Re: QtMoko and FSO (was: qtmoko v33)
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 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 3. where logs of significantly more useful, easier and non-destructive goals to rich, i can suggest few: 3.1 switch back to X11. with new graphical subsystem performance this will work great. 3.2 switch to newer qt versions 3.3 fix 100500 bugs left 3.4 add gta04 support- most important 3.5 improve performance and usability 3.6 implement new features, like: 'geek' theme, sliding buttons in answer screen ^^^ IMO this set can keep everyone busy for a while. where is also no real benefit visible from switching to FSO. qtmoko will become more complicated, more buggy, slower, harder to develop:( I afraid i'll have to stay on non-FSO version forether. And certain, this planned change worth more discussion. If someone wants FSO, better to install it on debian or with SHR. Gennady. +1 Absolutely. -- ## giacomo 'giotti' mariani gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-key 0x99bfa859 O ASCII ribbon campaign: stop HTML mail www.asciiribbon.org ## ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: QtMoko and FSO (was: qtmoko v33)
+1. I've only recently switched from SHR to qtmoko (v31) and I'm impressed with performance and maturity of applications. I really wouldn't like to lose that again. Regards Bernhard Am Donnerstag, den 10.03.2011, 12:00 +0100 schrieb community-requ...@lists.openmoko.org: Von: Gennady Kupava g...@bsdmn.com Reply-to: List for Openmoko community discussion community@lists.openmoko.org An: List for Openmoko community discussion 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 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 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 3. where logs of significantly more useful, easier and non-destructive goals to rich, i can suggest few: 3.1 switch back to X11. with new graphical subsystem performance this will work great. 3.2 switch to newer qt versions 3.3 fix 100500 bugs left 3.4 add gta04 support - most important 3.5 improve performance and usability 3.6 implement new features, like: 'geek' theme, sliding buttons in answer screen ^^^ IMO this set can keep everyone busy for a while. where is also no real benefit visible from switching to FSO. qtmoko will become more complicated, more buggy, slower, harder to develop :( I afraid i'll have to stay on non-FSO version forether. And certain, this planned change worth more discussion. If someone wants FSO, better to install it on debian or with SHR. Gennady. В Втр, 08/03/2011 в 18:00 +0100, Radek Polak пишет: 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. Integrating all the functions so that it looks like qtmoko now will be much more difficult (i cant even guess how much). We also need FSO running on debian - i'd prefer current git version. I am not aware if there are debian packages for recent FSO. Anyone knows? Regards Radek ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: QtMoko and FSO (was: qtmoko v33)
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 OK, I'd like to ask one question now. Is there a reasonable technical way to *control* qt-stack-managed Freerunner without GUI? This means sending SMS from CLI and all these small things. In other words, I'm interested in command-line interface instead of programming interface. I believe the latter is up and running, but is the former implemented? Frankly, I do not know what the answer is. And yes, in case it is like You just invoke this function from this library with proper arguments, I think I'll go and write a simple CLI wrapper, for this is just what makes Unix-like systems so usable. But if the only correct implementation lives deep in the code of qt stack, then we'd better try and separate it. Generally speaking, I guess it's convenient and powerful interfaces, rather than compatibility with existing applications, that matter more just here. -- Dmitry Chistikov ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: QtMoko and FSO (was: qtmoko v33)
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 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 3. where logs of significantly more useful, easier and non-destructive goals to rich, i can suggest few: 3.1 switch back to X11. with new graphical subsystem performance this will work great. 3.2 switch to newer qt versions 3.3 fix 100500 bugs left 3.4 add gta04 support - most important 3.5 improve performance and usability 3.6 implement new features, like: 'geek' theme, sliding buttons in answer screen ^^^ IMO this set can keep everyone busy for a while. where is also no real benefit visible from switching to FSO. qtmoko will become more complicated, more buggy, slower, harder to develop :( I afraid i'll have to stay on non-FSO version forether. And certain, this planned change worth more discussion. If someone wants FSO, better to install it on debian or with SHR. Gennady. В Втр, 08/03/2011 в 18:00 +0100, Radek Polak пишет: 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. Integrating all the functions so that it looks like qtmoko now will be much more difficult (i cant even guess how much). We also need FSO running on debian - i'd prefer current git version. I am not aware if there are debian packages for recent FSO. Anyone knows? Regards Radek ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: QtMoko and FSO (was: qtmoko v33)
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, 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 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 3. where logs of significantly more useful, easier and non-destructive goals to rich, i can suggest few: 3.1 switch back to X11. with new graphical subsystem performance this will work great. 3.2 switch to newer qt versions 3.3 fix 100500 bugs left 3.4 add gta04 support - most important 3.5 improve performance and usability 3.6 implement new features, like: 'geek' theme, sliding buttons in answer screen ^^^ IMO this set can keep everyone busy for a while. where is also no real benefit visible from switching to FSO. qtmoko will become more complicated, more buggy, slower, harder to develop :( I afraid i'll have to stay on non-FSO version forether. And certain, this planned change worth more discussion. If someone wants FSO, better to install it on debian or with SHR. Gennady. В Втр, 08/03/2011 в 18:00 +0100, Radek Polak пишет: 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. Integrating all the functions so that it looks like qtmoko now will be much more difficult (i cant even guess how much). We also need FSO running on debian - i'd prefer current git version. I am not aware if there are debian packages for recent FSO. Anyone knows? Regards Radek ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: QtMoko and FSO (was: qtmoko v33)
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. Integrating all the functions so that it looks like qtmoko now will be much more difficult (i cant even guess how much). We also need FSO running on debian - i'd prefer current git version. I am not aware if there are debian packages for recent FSO. Anyone knows? Regards Radek ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
