Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
(By the same token, if this particular bit of self-congratulatory revisionism is suddenly fair game, I'd obviously be interested in knowing that as well.) -- Sent from my iPod ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Jun 18, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: Saying "GNU/Linux" is a simple and effective way to teach people about the real history of the system that many of them have been taught to call "Linux". It is also very efficient, since it takes so little work. I was under the distinct impression that the moderator had called a halt to this discussion and that no further messages on this topic were being entertained here. Why is this continuing to be pushed here? Either it's appropriate or it's not. If it's not, then it's equally inappropriate for all parties. Let's attempt to provide at least a convincing semblance of even-handedness here. -- Sent from my iPod ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
> Speaking as Stormy and not as ED, I think this is a losing battle. I agree we need to continue to educate people but I don't think GNU/Linux is going to be the way it happens. Saying "GNU/Linux" is a simple and effective way to teach people about the real history of the system that many of them have been taught to call "Linux". It is also very efficient, since it takes so little work. It also spreads awareness of the GNU operating system, including GNOME. Further, it shows people a further reason to pay attention when we urge them to care about their own freedom. Since calling the system "Linux" means giving the credit for our work (including GNOME) to Mr Torvalds, and that is unfair to all of us. So even aside from the beneficial consequences of saying "GNU/Linux", common decency requires it. We need to work on other campaigns to spread the word about the value of free software. I agree completely. We need to use many approaches, some of which might take more effort than this one but would still be worth while. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 04:01 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > That's not the argument we are making. We say GNU/Linux because GNU wants > the credit for the part it delivers other than the kernel. That's why we > say GNU/Linux. > > That's an understatement. The reason people should call this system > "GNU/Linux" is that its core is the GNU system, with Linux added. > > If we apply that attitude to GNOME we can do the same thing. > > The argument doesn't apply the same for GNOME, since GNOME isn't an > operating system -- rather, it is a subsystem. You can apply that same logic and say that GNU isn't an operating system, just a glue layer between the kernel and the user interface. Seriously, this argument is leading nowhere. If you honestly intend in continuing to pursue it, please take it off of foundation-list. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
That's not the argument we are making. We say GNU/Linux because GNU wants the credit for the part it delivers other than the kernel. That's why we say GNU/Linux. That's an understatement. The reason people should call this system "GNU/Linux" is that its core is the GNU system, with Linux added. If we apply that attitude to GNOME we can do the same thing. The argument doesn't apply the same for GNOME, since GNOME isn't an operating system -- rather, it is a subsystem. However, when people call the system "GNU/Linux" and give credit to the GNU system, that credit is for all the parts of GNU -- for GNOME as well as GCC, Emacs, GNU Chess, GPG, Glibc, and all the rest. The increased awareness of GNU benefits all the GNU packages too. Nobody can say GNU/Linux in a conversation or type it. Thousands of people do this, so it can't be so hard. If you try, I think you will find it is quite possible. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM, guido iodice wrote: > 2010/6/14 Sriram Ramkrishna : > > It's reasonably implied that Linux includes the GNU system. > > There is no other system that Linux has other than GNU > > Pardon, but this is not true. I.e. Android has Linux but it has not > GNU. It is very different from a GNU/linux distro. > > Right but it's not called Linux, it's called Android which includes the Linux kernel. But Google is not insisting on Android/Linux are they? Rightly, the whole system should have been called "GNU" from the very beginning. That's not what happened though, FSF waited for Hurd to complete the GNU system and missed the branding window. That's why I said you have to write a new name that includes the Linux kernel just like Android did. Ask yourself whether you would be able to discuss software in this manner where we append who gets credit in the name. If you call the whole system only "Linux" you have a paradox, because > (i.e.) Android has Linux but is not "Linux". > > http://static.arstechnica.com/android-dev/android_not_linux.png > You could argue it is a paradox but in marketing there are all kinds of paradoxes that makes no sense since we aren't talking about logic here when it comes to getting people's attention. The namespace "Linux" is taken and it implies GNU. Google created a new name space to imply something else. They can't say it runs "Linux". You will notice that neither Android, Intel or Apple mention the underlying kernel in their phones and nettop boxeds because to mention them would cause confusion. In the context of marketing if I said "Buy Linux" I'm implying Linux + GNU because the layman only understands that. If I was talking to a kernel person and said I'm hacking some subsystem in Linux it is implied we are talking about the kernel. The english language is full of examples where context of how a word is used changes. In a marketing context Linux means GNU/Linux. sri ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
I'll add that people writing KDE or GNOME don't push for a GNOME/GNU/Linux, or even GNOME/X.org/GNU/Linux. Just mentioning GNU/Linux is disingenious. See gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:53:17PM +0200, guido iodice wrote: > Excuse me, I was unclear. That is no matter of quantity, but matter Some of these posts (the one I'm replying to) hit the moderation queue. Just FYI: I won't approve any of such posts anymore. Find another list to discuss GNU vs GNU/Linux. I don't see what this still has to do with the purpose of this mailing list. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
2010/6/14 Sriram Ramkrishna : > It's reasonably implied that Linux includes the GNU system. > There is no other system that Linux has other than GNU Pardon, but this is not true. I.e. Android has Linux but it has not GNU. It is very different from a GNU/linux distro. > GNU is not the main > part of a modern GNU/Linux system. Today, apart of GNOME, GNU is > mostly glibc, libiconv et al. (I'm not counting compilers as they are > only relevant to devs.) Excuse me, I was unclear. That is no matter of quantity, but matter of importance. In Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, etc. have different packages. But each one uses Linux as the kernel, and GNU. Linux and GNU are the "core", the base of every distro. The combination of GNU+Linux makes these Operating Systems very similar (and even binary compatible). Fedora, Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc are "flavors" of the same OS. This OS is composed by many packages but if you want an OS *of this kind* you _need_ at least GNU and Linux. Without one of them you have not an OS. If you use somethig else, you have a different OS, like Android. If you call the whole system only "Linux" you have a paradox, because (i.e.) Android has Linux but is not "Linux". http://static.arstechnica.com/android-dev/android_not_linux.png ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:50 PM, guido iodice wrote: > 2010/6/14 Stormy Peters : >> We need to work on other campaigns to spread the word about the value of >> free software. > Surely free software needs more. > But it should be useful for all to explain than GNOME is part of GNU, > and GNU is the main part of the GNU/Linux system. If you want to play the semantics game then no, GNU is not the main part of a modern GNU/Linux system. Today, apart of GNOME, GNU is mostly glibc, libiconv et al. (I'm not counting compilers as they are only relevant to devs.) Unless you stretch the meaning of GNU to "anything covered by GPL or LGPL", it is hardly a majority. -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, guido iodice wrote: > 2010/6/14 Bastien Nocera : > > > > I'll add that people writing KDE or GNOME don't push for a > > GNOME/GNU/Linux, or even GNOME/X.org/GNU/Linux. Just mentioning > > GNU/Linux is disingenious. > > Well, but merging GNU and Linux (or GNU and FreeBSD kernel...) we have > an OS. KDE is not sufficient to have an OS. It is a DE. > About GNOME, it is part of GNU. > > That's not the argument we are making. We say GNU/Linux because GNU wants the credit for the part it delivers other than the kernel. That's why we say GNU/Linux. If we apply that attitude to GNOME we can do the same thing. It's reasonably implied that Linux includes the GNU system. There is no other system that Linux has other than GNU. You want credit I suggest you pick a new system name that implies both that is marketable. Nobody can say GNU/Linux in a conversation or type it. That's just not human nature, so it's better to get something that fits more naturally otherwise you'll just be repeating this mantra ineffectively. Here's a real twister for you, if we had GNOME with FreeBSD do we insist on saying GNU/FreeBSD? After all Gnome is GNU, right? Don't we want credit for that? sri ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
2010/6/14 Bastien Nocera : > > I'll add that people writing KDE or GNOME don't push for a > GNOME/GNU/Linux, or even GNOME/X.org/GNU/Linux. Just mentioning > GNU/Linux is disingenious. Well, but merging GNU and Linux (or GNU and FreeBSD kernel...) we have an OS. KDE is not sufficient to have an OS. It is a DE. About GNOME, it is part of GNU. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
2010/6/14 Stormy Peters : > > > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > Millions of people now say Linux Millions of people believed the earth was flat, but they wrong :) > and GNU/Linux is > harder to say, uglier sounding (hard G's are not easy), implies that we feel > left out, etc. Well, then we should change the name of this DE. GNOME begins with "GN" like GNU. Well... GNOME *is* part of GNU! Following you statement, we could rename it "LIOME" or something else. :) > Names often do not include all the components. I drive a Pontiac car that > includes many other parts. We drink "coke" that includes many other brands. > I use "kleenex" that is often not kleenex at all. "Pontiac" is like "Ubuntu", "Fedora", etc. But the questions are: What is a Pontiac Torrent? It is a car. What kind of car? It is a SUV What is Fedora? It is a OS. What kind of OS is it? It is a GNU/Linux OS. > We need to work on other campaigns to spread the word about the value of > free software. Surely free software needs more. But it should be useful for all to explain than GNOME is part of GNU, and GNU is the main part of the GNU/Linux system. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
Hey, On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 09:21 -0600, Stormy Peters wrote: > >> >> Speaking as Stormy and not as ED, I think this is a losing battle. I >> agree we need to continue to educate people but I don't think >> GNU/Linux is going to be the way it happens. Millions of people now >> say Linux and GNU/Linux is harder to say, uglier sounding (hard G's >> are not easy), implies that we feel left out, etc. I really don't >> think it's going to be something that catches on no matter how many of >> us push it. > > I'll add that people writing KDE or GNOME don't push for a > GNOME/GNU/Linux, or even GNOME/X.org/GNU/Linux. Just mentioning > GNU/Linux is disingenious. >> >> Names often do not include all the components. I drive a Pontiac car >> that includes many other parts. We drink "coke" that includes many >> other brands. I use "kleenex" that is often not kleenex at all. >> >> >> We need to work on other campaigns to spread the word about the value >> of free software. Richard is right, of course, that Linux is just a kernel and not an operating system. It would be very difficult to imagine how Meego, Litl, Android, WebOS, etc are the same operating system. On the other hand, GNU+Linux isn't really an operating system either - or at least not for most people. But GNOME can be if we want it. Jon ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > > Keep in mind GNU considers GNOME to be part of it ;) > > > I completely understand that. I am not pushing for GNOME/Linux either. Stormy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 09:21 -0600, Stormy Peters wrote: > >> >> Speaking as Stormy and not as ED, I think this is a losing battle. I >> agree we need to continue to educate people but I don't think >> GNU/Linux is going to be the way it happens. Millions of people now >> say Linux and GNU/Linux is harder to say, uglier sounding (hard G's >> are not easy), implies that we feel left out, etc. I really don't >> think it's going to be something that catches on no matter how many of >> us push it. > I'll add that people writing KDE or GNOME don't push for a > GNOME/GNU/Linux, or even GNOME/X.org/GNU/Linux. Just mentioning > GNU/Linux is disingenious. Keep in mind GNU considers GNOME to be part of it ;) -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 09:21 -0600, Stormy Peters wrote: > > Speaking as Stormy and not as ED, I think this is a losing battle. I > agree we need to continue to educate people but I don't think > GNU/Linux is going to be the way it happens. Millions of people now > say Linux and GNU/Linux is harder to say, uglier sounding (hard G's > are not easy), implies that we feel left out, etc. I really don't > think it's going to be something that catches on no matter how many of > us push it. I'll add that people writing KDE or GNOME don't push for a GNOME/GNU/Linux, or even GNOME/X.org/GNU/Linux. Just mentioning GNU/Linux is disingenious. > > Names often do not include all the components. I drive a Pontiac car > that includes many other parts. We drink "coke" that includes many > other brands. I use "kleenex" that is often not kleenex at all. > > > We need to work on other campaigns to spread the word about the value > of free software. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
Stormy Peters writes: > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > > As long as the mistake continues to be common, we need to keep up the > efforts to educate people. I wish we could get this done once and for > all, so that we could move on. But, as you surely see, the mass media > continue to call the GNU/Linux system "Linux" most of the time, and > that continues to spread the mistake. > > Speaking as Stormy and not as ED, I think this is a losing battle. Every person that says "GNU/Linux", is helping. I don't think we have to win in order for that to be useful. -- Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54, http://ciaran.compsoc.com Please help build the software patents wiki: http://en.swpat.org http://www.EndSoftwarePatents.org Donate: http://endsoftwarepatents.org/donate List: http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > > As long as the mistake continues to be common, we need to keep up the > efforts to educate people. I wish we could get this done once and for > all, so that we could move on. But, as you surely see, the mass media > continue to call the GNU/Linux system "Linux" most of the time, and > that continues to spread the mistake. > > > Speaking as Stormy and not as ED, I think this is a losing battle. I agree we need to continue to educate people but I don't think GNU/Linux is going to be the way it happens. Millions of people now say Linux and GNU/Linux is harder to say, uglier sounding (hard G's are not easy), implies that we feel left out, etc. I really don't think it's going to be something that catches on no matter how many of us push it. Names often do not include all the components. I drive a Pontiac car that includes many other parts. We drink "coke" that includes many other brands. I use "kleenex" that is often not kleenex at all. We need to work on other campaigns to spread the word about the value of free software. Stormy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
> Do we want to spend time being held back by the missing infrastructure > on other OSes than Linux? The large majority of contributors use Linux, > and we'd like to be able to not get held back. > > The large majority of them use GNU/Linux. Linux is a kernel and won't > run by itself. The large majority run Linux, as in the kernel... When I say Linux, I mean the Linux kernel, and I'd like it if you stopped correcting my words. I'm sorry for misunderstanding. I got the wrong idea from the word "OS". Thank you for making a clear distinction between Linux and the rest of the system. However, I expect that missing infrastructure in other platforms is not limited to kernels. It will be the whole system which lacks infrastructure compared with the whole GNU/Linux system. This habit of correcting people is getting frankly old. As long as the mistake continues to be common, we need to keep up the efforts to educate people. I wish we could get this done once and for all, so that we could move on. But, as you surely see, the mass media continue to call the GNU/Linux system "Linux" most of the time, and that continues to spread the mistake. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 03:44 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > Also, if Linux is part of GNOME, that would imply it is part of GNU. > > I don't think we want to imply that conclusion. > > I guess that you misunderstood my original mail. > > That is possible. > >We need to be able to > drain the swamp, and fix problems that occur at any point in the > infrastructure between the bottom level (in most cases, the kernel), and > the top level (us, GNOME). > > I agree it is desirable -- but it may be difficult, since we don't > maintain those other programs. > > When program A works with B and C, there may be problems that are > first reported for A, but whose best fix involves changing B and C. > So the maintainers of A need to talk with the maintainers of B and C > to get the fixes made. These situations are often complex. When A > works badly due to an inconvenience with B that the maintainers of B > don't want to change (or that they will change, but it will take a > year to release the changed version), the best solution actually > possible is sometimes make a workaround in A for it. Making sure that the right versions are shipped together is the work that distributions do. I regularly do work that involves changes to the lower parts of the stack, such as patching the Linux kernel and the BlueZ daemon as part of my work on gnome-bluetooth. It is time-consuming, but at the end of the day, we fix the problems for everyone in a clean manner. > Do we want to spend time being held back by the missing infrastructure > on other OSes than Linux? The large majority of contributors use Linux, > and we'd like to be able to not get held back. > > The large majority of them use GNU/Linux. Linux is a kernel and won't > run by itself. The large majority run Linux, as in the kernel. This habit of correcting people is getting frankly old. I remember you being a pain at GUADEC in Copenhagen with your "GNU/Linux" patches to the conference programs. When I say Linux, I mean the Linux kernel, and I'd like it if you stopped correcting my words. > I don't think it's that much of a stretch for us to say "[GNU/Linux] is > the > platform we care about, but we'd love to see patches for other > platforms". Because that's what is already happening, just without the > rubber stamp. > > I agree. > > It's proper for GNOME development to focus on using GNOME within > GNU, because that's the primary goal: make GNU better. > In practice, this means GNU running on Linux, so Linux can be > assumed too. > > Support for other platforms is something that can be done > when it seems worth the trouble, but it's not a primary goal. Cheers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
> Also, if Linux is part of GNOME, that would imply it is part of GNU. > I don't think we want to imply that conclusion. I guess that you misunderstood my original mail. That is possible. We need to be able to drain the swamp, and fix problems that occur at any point in the infrastructure between the bottom level (in most cases, the kernel), and the top level (us, GNOME). I agree it is desirable -- but it may be difficult, since we don't maintain those other programs. When program A works with B and C, there may be problems that are first reported for A, but whose best fix involves changing B and C. So the maintainers of A need to talk with the maintainers of B and C to get the fixes made. These situations are often complex. When A works badly due to an inconvenience with B that the maintainers of B don't want to change (or that they will change, but it will take a year to release the changed version), the best solution actually possible is sometimes make a workaround in A for it. Do we want to spend time being held back by the missing infrastructure on other OSes than Linux? The large majority of contributors use Linux, and we'd like to be able to not get held back. The large majority of them use GNU/Linux. Linux is a kernel and won't run by itself. I don't think it's that much of a stretch for us to say "[GNU/Linux] is the platform we care about, but we'd love to see patches for other platforms". Because that's what is already happening, just without the rubber stamp. I agree. It's proper for GNOME development to focus on using GNOME within GNU, because that's the primary goal: make GNU better. In practice, this means GNU running on Linux, so Linux can be assumed too. Support for other platforms is something that can be done when it seems worth the trouble, but it's not a primary goal. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 20:27 +0200, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: > Is this related to (I think it was Mark Shuttleworths) idea of defining > a reference platform with synchronized versions of the core components > (which we could then target)? I can imagine this to be massively useful > for ISVs. I think that's Mark Shuttleworth's way of not hiring more engineers. (Canonical people, you can quote me on that when asking for headcount :) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 13:15 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > I would think it being fine to say, GNOME is: > - Linux kernel > - D-Bus > - NetworkManager/BlueZ/PolicyKit/udisks/upower > - X11 > all the way to GTK+/Clutter combination and apps > > It seems like stretching things that a GUI desktop > includes all the lower level facilities it runs on. Obviously, GNOME does not control the Linux kernel, or D-Bus, or a number of that shared infrastructure. > Also, if Linux is part of GNOME, that would imply it is part of GNU. > I don't think we want to imply that conclusion. I guess that you misunderstood my original mail. We need to be able to drain the swamp, and fix problems that occur at any point in the infrastructure between the bottom level (in most cases, the kernel), and the top level (us, GNOME). Do we want to spend time being held back by the missing infrastructure on other OSes than Linux? The large majority of contributors use Linux, and we'd like to be able to not get held back. For example, the preferred solution for audio in GNOME is PulseAudio, and thanks to it, we have a much better audio integration in GNOME. Unfortunately it doesn't work on some other OSes where we had working code before. So we're moving on with it, and other OSes will have to catch up. I don't think it's that much of a stretch for us to say "Linux is the platform we care about, but we'd love to see patches for other platforms". Because that's what is already happening, just without the rubber stamp. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On vr, 2010-06-04 at 15:19 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 20:36 +0200, Javier Jardón wrote: > > Hello, > > > > in your application you say: > > > > > - (Re-)defining GNOME: > > > The Foundation charter defines GNOME as a loose collection of > > > independent project, though we need to stop considering it as such if > > > GNOME is to take an important role in the future of computing, be it on > > > the desktop, or in devices, where it would provide the infrastructure. > > > > Could you elaborate a bit more about this? > > Look at the upper and lower bounds on this diagram for GNOME Mobile: > http://www.gnome.org/mobile/gmae-arch-diag.png > > Where does GNOME start and stop? > > Do we go from the kernel up? From the user-space bits up? Is something > still GNOME when it doesn't use GTK+? When it doesn't use Matchbox (as > per the diagram), or metacity/mutter? > > I would think it being fine to say, GNOME is: > - Linux kernel > - D-Bus > - NetworkManager/BlueZ/PolicyKit/udisks/upower > - X11 > all the way to GTK+/Clutter combination and apps > > And this is what we need to focus on. There's a lot of swamp-draining to > be done in the lower levels, and working on GNOME means working on one > of those things in the stack. > > In the same way, I think it doesn't shut out other OSes, be they other > free Unices, or even Mac OS X and Windows, where the stack is just > shifted (pretty much everything underneath what we currently consider > the GNOME stack). > > Defining the GNOME OS is required if we want to avoid getting cornered > working on the bits at the top of the stack, and working around > problems, rather than solving the solutions "The Right Way" all the way > down our stack. > > Obviously, this would require discussions... Is this related to (I think it was Mark Shuttleworths) idea of defining a reference platform with synchronized versions of the core components (which we could then target)? I can imagine this to be massively useful for ISVs. -- Ruben Vermeersch (rubenv) http://www.savanne.be/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > I would think it being fine to say, GNOME is: > - Linux kernel > - D-Bus > - NetworkManager/BlueZ/PolicyKit/udisks/upower > - X11 > all the way to GTK+/Clutter combination and apps > > It seems like stretching things that a GUI desktop > includes all the lower level facilities it runs on. > > Also, if Linux is part of GNOME, that would imply it is part of GNU. > I don't think we want to imply that conclusion. You seem to contradict yourself. First you want us to embrace freedom in general but now you think Linux is not worthy :) -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
I would think it being fine to say, GNOME is: - Linux kernel - D-Bus - NetworkManager/BlueZ/PolicyKit/udisks/upower - X11 all the way to GTK+/Clutter combination and apps It seems like stretching things that a GUI desktop includes all the lower level facilities it runs on. Also, if Linux is part of GNOME, that would imply it is part of GNU. I don't think we want to imply that conclusion. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 20:36 +0200, Javier Jardón wrote: > Hello, > > in your application you say: > > > - (Re-)defining GNOME: > > The Foundation charter defines GNOME as a loose collection of > > independent project, though we need to stop considering it as such if > > GNOME is to take an important role in the future of computing, be it on > > the desktop, or in devices, where it would provide the infrastructure. > > Could you elaborate a bit more about this? Look at the upper and lower bounds on this diagram for GNOME Mobile: http://www.gnome.org/mobile/gmae-arch-diag.png Where does GNOME start and stop? Do we go from the kernel up? From the user-space bits up? Is something still GNOME when it doesn't use GTK+? When it doesn't use Matchbox (as per the diagram), or metacity/mutter? I would think it being fine to say, GNOME is: - Linux kernel - D-Bus - NetworkManager/BlueZ/PolicyKit/udisks/upower - X11 all the way to GTK+/Clutter combination and apps And this is what we need to focus on. There's a lot of swamp-draining to be done in the lower levels, and working on GNOME means working on one of those things in the stack. In the same way, I think it doesn't shut out other OSes, be they other free Unices, or even Mac OS X and Windows, where the stack is just shifted (pretty much everything underneath what we currently consider the GNOME stack). Defining the GNOME OS is required if we want to avoid getting cornered working on the bits at the top of the stack, and working around problems, rather than solving the solutions "The Right Way" all the way down our stack. Obviously, this would require discussions... Cheers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Question for Bastian Nocera
Hello, in your application you say: > - (Re-)defining GNOME: > The Foundation charter defines GNOME as a loose collection of > independent project, though we need to stop considering it as such if > GNOME is to take an important role in the future of computing, be it on > the desktop, or in devices, where it would provide the infrastructure. Could you elaborate a bit more about this? Thanks a lot, -- Javier Jardón Cabezas ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
