2010/3/2 Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org
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
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 17:39 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
2010/3/2 Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org 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
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
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org 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
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
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.
I'm
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 satisfied.
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 from
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
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
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.
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)data
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 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
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
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
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
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
2010/2/25 Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org:
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
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 the
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Juanjo Marin juanjomari...@yahoo.eswrote:
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
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
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
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 comes
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,
etc.
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.
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
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 should
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 ;)
That's
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, y and
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 little
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
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
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 of
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 them
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
people.
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 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 you
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 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 available
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.
2010/2/24 Juanjo Marin juanj.ma...@juntadeandalucia.es:
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
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 it is vital
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
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
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, and
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 the world
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 furthering
2010/2/23 Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org:
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
On 23/02/10 12:36, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
2010/2/23 Dave Nearydne...@gnome.org:
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
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 some
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 something.
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 optimize
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 the case, then
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 (mostly from
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
Hi,
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
contributions. We need to care of our platform users in the
2010/2/22 Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org:
Have we lost the mobile battle? It certainly appears that GTK+ has lost
the mobile battle, but all of the hard work that GNOME hackers have put
into the middleware platform and components like Gstreamer, Dbus,
Telepathy and Pulseaudio are now cornerstone
I do agree that we need a vision and a long term roadmap.
When I ask about goals or vision, most people respond with something very
specific and technical. I feel like we need to have a bigger vision that is
universally shared.
Where will GNOME be in 5 years? What will it do? What
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...
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
Hi,
Juanjo Marin wrote:
* It
Do you have *any* number to back up these kind of assertions? Because if you
do I'd really like to have them. Otherwise it's just made up nonsense, and I
can play that game too. For instance, GObject is 400% faster than any other
similar object system*.
Ciao,
Emmanuele.
* if implemented on top
On 2/22/10 11:27 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
* It seems we have lost the mobile battle. Can we do something about it
or simply retreat?. I like the idea of creating more components and some
of this components can be added to the GNOME mobile platform.
Have we lost the mobile
2010/2/22 Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org:
Well, we've certainly managed to place GNOME at an enormous disadvantage
with respect to an alternative, quasi-open-source platform, like Android,
largely through a couple of years' worth of inattention and, more
importantly, an ongoing failure to
On 22/02/10 19:27, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
* It seems we have lost the mobile battle. Can we do something about it
or simply retreat?. I like the idea of creating more components and some
of this components can be added to the GNOME mobile platform.
Have we lost the mobile battle? It
On 22/02/10 20:26, Andy Tai 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.
Please provide evidence when making wild
I hesitate to reopen this discussion, frankly. Look at the archives for
December and January.
On 2/22/10 1:12 PM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote:
2010/2/22 Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org:
Well, we've certainly managed to place GNOME at an enormous disadvantage
with respect to an
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
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
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
On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 19:26 +, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
(This is offlist, but feel free to copy/reply onlist)
If you're refering to the switch of certain mobile systems from Gtk to Qt, I
think it's a bad idea to call it a loss. Our goal is to give software
users freedom. With free
79 matches
Mail list logo
