Hi,
I hope there is still some chances that Radek will change his dicision.
From my point of view where is no real need in FSO/qt gibrid, because of
following reasons:
1. qt stack has richer functionalily, better performance, and less bugs
than that FSO dbus/vala thing (don't throw rotten
community@lists.openmoko.org
Betreff:
Re: QtMoko and FSO (was: qtmoko
v33)
Datum:
Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:48:28 +0300
(2011-03-09 20:48:28)
Hi,
I hope
Gennady Kupava, Mar. 09, 2011, 22:48 +0300:
1. qt stack has richer functionalily, better performance, and less bugs
than that FSO dbus/vala thing (don't throw rotten tomatoes to me plese)
2. qt has it's own resource management, FSO - it's own, rewriting qt one
to FSO one is worthless effort
Hi,
I hope there is still some chances that Radek will change his dicision.
From my point of view where is no real need in FSO/qt gibrid, because of
following reasons:
1. qt stack has richer functionalily, better performance, and less bugs
than that FSO dbus/vala thing (don't throw rotten
Agree with Gennady. Look what happened to SHR!
It is also necessary to fix rndis usb-host )
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:48:28 +0300, Gennady Kupava wrote:
Hi,
I hope there is still some chances that Radek will change his
dicision.
From my point of view where is no real need in FSO/qt gibrid,
Radek Polak, Mar. 04, 2011, 07:37 +0100:
i have uploaded new qtmoko v33 images to sourceforge now [1]. [...]
The list is quite short on how much of work it was.
Hello, Radek! Thank you for the work you are doing.
Most of the effort was to package everything with debian package system. This
Dmitry Chistikov wrote:
I'm afraid it's too early to ask, but could you give an estimate on how
much time it'll take to enable the use of FSO framework? Just something
like about a year or, say, not less than four months.
Writing simple dialer application could be matter of days/hours.
7 matches
Mail list logo