with *that:-> can't say i'm bias-free though. tho i have resisted win1.0 and every subsequent win version (still preferring dos, university *nix, or just about anything else), my desktop has always been and probably will always be windoze. can't help it - i have to make a living in fin svcs. HOWEVER, my service platform will NEVER be windoze. imho anyone running substantial OSS-serviceware on win - for public consumption - is in denial. i believe there are 12 step programs for this. xindice is a net-based service. even thought it is very nice and convenient for those of us who can play with it on our windoze boxes, or use it for a *nix sanity check, i wouldn't spend equivalent efforts promoting win usage. where OSS is concerned, win is a better client than server. yeah yeah i hear all the microshaft grumblers in the background.... it's just my opinion. the software will be where u left it in the A.M... truly i think that any extra effort s.b. channelled into supporting current OS standards and models. i for 1 can live w/out perfect win versions of OSS service modules. the heart-breaking thing is an OSS apps/service that doesn't support vert/horiz OSS stds (you all know the X*'s of which i speak). thorough & rigorous standards support is a big draw my nice-to-have list would include more i18n/L10n awareness. just by way of example, i think the forrest tool should *design-in* resourcing of text ... e.g. multi-lingual site gen is just tranlating a file. i know, this is a different project. but this is an example of how sometimes the really significant product design objectives can get lost in the shuffle. the avg non-native-english speaking person wanting to help globalise the site will have a 23+Mb download to use the forrest tool. then the fun will start. i view the standards-respectors and the int'l community as the really key end-users. As Vladimir noted, the performance archetype is not Oracle (yet:-). i think the high-impact indiv contributors in the global, stds-focused talent pool have the tools to help Xindice transition to that level though. the contributors on this list are a good example to sum up: i think bias is ok. the platforms are not the same, the performance is not the same, plus many - great - OSS projects have inherent "win drag" such as requiring cgywin, or feature forks (eg php), or just plain poor win performance/support (java apps like netbeans, even expensive commercial solutions like togethersoft very easily nail a win box). same can be said if you wanted to grind down into *nix'es (alpha, solaris, os/x etc). if you check out the php manual, it is the indiv contributors who usually document the win "features" (bugs/workarounds). the doc makes relatively little mention of code forks/impl differences. > No, I don't think so at all. As I said, I just think it makes sense to > leave unsaid what needn't be said. By providing great linux docs, along > with good windows docs as well, you've covered your bases without saying agreed. everything in scope s.b. as high-quality as resources permit. vladimir has asked for win contributors, and it is up to all of us to make win quality happen. > But hey - you are putting in the hours working on all this - that gives you > right. It's those of us who just come in to voice our opinions who need to > be more careful how we word things! :) word! > Yep - agreed - the main thing is to not do it in an alienating or > condescending way (especially since there's no reason to). And I'm not don't worry, we win users have been paying $$$ to be alienated for DECADES i think the earlier point (from Ahmed?) is well-taken: if you're offering code & a working app for the cost of a download, you will really have to use harsh language like 'deny host' to get rid of us > when it would fit on two floppies! :) I love linux. And some will say, agreed - & 1 tomsrtbt floppy can still bootstrap just about anything > As for screenshots: why not have different platforms? Many great projects agreed - shell cmd screenshots for admin etc s.b. platform-indep ultimately xindice is storing documents, and sooner or later this means browser: Snapshots of browsers - how about compliant browsers with standard DOM? s.b. same browser(s) used for core testing of doc, demo, etc... mozilla, galeon, etc come to mind (& could probably use the exposure). Konqueror? Opera? at this moment i just say no. but that's just me i know what i have read and experienced w different browsers, but i can't say that i know where the best stds-compliance may be found. Demo - A browser-based demo should support relevant web stds, but probably has to be tested to support - egads - MSIE4+ based upon sheer mkt penetration. I think we have all had potential clients go away & never return when the demo breaks the browser. again, the 'any browser' model is a good goal ... though 'any browser' may not give a @#$ about XML derived formats ... it still should be possible to use server-side logic to force 'thunking down' to std html for any browser
