On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Andy Tai wrote:
> What is this? Some type of threat?
> To date GNOME does not have Mono and GNOME is doing great.
> The majority of users do not use Mono and do not want to depend on
> Mono. If you have your way, more people will lose their way. Who
> have heard an
Hi, David!
I already wrote I agree with Lluis that the success of a desktop is
driven by a diverse and large set of applications. I've also seen many
people say Mono is a nice platfrom to build apps on. I can't judge this
due to not being a developer but I have no reason to mis-trust these
stateme
On 7/19/06, David Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As if the question of Mono's inclusion doesn't already fragment GNOME,
> those who are opposed to it because it's MS technology or similar, IMHO,
> silly reasons (read: not based on technological merit) won't let it in.
> Then there are people
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 12:19 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > As for bringing in new functionality and allowing varied focus, I still
> > think this could be done with additional release sets such as
> > - Productivity:
> > Spreadsheets, Word processing, Slides, Databases,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Iain * wrote:
> - Younger teenagers who want to stay in touch with their circle of
> friends, share the latest funny video they've found and play some cool
> flash game.
>
> - Older teenagers who have to do coursework and school reports, look
> up
ons, 19 07 2006 kl. 12:48 +0200, skrev Claus Schwarm:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:57:04 +0200
> Lluis Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > If there are memory and performance problems with Mono or Python,
> > excluding them from GNOME is not a solution, because like it or not
Hi,
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:57:04 +0200
Lluis Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> If there are memory and performance problems with Mono or Python,
> excluding them from GNOME is not a solution, because like it or not
> users will still use them to run applications.
>
> GNOME should ad
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 10:46 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> GNOME Maemo:
> I don't know their "concept" or target audience, but I can
> imagine something like -
> Create a "newspaper replacement" device for coffee shops,
> the kitchen table, riding the train to
Iain * wrote:
> Not sure if this is one of them rhetorical questions or if this was
> even what you meant but its late and I'm bored, split the way I
> understand best; generationally:
>
> - Younger teenagers who want to stay in touch with their circle of
> friends, share the latest funny video t
On 7/17/06, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Question for the list, what is the target audience and benefit to them
> of the desktop release?
>
> Current:
> - historical UNIX workstation users who want something similar but not
> dead
> - technology fans who want a set of apps the
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 11:14 -0700, Rich Burridge wrote:
> One of the things I like about the Mac OS X desktop (and Windows Xp desktop
> for that matter), is that all applications provided by the vendor have a
> consistent
> look&feel. If I'm familiar with one application on that platform, then I
> Regarding the "focus" issue, perhaps the distribution needs to drive
> this, not GNOME. I'm thinking for example of ubuntu vs edubuntu
> (education oriented variant of ubuntu). They're basically the same
> distribution, with different default colors and different default set of
> apps.
So wh
On Ter, 2006-07-18 at 13:08 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
[...]
> But regardless, if we want to be cohesive,
>we have to *integrate*, not keep a wall between the applications
>and the rest of the system.
IMHO, GNOME doesn't need to integrate apps onto itself. On the
contrary, apps
Dan Winship wrote:
> Rich Burridge wrote:
>
>> I've seen GNOME steadily improve over the last few years, but it still
>> doesn't have a cohesive wholeness to it. One of the problems in this
>> respect is that different distros customize GNOME as they see fit.
>>
>
> That's totally backwards
Rich Burridge wrote:
> I've seen GNOME steadily improve over the last few years, but it still
> doesn't have a cohesive wholeness to it. One of the problems in this
> respect is that different distros customize GNOME as they see fit.
That's totally backwards. GNOME doesn't have a cohesive wholenes
Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> This of course is a personal question that everyone has to answer for
> themselves; if GNOME made a beautiful just works super-integrated
> desktop, that did not in the end have that many users (that failed to
> bring an open source alternative to the general publi
Rich Burridge wrote:
>
> I was talking about things like:
>
> * look and feel. It's a beautiful desktop.
> * ease of use. Most things "just work".
> * integration of different desktop components.
>
> I'm not talking about market share.
>
This of course is a personal question that everyone has
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Rich Burridge wrote:
>> Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
>>> I am not saying we shouldn't take good ideas etc., from Apple, but lets
>>> try to remember that Apple is basically a failure in the desktop
>>> market.
>>
>> What were you smoking when you wrote this?
Rich Burridge wrote:
> Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
>> I am not saying we shouldn't take good ideas etc., from Apple, but lets
>> try to remember that Apple is basically a failure in the desktop market.
>
> What were you smoking when you wrote this?
>
Well, it depends on your "succe
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 08:33 -0700, Rich Burridge wrote:
> Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
> > I am not saying we shouldn't take good ideas etc., from Apple, but lets
> > try to remember that Apple is basically a failure in the desktop market.
>
> What were you smoking when you wrote this
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
> I am not saying we shouldn't take good ideas etc., from Apple, but lets
> try to remember that Apple is basically a failure in the desktop market.
What were you smoking when you wrote this?
___
desktop-devel-
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 09:33 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:30 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > On 7/17/06, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Which makes me wonder why we are able to bless some applications and
> > >> > not others. The point of blessin
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
>> My first-order answer is that GNOME thinks of itself as "making a
>> desktop" - even though the _reality_ is that the larger GNOME
>> community/ecosystem is doing way more than that, and that the larger
>> tech industry is doing stil
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>> Current:
>> - historical UNIX workstation users who want something similar but not
>> dead
>> - technology fans who want a set of apps they can mess with and
>> heavily customize
>> - thin client / computer lab deployments who want something with good
>> manageabilit
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 09:32 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > Since applications
> > that are included in the core GNOME desktop are known to be well-
> > maintained, widely-translated, and released on a regular schedule, it
> > can certainly be more desirable for a distro to include a core GNOME
> Actually I have to say we should stop idealizing Apple that much, they are
> a company which basically has gone from being the desktop leader to today
> being a fringe player. They have survived partly by clinging onto a couple
> of niches like graphical design and to some degree education.
Th
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:54 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
>
> Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
>>
>> If that happened, the platform developers would likely have less
>> interaction with application developers on mailing lists like this
>> one. So you'd be more likely to end up like the W3C's HTML Wor
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> If that happened, the platform developers would likely have less
> interaction with application developers on mailing lists like this one.
> So you'd be more likely to end up like the W3C's HTML Working Group has
> with XHTML 2.0 -- spending huge amounts of time pro
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
[a snip here]
> They have over the last few years managed to grow a little into the
> tech geek segment and the multimedia market, but even using things like
> iPod and iTunes to push their desktops they seem to have managed little
> apart from not slippi
Actually I have to say we should stop idealizing Apple that much, they
are a company which basically has gone from being the desktop leader to
today being a fringe player. They have survived partly by clinging onto
a couple of niches like graphical design and to some degree education.
They have ov
On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
>
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
>>
>> My first-order answer is that GNOME thinks of itself as "making a
>> desktop" - even though the _reality_ is that the larger GNOME
>> community/ecosystem is doing way more than that, and that the larger
>>
Jeff Waugh wrote:
> "Picking an audience" doesn't necessarily mean picking *only one* audience.
Would it be that while searching for the *this is our audience* block,
we have managed to begin to stop to think about what GNOME really is ?
:Sankarshan
--
http://www.gutenberg.net - Fine literat
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> My first-order answer is that GNOME thinks of itself as "making a
> desktop" - even though the _reality_ is that the larger GNOME
> community/ecosystem is doing way more than that, and that the larger
> tech industry is doing still more.
Would you consider junking the
> All this talk about the "target audience" scares the hell out of me.
> Because if is decided that the target audience is the white collar office
> worker (or some other stereotype I don't belong to) it means that GNOME
> wont benefit me anymore.
That doesn't have to be true. Consider OS X - if
On 7/17/06, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Or even why is GNOME sidelining things like:
> >> - Maemo
> >> - Elisa
> >> - One Laptop Per Child
> >> - ...
> >
> > You make it sound active - it's not, it's passive. But that's changing.
>
> I don't
On 7/17/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Bindings
>
> So far, GTK# in the bindings seems pretty uncontroversial
Assuming it can satisfy the rules of the bindings release, that is.
Multiple people have pointed out that they would dislike it being
accepted in the proposed form, with it
Murray Cumming wrote:
>
>> So why does GNOME get
>> so stuck on "the desktop" (by which we mean "the
>> enterprisey/thinclienty/unixy desktop") and act like everything else is
>> some kind of distraction?
>
> Really, lots of people are trying lots of other stuff, because people
> generally sh
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> I thought we were targeting a desktop platform for ISV to integrate it?
> In that case it make sense to provide modules.
>
> BTW what about providing the Office suite first? Because Gnome
> penetration is first into large "business" [1] deployment, and and
> Office suite
Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> Or even why is GNOME sidelining things like:
>> - Maemo
>> - Elisa
>> - One Laptop Per Child
>> - ...
>
> You make it sound active - it's not, it's passive. But that's changing.
I don't mean to imply active or not, and I'm glad to hear it's changing.
I think ha
> > > But we'll obviously need to change the way we release GNOME too...
> >
> > Not significantly so... I really warn against this - no throwing babies
> > out with the bathwater!
>
> The way GNOME is released is probably pretty good for the "linux
> distribution GUI" release. It's a matter of
Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> But we'll obviously need to change the way we release GNOME too...
>
> Not significantly so... I really warn against this - no throwing babies out
> with the bathwater!
>
The way GNOME is released is probably pretty good for the "linux
distribution GUI" release. It'
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:31 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Good to hear! Now spread it through the project: why are GNOME mailing
> lists, web site, release groupings, etc. all proceeding merrily along as
> if the goal is "make a desktop"... while even the immediate ecosystem is
> clearly not
Iain * wrote:
> Once again, who are we targetting with the desktop. Apple know who
> they're targetting, which is probably why text editor and terminal are
> not high on the list of features.
I thought we were targeting a desktop platform for ISV to integrate it?
In that case it make sense to pr
Le mardi 18 juillet 2006, à 00:02, Jeff Waugh a écrit :
>
>
> > "Suites"
> >
> > First impression
>
> Additionally, if I ever hear the word "core" or the phrase "loosely based on
> the KDE idea of meta-packages" applied to GNOME release management issues, I
> will go absolutely fucking mental.
> But we'll obviously need to change the way we release GNOME too...
Not significantly so... I really warn against this - no throwing babies out
with the bathwater!
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
"You put on the pants, and the pants
> Or even why is GNOME sidelining things like:
> - Maemo
> - Elisa
> - One Laptop Per Child
> - ...
You make it sound active - it's not, it's passive. But that's changing.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
"I'm offering you
Le lundi 17 juillet 2006, à 11:31, Havoc Pennington a écrit :
> Or even why is GNOME sidelining things like:
> - Maemo
> - Elisa
> - One Laptop Per Child
> - ...
We're working on fixing this :-)
> My first-order answer is that GNOME thinks of itself as "making a
> desktop" - even though
Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> There's also Windows apps, "embedded" (focused?) devices, online services,
>> all kinds of stuff that could serve the goal of bringing an open source
>> computing platform to the general public.
>
> If you were at GUADEC you would've heard about some interesting action
> There's also Windows apps, "embedded" (focused?) devices, online services,
> all kinds of stuff that could serve the goal of bringing an open source
> computing platform to the general public.
If you were at GUADEC you would've heard about some interesting action in
this area (which will be mo
Dave Neary wrote:
>
> So, my employer has thoughtfully (and unknowingly) donated an hour of my
> time to this: http://live.gnome.org/ReleaseSets - it includes the power
> users set suggested above.
My take: this subdivides GNOME's existing audiences (sort of - it's
partly an audience split and
Murray Cumming wrote:
>> The word "desktop" is like a cancer. Its problems include:
>> - it's vague as hell
> [snip]
>
> The "desktop" includes stuff that everything (apart from very tightly
> focused embedded stuff) needs. Vendors who don't need some part of the
> desktop usually don't want any
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > First impression: Too much, too fast, and in many cases ill-defined
> > given the lengthy discussions we've had about where to take the
> > definition of the release suites over the last few years.
>
> Like I said, first draft, and we definitely need someone better with n
Hi,
Jeff Waugh wrote:
> First impression: Too much, too fast, and in many cases ill-defined given
> the lengthy discussions we've had about where to take the definition of the
> release suites over the last few years.
Like I said, first draft, and we definitely need someone better with
names tha
> "Suites"
>
> First impression
Additionally, if I ever hear the word "core" or the phrase "loosely based on
the KDE idea of meta-packages" applied to GNOME release management issues, I
will go absolutely fucking mental. Community service announcement.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, A
> So, my employer has thoughtfully (and unknowingly) donated an hour of my
> time to this: http://live.gnome.org/ReleaseSets - it includes the power
> users set suggested above.
"Suites"
First impression: Too much, too fast, and in many cases ill-defined given
the lengthy discussions we've had
Hi,
Nigel Tao wrote:
> I remember that, some handfuls of months ago, Jeff Waugh [1] proposed
> a Power User Tools suite outside of the traditional Platform /
> Bindings / Desktop (/ Admin). IIRC he was musing about things like
> Brightside and Devil's Pie, but one option might be to spin out
> T
On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:09 AM, Nigel Tao wrote:
> ...
> I remember that, some handfuls of months ago, Jeff Waugh [1] proposed
> a Power User Tools suite outside of the traditional Platform /
> Bindings / Desktop (/ Admin). IIRC he was musing about things like
> Brightside and Devil's Pie, but one o
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:30 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On 7/17/06, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Which makes me wonder why we are able to bless some applications and
> >> > not others. The point of blessing the application is saying that this
> >> > application meets t
On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 18:47 +0100, Calum Benson wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2006, at 17:57, Lluis Sanchez wrote:
>
> >
> > It's not so important which applications do gnome include, since
> > distros
> > can take this decision, depending on the specific target of the
> > distro.
>
> Up to a point... a
> * Bare bones
>
> Do we take the current core module list, or should we strip it down to
> move, say, Vino to a sysadmin bundle with Pessulus and Sabayon? It would
> be helpful to have a full and complete list of all the applications
> which are currently part of the core desktop. It would also he
Murray Cumming wrote:
> As for bringing in new functionality and allowing varied focus, I still
> think this could be done with additional release sets such as
> - Productivity:
> Spreadsheets, Word processing, Slides, Databases, Publishing.
> - Creativity:
> Photos, Graphics, Drawing, Video- a
[snip]
>It would
> be helpful to have a full and complete list of all the applications
> which are currently part of the core desktop.
[snip]
This, and the definitions of the other existing release sets (Platform,
Desktop, Platform Bindings, Admin) are already here:
http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointF
Hi,
Murray Cumming wrote:
> The "desktop" includes stuff that everything (apart from very tightly
> focused embedded stuff) needs. Vendors who don't need some part of the
> desktop usually don't want any part of it. So, it's just a "base" that
> isn't yet a development platform.
You're saying t
On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 18:57 +0200, Lluis Sanchez wrote:
> >
Hey LLuis, I very much agree with your point of view. And I thank you
again and again and again for MonoDevelop. You should be extremely proud
of your work.
As a developer who is *very* worried about memory consumption of mobile
applicat
> On 7/17/06, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Which makes me wonder why we are able to bless some applications and
>> > not others. The point of blessing the application is saying that this
>> > application meets the gnome standards for X,Y and Z and has a release
>> > shedule th
On 7/17/06, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which makes me wonder why we are able to bless some applications and
> > not others. The point of blessing the application is saying that this
> > application meets the gnome standards for X,Y and Z and has a release
> > shedule that coinc
> Which makes me wonder why we are able to bless some applications and
> not others. The point of blessing the application is saying that this
> application meets the gnome standards for X,Y and Z and has a release
> shedule that coincides with the gnome platform release.
And that people will wor
[snip]
> Don't call the desktop release "desktop" either because it's too vague.
> More specific examples might be an "enterprise unix/linux GUI" release,
> or "tech-oriented consumer/hobbyist" release or "tech workstation
> release" or "high-powered MS Office user in an office release" or
> "compu
søn, 16 07 2006 kl. 23:40 +0200, skrev Rodrigo Moya:
> On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 15:32 +, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> > Iain * gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Why do we feel we are able to "bless" a terminal program and a text
> > > editor and a clock, but unable to do the same to a video editor or an
On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 15:32 +, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> Iain * gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Why do we feel we are able to "bless" a terminal program and a text
> > editor and a clock, but unable to do the same to a video editor or an
> > audio editor?
>
> There is a huge difference between essen
On 7/16/06, Hubert Figuiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW what about providing the Office suite first? Because Gnome
> penetration is first into large "business" [1] deployment, and and
> Office suite is more likely to hit that target. We still don't, but
> distribution vendors do.
I have no p
Iain * wrote:
>
> Really?
> depends on your context...
> For some people a terminal and text editor are completely worthless,
> but take away photo management
>
> Once again, who are we targetting with the desktop. Apple know who
> they're targetting, which is probably why text editor and ter
On 16 Jul 2006, at 17:57, Lluis Sanchez wrote:
>
> It's not so important which applications do gnome include, since
> distros
> can take this decision, depending on the specific target of the
> distro.
Up to a point... although a distro's choice of application is also
somewhat influenced b
On 7/16/06, Hubert Figuiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iain * gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Why do we feel we are able to "bless" a terminal program and a text
> > editor and a clock, but unable to do the same to a video editor or an
> > audio editor?
>
> There is a huge difference between essential
> That's exactly what I meant. Windows starting to be shipped (well,
> starting...) with everything but the kitchen sink, and I hate that too.
> I don't even *have* a camera, why would I need a video editor???
>
> The question that I'm asking, and which we should be asking ourselves
> is, does gn
On 16 Jul 2006, at 09:36, Jeroen Zwartepoorte wrote:
> On 7/15/06, Chipzz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Mono:
>>> F-spot
>>
>> Image viewer, really non-essential.
>
> Come on, Eye of Gnome is an image viewer. F-Spot is a photo management
> application (like iPhoto). Try asking Mac users if iPhot
On 15 Jul 2006, at 23:43, Iain * wrote:
> On 7/15/06, Chipzz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Or a music editor???
>
> Well, it hasn't harmed apple in any way.
FWIW, GarageBand isn't part of OSX though... granted it currently
ships with all new Macs, but if you go out and buy OSX off the shelf
Iain * gmail.com> writes:
> Why do we feel we are able to "bless" a terminal program and a text
> editor and a clock, but unable to do the same to a video editor or an
> audio editor?
There is a huge difference between essential programs (editor, terminal) and
specific applications (photo manage
> > Ubuntu, Gentoo, and the other distros should come with a music editor,
> > a video editor, and everything else. The discussion here I believe is what
> > should be made part of the basic gnome distribution, and I think that
> > music/video editors might not qualify.
>
> That's exactly what I me
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Luis Felipe Strano Moraes wrote:
> On 7/15/06, Iain * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Diva
>> >
>> > Same as monodevelop.
>>
>> Umm, no, its a video editor...same as pitivi.
>
> I believe he was making a reference to the comment he made for monodevelop.
Indeed.
>> > Do we
Jamie McCracken wrote:
> Iain * wrote:
>> On 7/15/06, Chipzz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
Beagle
>>> Quite important IMO, but we have tracker as a replacement.
>> I'm not holding my breath for tracker really...Call it a hunch, or
>> female intuition or something...
>>
>
> Well I suggest you
Luis Felipe Strano Moraes wrote:
> On 7/16/06, Luis Felipe Strano Moraes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IMHO, the program on that list that most likely should become a part
>> of regular gnome is beagle. I haven't seen tracker yet, gonna take a look
>> at it later.
>
> Tracker is listed as being on
Iain * wrote:
> On 7/15/06, Chipzz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Beagle
>> Quite important IMO, but we have tracker as a replacement.
>
> I'm not holding my breath for tracker really...Call it a hunch, or
> female intuition or something...
>
Well I suggest you try it rather than dismiss it o
On 7/15/06, Chipzz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mono:
> > F-spot
>
> Image viewer, really non-essential.
Come on, Eye of Gnome is an image viewer. F-Spot is a photo management
application (like iPhoto). Try asking Mac users if iPhoto is
non-essential.
Jeroen
On 7/16/06, Luis Felipe Strano Moraes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, the program on that list that most likely should become a part
> of regular gnome is beagle. I haven't seen tracker yet, gonna take a look
> at it later.
Tracker is listed as being on version 0.0.4, and I couldn't find much
i
On 7/15/06, Iain * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Diva
> >
> > Same as monodevelop.
>
> Umm, no, its a video editor...same as pitivi.
I believe he was making a reference to the comment he made for monodevelop.
> > Do we really need an audio/video editor in gnome???
> >
> > > Jokosher
> >
> > Or
On 7/15/06, Chipzz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Beagle
>
> Quite important IMO, but we have tracker as a replacement.
I'm not holding my breath for tracker really...Call it a hunch, or
female intuition or something...
> > Diva
>
> Same as monodevelop.
Umm, no, its a video editor...same as pit
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Corey Burger wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> It seems that the recent discussions of mono (and to a lesser extent
> python) have lost sight of two very important things: innovation and
> why we are really here.
And your mail loses perspective as of how much these apps are actually
need
On 7/14/06, Corey Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> It seems that the recent discussions of mono (and to a lesser extent
> python) have lost sight of two very important things: innovation and
> why we are really here.
>
> Regardless of what you think of the language they are being wr
Hey all,
It seems that the recent discussions of mono (and to a lesser extent
python) have lost sight of two very important things: innovation and
why we are really here.
Regardless of what you think of the language they are being written
in, there are a number of very cool apps and tools being w
90 matches
Mail list logo
