----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Mai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lesstif-Mailinglist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:33 AM Subject: Re: [Lesstif] OpenMotif 2.2 status...
<snip> > >However that didn't stop us from adding many of the technical comments to > >our TODO list! > > > >The goal of the people working on OM 2.2+ (and yes there are non-ICS > >employees on the team) is to move Motif forward to incorporate features that > >should have been added long ago. My personal belief is that change is good > >as long as it is tempered with a respect for the compatibility problems of > >application developers. > > Well, in my opinion that published schedule was containing > problems and raises questions. You were about to come up > every couple of months with new features. Nice in principle, > but a key property of Motif is/was stability. Not only > it shouldn't easily crash&hang, but also not come up > with new stuff each week. It took very long till 2.x reached > a wider audience (from what I can tell), and looking at > recent public, Motif-based projects Motif 1.2 is still the only > choice! (ok, here one tries to get a maximum user base usually > w/o telling people to upgrade their old machines) > > So having Motif 1.2,2.0,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5 in 12-18 months > doesn't seem to be helpful. Not to mention whether 2.2+ will > ever show up on commercial desktops. There is a little bit of idealism vs reality here. Reality, is probably going to be fewer releases than we might hope. However, ideally we still hope to do more. As with all community projects, progress depends on participation. (Sometimes more participation doesn't mean more progress! ;-) ) > > >We're not perfect here, and like all projects, things don't always move in a > >straight line. Public comment is a good thing and it helps improve the work. > >But I suspect like many on the Lesstif development team, I respect code > >contributions more than complaints! > > But I don't understand here why it was named "OpenMotif 2.2" > and later on after release (if that's true) it get's > a bang on its head and is renamed as "development release". > If someone has the power to later on withdraw/reposition > that product shouldn't one ask "him" in advance?? We did include the OpenGroup. They even provided a quote for the press release (see http://www.ics.com/forum/forum.php?forum_id=62). There were obviously more politics than we understood in the background here... We're just going to keep our heads down and keep coding. Once we address the important issues in the paper, there will be no technical reason for the "development release" title. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Lesstif mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://terror.hungry.com/mailman/listinfo/lesstif
