Re: Supporting GTK+
On 07/01/2013 05:56 AM, Hu Zheng wrote: Can your tell me your paypal account? I want to donate some money to gtk project! As far as I am aware there is no PayPal account for the project specifically. AFAICS, your options are to either donate to the GNOME project or to the GIMP project - which is where GTK+ kind of started. And, why not just list the paypal account at http://www.gtk.org/development.php We would if we had one ;) Thank you very much! Thank you for wanting to donate! If anyone else in the community has ideas around this, it would be interesting to hear. -- Regards, Martyn Founder and CEO of Lanedo GmbH. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: jabber.gnome.org: a proposal
On 13/03/13 23:22, Olav Vitters wrote: On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:26:33AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: to maintain the OpenFire Jabber server. First, as Olav mentioned, there's no SSL support for a service where you would expect privacy. There is SSL. Just that: 1) they broke it in a newer version and never fixed it in any reasonable timeframe (3 months) 2) getting the certificate installed was a complete mess. Had to convert the standard certificate in some terrible format and took a lot of effort to figure out. Current server does SSL IIRC. Though maybe by now it expired again. What I had to go through for SSL: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=592836#c8 Couldn't quickly see the bug about openfire messing up their SSL support. 'Fix' was easy though, downgrading. Out of interest, is this with 3.8? We've not yet updated to it and I might delay for a bit if you've experienced some issues here. -- Regards, Martyn Founder and CEO of Lanedo GmbH. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: jabber.gnome.org: a proposal
On 12/03/13 13:38, Shaun McCance wrote: On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 09:26 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: Hey, On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 10:03 -0400, Shaun McCance wrote: Hi all, I think it's clear from the recent thread that most people had no idea we had a Jabber server, or that they could get accounts on it, or how to go about doing so. What's more, over the last week, I tried to help two people use their jabber.gnome.org accounts with no success. I think it's unfair to judge the popularity of this service when it has been so buried and so extremely difficult to use. It also seems we can't create group chats on jabber.gnome.org, which limits our ability to use it as an official channel for GNOME teams. I propose that we address these issues to give Jabber a fair shake. We can then reevaluate its popularity in six months. As I already mentioned privately, I don't think the admins want to have to maintain the OpenFire Jabber server. First, as Olav mentioned, there's no SSL support for a service where you would expect privacy. Furthermore, I would expect the security concerns of running such a big service on GNOME servers to be a burden on the admins. Is this just because we chose a particularly bad Jabber server? I have a hard time believing nobody's figured this out yet. Openfire is fine. We (Lanedo) have had no problems with it in our time using it. Incidentally, SSL doesn't work on our IRC network. So I get to send my password in plain text to register with our new bot. SSL works for us with Openfire - so I wonder what is configured differently for GNOME. Is this more about ease of configuration or security? -- Regards, Martyn Founder and CEO of Lanedo GmbH. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Lionel Dricot
On 23/05/11 12:02, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 09:29 +0200, Lionel Dricot wrote: It is not only about having a page that list the commercial support companies. It's more about a deep collaboration between the foundation and the companies that live from GNOME. I personally don't think that the Foundation needs to be involved in setting this up. Rubber-stamping this, certainly, but I don't think that those companies that offer services need the Board to be involved to make changes to the GNOME website. Isn't that part of the problem? If the foundation isn't behind this, won't it seem completely self indulgent on behalf of businesses alone? What I personally would like to see is much more backing from the foundation. E.g. - A web page - A banner at the next desktop summit - Something in the booklets given out at the next summit perhaps? - Some PR occasionally about how well projects are doing ... etc Given the board represent the foundation at the highest level, why shouldn't they be (more?) involved in commercialisation of GNOME? And for such deep collaboration to be optimal, the board is the best place. - isn't the Advisory Board, and not the Board, the group where the GNOME companies (and others, obviously) should be represented? I think that the board should represent the community. As I said in my previous mail, I believe that the community is mainly composed of independents, big companies with GNOME products and small companies with GNOME services. Thus, I believe that the board should be a fair mix of people from those different backgrounds. I especially happy to see the candidacy of Diego, Ryan and Andre regarding that. I would argue that the Board doesn't need to match the represention of the community, but needs to represent the community at large. Otherwise we would have a different voting system. I would argue that you best represent the community at large by having members from that community on the board and from all spectrums therein. Bringing your knowledge of a certain subject to the Board is certainly a good thing, but I don't think a person needs to work for a consultancy to be able to represent consultancies effectively, for example. I think it is harder to communicate such things unless you're in a position (like being on the board). PS: part of my hidden agenda is to impose French as the official language. I already started the trend by never pronouncing the H (like in it appens or having a new CSS team for your desktop. What? Ah, a theme!) I'm going for cockney rhyming slang. +1 :) -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Lionel Dricot
On 23/05/11 15:28, Dodji Seketeli wrote: Martyn Russellmar...@lanedo.com a écrit: On 23/05/11 12:02, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 09:29 +0200, Lionel Dricot wrote: It is not only about having a page that list the commercial support companies. It's more about a deep collaboration between the foundation and the companies that live from GNOME. I personally don't think that the Foundation needs to be involved in setting this up. Rubber-stamping this, certainly, but I don't think that those companies that offer services need the Board to be involved to make changes to the GNOME website. Isn't that part of the problem? If the foundation isn't behind this, won't it seem completely self indulgent on behalf of businesses alone? Why would that be any different from the general scheme of a given company doing its own marketing? Because you're officially endorsed by the foundation and that's a 3rd party which isn't directly the corporation and has the interests of GNOME at heart, not the company. To potential clients, the difference is quite important. Do people necessarily think that a company is self indulgent when it does its own marketing? I do. There's nothing to stop a company selling services where they have no expertise through good marketing (for example). This (IMO) hurts customers and in the ends affects the projects related. What I personally would like to see is much more backing from the foundation. E.g. - A web page - A banner at the next desktop summit - Something in the booklets given out at the next summit perhaps? - Some PR occasionally about how well projects are doing ... etc Seriously, if these companies are really serious about this and if economy of scale is amongst what you are looking for, why not start something like a GNOME Business Alliance then? That would be focused on pushing those business related things, experiment with various innovative communication approaches etc. At least, that would be a known entry point for anything business related. And when enough experiment and data is gathered, if merging that alliance back into the Foundation makes sense, then so be it. Right, that's the sort of thing I would love to see. But don't you think it makes sense to have this backed and instantiated by the foundation? -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Lionel Dricot
On 23/05/11 15:08, Dodji Seketeli wrote: Martyn Russellmar...@lanedo.com a écrit: That's always needed too of course, but when you have potential customers asking who can provide support for projects X, Y and Z, do you really want to be in a position where you have no answer? Oh, you mean when a potential customer comes to the /Foundation Board/, asking that question? Indeed. I didn't understand it that way. Sorry to ask a question as a reply, No problem at all ;) but does that happen already? If yes, how did the board handle it so far? Yes, I believe so, perhaps Vincent can best comment here. IMO it also means the customer may suffer because they either can't find the support they're looking for or the wrong support from someone else. We are a non-profit organisation with limited resources. Communicating around the commercial offering of /one/ company can be a non-straightforward exercise, when you want to do it right. Even more for the commercial offerings of /several/ companies. Do we really want to take that route? Yes I believe we do, when people are choosing opposing toolkits because it appears as if GTK+ has no commercial support, that's a lack of communication IMO. Let's talk about specifics. Did the clients choose e.g, Qt because KDE e.V markets Trolltech's offerings or, do they do so because Trolltech is better at communicating? Well, the situation is different there in the sense that there is already a company behind Qt for customers to go to. There are many behind GTK+ and no one place to go to. This is part of the issue IMO. From what I heard recently, a customer did choose Qt for these sort of reasons (from recent board notes): Johannes Schmid informed the board that at the Toronto hackfest that they discussed about an organization that decided to use Qt instead of GTK+ mainly because they were able to get a support contract for Qt. You could also say they do a better job of communicating yes, as a minimum they have a website to help people find what they're looking for: http://qt.nokia.com/partners and more specifically: http://qt.nokia.com/partners/partner-locator What are your concerns about communicating GNOME's commercial offerings? My concern is that we'd try to address a real issue at a wrong level and, incidentally, turning what should be a place to set and nurture a vendor-neutral level playing field into a place uselessly cluttered by vendors' ads. Ah I see. That indeed would be horrid. I think the links above illustrate how it would be better than what we have now. I guess if what you want is just to maintain a web page of companies who have something to sell around our stack, I wouldn't have much concern. But then I am not sure you need to be on the board for that. Well, because companies (from what I have seen last GUADEC) come to the board members about working with GNOME technologies (Vincent can comment here I believe). Of course I assume you mean well. I am just not convinced about the efficiency of for-profit entities delegating their marketing to non-profits. I can understand that and we certainly mean well. It's really born out of frustration when seeing companies move away from projects we have deep involvement in to others by reasons of poor communication (as I see it). -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Meeting Minutes Published - March 29th, 2011
On 18/04/11 11:49, Andreas Nilsson wrote: * Johannes Schmid informed the board that at the Toronto hackfest that they discussed about an organization that decided to use Qt instead of GTK+ mainly because they were able to get a support contract for Qt. Therefore we thought it might be a good idea to give interested companies a chance to present themselves as commercial support options on developer.gnome.org. Perhaps via some Get support link. Do we have any response? o ACTION: Andreas - Will discuss with Ryan Lortie providing support contracts for GTK+. Can I ask why the ACTION above says you will discuss with Ryan about providing support contracts for GTK+? Why not a mailing list with companies that have GTK+ or GLib core maintainers (perhaps GNOME in general even)? Hi! I said on the phone that I would briefly check the idea with Ryan since we shared a room in Bangalore (I was there when we had the board meeting). That's about as serious as it was. Sorry if the action item sounded more serious than it was. This totally needs to be brought up more broadly. What list would be best? - Andreas Hej Andreas, Now I also remember why I said Ryan's name on the phone specifically. Wow, I'm not really back 100% from this flue (this is also why it took some time with my reply) so my mind is not always clear. :) I recalled that Ryan told me in a hotel in Florida in October you should totally do some fixes to the gtk.org website some time (not in my board role, but in my do-website-stuff-role), to witch I replied perhaps, do you have any specific ideas?. One of his ideas was to add a list of companies that gave GTK+ support (as in, custom development, not in call this company when you hit a bug sense). Yea, this idea has been floating around for a while. It's also why we have the affiliations listed. I agree, more can be done here. Also, as Bastien points out support is quite an expansive word and encompasses more than people may initially consider. Also, we can take the opportunity to update that page on the site when I have finished the review of the new gtk.org site design (which I am struggling to find the time to do at this point): http://curlybeast.net:8080/ I think this idea have been floating around in general and I think it would make sense to have to have such a list on either gtk.org or somewhere on gnome.org I completely agree. Again, sorry for any confusion. No problem at all, I was really just querying the meeting notes and asking for more dialog here. :) -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Meeting Minutes Published - March 29th, 2011
On 18/04/11 16:34, Stormy Peters wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Martyn Russell mar...@lanedo.com mailto:mar...@lanedo.com wrote: On 18/04/11 11:49, Andreas Nilsson wrote: One of his ideas was to add a list of companies that gave GTK+ support (as in, custom development, not in call this company when you hit a bug sense). Yea, this idea has been floating around for a while. It's also why we have the affiliations listed. I agree, more can be done here. Also, as Bastien points out support is quite an expansive word and encompasses more than people may initially consider. I think we can list companies with some objective data. So we could list companies that do work associated with GNOME/GTK+ along with data like: * what areas they consider their expertise, * past clients with testimonials (assuming appropriate permissions), * links to work done (again with appropriate permission) or code they wrote or are responsible for, * links to their involvement with GNOME * people that work with them that are involved in GNOME, * GNOME Foundation advisory board, * employees that are GNOME Foundation members, * GNOME related talks they've given, * GNOME related training they are involved with * etc I think this is a great idea. It may make sense to start with Dave's map of companies presented at least year's GUADEC and correct from there. Something to consider though, companies are likely coming to GNOME looking for expertise in a project, not a company, so the focus needs to be more aligned to what they will be looking for IMO. The next question is, where do we host this data and who maintains it? -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Meeting Minutes Published - March 29th, 2011
On 15/04/11 14:45, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 11:39 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: We wanted to discuss with someone involved in that space what our options were.It's an informal chat about what could be done. Andreas took on the action item, and chose to talk with Ryan because he knows Ryan well. If I had taken on the action item, I'd probably have asked Robert McQueen or Murray Cumming because I know them well, and have had plenty of interaction with them. This does really just illustrate what I am trying to point out. Doesn't it make more sense to have a mailing list for all companies involved in GNOME to discuss things like this instead of asking specific people from specific companies? You would get much more feedback and a more general consensus. We wanted opinion on how we could have the Foundaton provide what some third-party developers were asking for. Andreas chose to talk to Ryan about it. It's informal, and an information gathering exercise. Ryan won't be the one making decisions in the end, the Board will be. Sure. But the board then makes a decision based on one person's view, not the collective view of businesses around GNOME which could be offering such services. snip We told Stormy last year at GUADEC that we really need a forum or way for potential customers to contact businesses around GNOME and get support for the GNOME stack. We have seen first hand how companies have offered services when they don't have the expertise and subsequently frightened off larger corporations as a result. We want to avoid this too. That would be a problem here, especially if the list was filled in by the companies themselves. You need *some* dialog with companies otherwise you don't know what's on offer as a foundation acting on behalf of GNOME for small business. Please can we have some open forum about this instead of expecting one person in the community who isn't representative of all companies with maintainers in those areas, being contacted? He's not representing anyone, and he won't be a decision maker in the process. The representatives would be contacted once we have a more accomplished idea about this. What's to decide? The representatives which Ryan informs you about? Idea about offering services? Surely asking many people yields better results than asking just one person? But, at the end of the day, you can also help yourself by providing us with your feedback, or better, stepping up to the plate and do the work to fill those needs and help us help you. Gladly, just let me know what you want feedback on. What work is needed? I was actually planning on doing something with Stormy during the past year, but never got around to it (that's my fault of course). Ranting and raving about how we want to have an informal chat with someone about a topic you might be interested is counter-productive. Where did I rant? I actually suggested a more open forum to help you get that informal chat from more sources to help you make a more informed decision. Returning to the topic at hand. Do any of the companies you mentioned provide developer support for GTK+? I've had the experience of providing developer support for Red Hat (that did include fixing Motif bugs...), Yes. We certainly do of course. I am confident Collabora and Igalia do or have, perhaps even Openismus. In the end, unless you ask *us* how can you know? I am guessing based on rumour and upstream contributions. You can't know for sure without approaching companies. and most of the questions were about: - migration from one platform to another Do you have more context here, or an example even? - best practices when needing to change the implementation We can provide that (if you mean specific code bases like GTK+). Kris Rietveld (from Lanedo) even did a talk about it last year at GUADEC which might be available somewhere. He spoke about vendor specific branches and working with upstream repositories. - (possible) bugs found in underlying libraries that (might) need fixing, usually caused by bad or lacking documentation, or actual bugs. What's the question here? All of this is quite a different proposition from providing a turn-key finished application, especially with the depth of the stack we provide. Not sure what you're saying here? I'm waiting to hear about your ideas on this. The above is, at best, hard to interpret. If you have a formal list of things to ask, please make it public here and I can reply certainly. Pleasant weekend all, -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
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 disagree and want 3.0 to have x, y and z major new features. The problem is that you'll need another ABI break to do major refactoring. GSEAL() alone won't be enough, even if it's an initial part of it. GSEAL should be part of refactoring, not a reason to release. 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. For 3.0 I can see why you want to have *something* more than a cleaner code base of course but I quite like the idea of a GTK+ which feels much more solid. I suppose this comes down to if you think 3.0 should have the sort of changes 1.x-2.x had or not? Now you've done the GSEAL() work then we could do bigger work in a branch before releasing an ABI breaking release (as stable) that gives people nothing but the expectation of another future ABI break, meaning that it won't be used much anyway. Of course. But an ABI break is always better than an API break and if recompiling is all that's really needed, the effort by the developer linking with GTK+ is really quite minimal (compared to the 1.x-2.x work that was required when I ported all my apps back then). -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
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 contributors on their spare time have been the only ones doing a serious investment in the toolkit. There was never a full time maintainer dedicated to make sure that GTK+ was moving forward to support those mobile platforms (and to help mclasen on the hard task of reviewing patches and making releases for both GLib and GTK+). To be honest, I don't think that's the kind of interest we expected. Actually, Nokia invested quite heavily in GTK+. Imendio/Lanedo had more developers than Red Hat working on it full time over the past years (I could be wrong here). We had Mitch, Kris, Tim, Sven and some work from others at times in the company (this doesn't include personal time involvement which we have recently seen a great deal of from people like Carlos Garnacho on the MPX branch). I often hear complaints about how the RedHat guys turn down patches from other contributors (mostly from members of companies competing with them), but I yet have to see any of those companies investing some of their resources on helping to review all those pending patches waiting in bugzilla and making sure they have a way to get their own patches upstream. 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. This has long been the internal politic of GTK+. I am perhaps not the best person to comment here, Tim for example, has had much more personal and professional involvement in the toolkit and is much better to make comment on this. My view here is just from a very casual contributor watching over a number of years in a company that has GTK+ expertise. My bottom line is that I don't think that in reality the MeeGo news are going to make any difference to GTK+ (I do wonder, however, what are Intel plans on Clutter long term wise) I don't either. There are a lot of companies using it internally that never tell public communities about its use of GTK+. British Telecom is one of them. I remember when Owen was setting up the projects page for gtk.org and I wanted to submit our use cases back then, but internally they didn't want to make it public in case customers were worried about the fact that we were using open source. There are thousands of applications using GTK+ too, let's not forget that, what are they going to move to instead if they don't use GTK+? I also thought that Andrew Savory's point was incredibly pertinent. As a company we do receive requests for GTK+ support, so I don't think it is fair to say that GTK+ is dead. -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
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 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 agrees. 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 parts of both the free desktop and the mobile platform. Dare I mention Tracker amongst those other projects? ;) -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
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 accusations. -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Supporting GTK+
On 05/10/09 23:49, Bruno Pinho wrote: Hi, when I did the translate this tutorial of GTK+, for who have I to send this translate? Hi Bruno, If you create a bug against GTK+, component being Website and add the relevant files there, I will add them. Thanks for doing this too! :) -- Regards, Martyn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
