In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, matthiasm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthias, I understand what You mean. However i only partially agree > > because I think there are other ways to get financial support. > > By all means, if anyone knows of bigger sponsors, please help. > > This was merely an attempt to get a feel if offering cold cash is > helpful in the dead end that we are in. Well, to me, it is (in this period at least). I could switch some boring activity I'm doing to actually fix something useful. I will try to get a run on it. > And I really would like to get some users back and new users into > FLTK. But without a final FLTK 1 and the forever dangeling FLTK 2, we > are probably as attractive as a VW bug without a windshield. If FLTK > stops evolving, then maybe it is time to make Fluid write Qt code (the > BMW with windshield and even wipers ;-). I've been using fltk for a long time now (and even fixed bugs/added features as I needed). In my opinion, the current 1.1.x state is much more appealing than 1.1.7. There are still bugs, but are minor compared to the current 1.1.7 issues. The threading issues in 1.1.7 were my biggest concern, and the current 1.1.x is _required_ for any serious work. After all, 1.1.7, if I'm correct, is breaking the ABI when lfs is enabled. I have the feeling that, 1.1.8, while "fixing" it, will result in another huge breakage. 1.1.7 has been out for a long time now, almost setting a standard. I'm a minimalist, and by all means not keen to the "release often [buggy] software" policy, but this fix alone should have warranted a patch release on its own. If 1.1.x does not advance in the next month, my take would be to release it with the "known bugs" disclaimer. _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
