On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:53:15 +0100
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Depends on what you mean by power user (I hate this meaningless
term) if it means software developer then
yes. If it means someone that spends his whole day in config
dialogs then no.
Maybe?
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:53:15 +0100
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Depends on what you mean by power user (I hate this meaningless
term) if it means software developer then
yes. If it means someone that spends his whole
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:35:30 +0100
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
And if that is the case, there is a huge disconnect between GNOME
goals and Fedora Workstation goals. GNOME speakers repeat all year
round their software is not aimed at power users, but developers
are the
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 18:19 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
Right, because that's a model for success that shouldn't be either
emulated or improved upon, it's better for each little fiefdom's paradise
to erect walls to ensure cross influence isn't happening.
Your insulting
...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 6:53:15 AM
Subject: Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Lun 4
...@lists.fedoraproject.org, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2013 11:14:21 AM
Subject: Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
On 01/11/13 10:24, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
Hi everyone,
Attached is the draft PRD for the Workstation working group
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
I think it is a very bad idea to try to explicitly and officially support
third-party software, especially proprietary third-party software.
The thing is, making third-party software easier to maintain and
deploy will in
Am 05.11.2013 17:22, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
Look at all the software that has been written for GTK1 and obsolete
libraries that hasn't been ported and therefore no longer runs on
Fedora. Wouldn't it have been nice to continue to have a practical
option to use that software, even if it
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 12:35 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 23:02, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
The problem is not to get code in the hands of developers. You don't need
distros for that. The problem is to get the code to end-users and
developers spend more time fighting
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:21:15AM -0500, Ray Strode wrote:
I think this is a pretty good starting point for our development
direction, and sets the stage for us making positive progress in the
new working group model.
I do think we should keep it open to tweaks in the future as things
play
Hi,
- Original Message -
We should be enabling the user to get the things
done he/she cares about, not forcing them to learn the things we care
about.
There should be no You must be this tall to ride Fedora Workstation
signs.
[...snip...]
Is it the intent that the
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
- What about watching films, listening to music? I think it is a basic
requirement for students (at least for me).
Maybe we should add a that a student should be able to play videos and
listen to music. It should be easy to install
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
- What about watching films, listening to music? I think it is a basic
requirement for students (at least for me).
Maybe we should add a that a student should
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
- What about watching films, listening to music? I think it is a basic
requirement for
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:13 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:03:45 +0100
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Apps shipping from upstream direcly does not have to be closed
source. Firefox for instance
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 21:03 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
that's all true but you can be pretty sure
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 16:15 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
- Original Message -
I don't get your example but I agree with Reindl Harald - Linux
Distribution is a set of software that works as one coherent
environment. Let it be 10, 100 or 1000 different packages but
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:44:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Promote as the Proper Way To Get Apps On GNOME / Fedora Desktop would
NOT be great. Having spent a lot of time thinking about both sides of
the debate I'm still firmly in the 'coherent distribution is the ideal
state' camp.
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:04 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:44:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Promote as the Proper Way To Get Apps On GNOME / Fedora Desktop would
NOT be great. Having spent a lot of time thinking about both sides of
the debate I'm still firmly
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 21:03 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:56:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
bad outcome as low as possible. Let's just try it and see what
happens! is not a mature approach to risk management.
Ehr, instead of promoting something as supported, just start off slow.
Call if alpha, write down all the
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 23:50 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 21:02 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
that's all true but you can be pretty sure if
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 15:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
- What about watching films, listening to music? I think it is a basic
requirement for students (at least
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 15:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
- What about watching films,
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 22:15 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:56:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
bad outcome as low as possible. Let's just try it and see what
happens! is not a mature approach to risk management.
Ehr, instead of promoting something as supported,
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:32 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 15:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22
Hi
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I would like that too, to be clear. That is why I used the term
upstream distribution and not the term sandboxed apps. Sandboxing is
a desirable technology for both upstream and centralized distribution,
I am not sure that is a good
- Original Message -
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 16:15 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
- Original Message -
I don't get your example but I agree with Reindl Harald - Linux
Distribution is a set of software that works as one coherent
environment. Let it be 10, 100 or
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:32 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Right, that's exactly what I was saying. I just think this is all the
_original poster_ was talking about, not any kind of automatic
configuration of such repositories. (Or at least, you can read it that
way).
OK. I guess that's
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 13:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
If
distros move away from the gospel of centralized distribution
Some people working on technologies in this area may have that as a
goal, but I think it's absolutely crucial to continue to support the
package model of application
Matthias Clasen wrote:
I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future where e.g.
valve is hosting a repository with their steam client, or say, the
chromium web browser is available from the a fedora people
Matthew Miller wrote:
I really would like all my desktop applications to run in a sandbox,
whether they come from upstream directly or from us.
Why? This artificially restricts what your applications can do and also
hurts performance. It doesn't buy us anything other than problems! And what
I wrote:
So now after the good balance, you bring up the Change with a capital
'C' (plagiarized from Barack Obama). Can you please cut down on the
buzzword-loaden rhetoric bullshit?
PS: Since it has been pointed out to me that it can be misunderstood as
such, please don't take this as a rant
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:32 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Right, that's exactly what I was saying. I just think this is all the
_original poster_ was talking about, not any kind of automatic
configuration of such
drago01 wrote:
Depends on what you mean by power user (I hate this meaningless
term) if it means software developer then
yes. If it means someone that spends his whole day in config dialogs
then no.
A power user is somebody experienced with computers who uses them regularly
and who wants to
Bastien Nocera wrote:
Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on the
various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI guarantees
we want to offer? I'll stop short of paraphrasing you.
The fact that bundling is even being explored as a technique at all
Simo Sorce wrote:
* and *ideally* I mean SELinux sanbdboxed with specific APIs that must
be used to interact with the rest of the system, so that the application
doesn't have free reign over users files.
So you want to remove my freedom to disable SELinux? SARCASMWay to go…
/SARCASM
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Look at all the software that has been written for GTK1 and obsolete
libraries that hasn't been ported and therefore no longer runs on
Fedora. Wouldn't it have been nice to continue to have a practical
option to use that software, even if it doesn't integrate that well
Olav Vitters wrote:
Various concerns have been raised. Just write them down, make a plan to
address them, done.
But many of those concerns are inherent to the concept of sandboxed
applications or the methods of delivery they'd enable and cannot possibly
be addressed, ever. The whole concept
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:52 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
So let me step into my handy Tardis and bring back a vignette from the
Real World after Fedora and other distributions bless upstream app
distribution as a preferred
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 01:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
* and *ideally* I mean SELinux sanbdboxed with specific APIs that must
be used to interact with the rest of the system, so that the application
doesn't have free reign over users files.
So you want to remove my
On 03.11.2013 20:25, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
Do I understand correctly that first problem could be solved by
stabilizing APIs used in various Linux projects? Because developers
don't want stabilizationt they invent
That's fine. The apps would ship directly from upstream, not from Fedora :)
- Original Message -
On 03.11.2013 20:25, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
Do I understand correctly that first problem could be solved by
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
mmarzantow...@osdf.com.pl wrote:
On 03.11.2013 20:25, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
Do I understand correctly that first problem could be solved by
stabilizing APIs used in various
On 11/04/2013 10:45 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
That's fine. The apps would ship directly from upstream, not from Fedora :)
I realize Fedora throwing overboard it basic working principles (open
source) and trying to implement the working principles which for decades
have been responsible for
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 11/04/2013 10:45 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
That's fine. The apps would ship directly from upstream, not from Fedora
:)
I realize Fedora throwing overboard it basic working principles (open
source)
Apps shipping
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:03 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Firefox for instance could use that, or libreoffice, or eclipse. If a
user needs a newer version (or nightly build) without having upstream
worry about the specific distribution.
... or users having to update their *entire*
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:03:45 +0100
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Apps shipping from upstream direcly does not have to be closed
source. Firefox for instance could use that, or libreoffice, or
eclipse. If a user needs a newer version (or nightly build) without
having upstream worry about
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:03:45 +0100
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Apps shipping from upstream direcly does not have to be closed
source. Firefox for instance could use that, or libreoffice, or
eclipse. If a user needs
- Original Message -
On 11/04/2013 10:45 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
That's fine. The apps would ship directly from upstream, not from Fedora :)
I realize Fedora throwing overboard it basic working principles (open
source)
Did I say that? No, I don't believe I did.
As an
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 11:16, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
I want upstream to control their
distribution
of software and not be reliant on distributions shipping this or that
update
ie I don't want to make the api stabilization process in my software that
would make it safely shippable by
Le Dim 3 novembre 2013 19:34, drago01 a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
since it is a free operating system it does not need to be commerical
successfull and so it needs to satisfy it's *existing* and potential
userbase
but not obsessive
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
GNOME decided to break it all the time (can't even get extensions work
from one gnome-shell version to the next one and no gracefully disabling
is still functional breakage).
So what do you suggest? We can
On 04.11.2013 11:13, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:03:45 +0100
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Apps shipping from upstream direcly does not have to be closed
source. Firefox for instance could use that, or
- Original Message -
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 11:16, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
I want upstream to control their
distribution
of software and not be reliant on distributions shipping this or that
update
ie I don't want to make the api stabilization process in my software that
You're confusing stand-alone applications and extensions to the core desktop.
An easy mistake to make.
- Original Message -
Le Dim 3 novembre 2013 19:34, drago01 a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
since it is a free operating
Unless the hammer has a cool new feature that you want to try out, or
a bug that was hampering your work has been fixed and you want to
test that the problem's solved.
You can see that analogies only get us so far...
- Original Message -
On 04.11.2013 11:13, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov
On 04.11.2013 12:18, Florian Müllner wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net mailto:nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
GNOME decided to break it all the time (can't even get extensions work
from one gnome-shell version to the next one and no
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 12:28, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
You're confusing stand-alone applications and extensions to the core
desktop.
An easy mistake to make.
And the distinction has zero merit for the end-users you want to won
And I suspect it has also zero merit for the famous third-party
On 11/04/2013 11:32 AM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
Just see how others does this. Linux Kernel is one example, Django is
another. This two projects from very different corners are able to
provide stable API/ABI for some longer time period. I really appreciate
The kernel does not provide
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 12:26, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
You can probably re-enact that famous scene from the Wickerman building
this
many strawmen.
Thank you for demonstrating the complete lack of respect you have for
anyone that disagrees with you.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
devel mailing
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 12:26, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
You can probably re-enact that famous scene from the Wickerman building
this
many strawmen.
Thank you for demonstrating the complete lack of respect you
- Original Message -
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
mmarzantow...@osdf.com.pl wrote:
On 01.11.2013 15:24, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
Hi everyone,
Attached is the draft PRD for the Workstation working group. The
proposal tries to be relatively
Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 12:21 +0100, Mateusz Marzantowicz a écrit :
On 04.11.2013 11:13, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:03:45 +0100
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Apps shipping from upstream direcly
Emacs is more than 30 years old, gnome-shell is nearing 3 years since its first
stable release. When gnome-shell is this mature, I'm sure the extensions
breaking will be less of a problem :)
- Original Message -
On 11/04/2013 12:32 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
On 04.11.2013 12:18,
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:21:23 +0100
Mateusz Marzantowicz mmarzantow...@osdf.com.pl wrote:
The average user don't use nightly builds and should not be
interested in such experimental software.
They do if they believe version N+, will fix\give
feature X that is nice to have.
and give feedback to
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 12:26, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
You can probably re-enact that famous scene from the Wickerman building
this
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:37 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
GNOME decided to break it all the time (can't even get extensions work
from one gnome-shell version to the next one and no gracefully disabling
is still functional breakage).
So, you take the one API that is explicitly declared
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:36:42AM +, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
The kernel does not provide stable APIs. If you've ever tried to
maintain a non-trivial module or patch to the kernel out-of-tree for any
length of time you'll understand how much work is involved in just
keeping it working. Gnome
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Lars Seipel lars.sei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:36:42AM +, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
The kernel does not provide stable APIs. If you've ever tried to
maintain a non-trivial module or patch to the kernel out-of-tree for any
length of time
Hi,
I think this is a pretty good starting point for our development direction, and
sets the stage for us making positive progress in the new working group model.
I do think we should keep it open to tweaks in the future as things
play out, (at
the discretion of the 9 members on the working
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Florian Müllner wrote:
GNOME decided to break it all the time (can't even get extensions work
from one gnome-shell version to the next one and no gracefully disabling
is still functional breakage).
So what do you suggest? We can either
(1) restrict
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Florian Müllner wrote:
GNOME decided to break it all the time (can't even get extensions work
from one gnome-shell version to the next one and no gracefully disabling
is
On 01/11/13 10:24, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
Hi everyone,
Attached is the draft PRD for the Workstation working group. The
proposal tries to be relatively high level and focus on goals and
principles, but I have included some concrete examples at times to try
to provide some
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:02:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
I think there's probably a third way. It used to be that Firefox extensions
broke with every update, but now that really rarely happens. That's partly
because the base program has kind of stablized, but also because there's a
nice
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:02:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
I think there's probably a third way. It used to be that Firefox extensions
broke with every update, but now that really rarely happens. That's partly
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:30:06PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Instead, make it easy for extension authors to keep
their extensions up to date with the changes.
Sure but given that extensions can modify pretty much anything that
would imply documenting every code change.
Well, in an ideal
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I found this
http://blog.fpmurphy.com/2011/11/updating-gnome-shell-extensions-to-work-with-gnome-3-2.html
for Gnome 3.2, but unfortunately nothing like it for newer releases.
Because we didn't change that API since
Chris Murphy wrote:
Right, because that's a model for success that shouldn't be either
emulated or improved upon, it's better for each little fiefdom's paradise
to erect walls to ensure cross influence isn't happening.
Your insulting the Free Software community as a fiefdom really offends me.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:14:05PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
I found this
http://blog.fpmurphy.com/2011/11/updating-gnome-shell-extensions-to-work-with-gnome-3-2.html
for Gnome 3.2, but unfortunately nothing like it for newer releases.
Because we didn't change that API since then. Those changes
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You assume that sandboxed apps means we get all the negatives and none of
the benefits. That is unwarranted. We can adopt the good parts and
improve upon it based on the lessons learned from adoption of app stores
across multiple operating systems and mobile devices
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The reason we are so strongly opposed to app stores is that we are fairly
convinced that the mere fact of having them available WILL:
* reduce the number of applications actually available in our repositories
(because some
Florian Müllner wrote:
... or users having to update their *entire* system to
unstable/experimental versions if they want to try the lastest
Firefox/Libreoffice/Eclipse
Then either upstream or the Fedora packager should just build the unstable
version against the stable Fedora in a PPA. See
Bastien Nocera wrote:
As an application developer, I'd sure be happy if I didn't have to wait
6 months for my app to show up in the distribution I use, and for that
application to be usable on all compatible distributions.
That's a problem with the distribution's update policies, not with the
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 10:58 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Florian Müllner wrote:
GNOME decided to break it all the time (can't even get extensions work
from one gnome-shell version to the next one and no gracefully disabling
is still functional
When my application runs on all Fedora distributions without changes? No.
I wasn't talking about core apps that are tightly integrated to the desktop,
just of the time it took for somebody to package up office-runner from
my 1.0 release to it being in the distribution.
- Original Message
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Florian Müllner wrote:
... or users having to update their *entire* system to
unstable/experimental versions if they want to try the lastest
Firefox/Libreoffice/Eclipse
Then either upstream or the Fedora packager
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 19:00 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bastien Nocera wrote:
As an application developer, I'd sure be happy if I didn't have to wait
6 months for my app to show up in the distribution I use, and for that
application to be usable on all compatible distributions.
That's a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 12:39 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You assume that sandboxed apps means we get all the negatives and
none of the benefits. That is unwarranted. We can adopt the
good parts and improve upon it based on the lessons
On 04.11.2013 19:25, Florian Müllner wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Florian Müllner wrote:
... or users having to update their *entire* system to
unstable/experimental versions if they want to try the lastest
Firefox/Libreoffice/Eclipse
Hi
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
This sounds like a good use case for virtualization. You test your
unstable apps in your test environment with other unstable software and
don't need to destroy your workstation. If I were using Kate (to follow
your example) for my
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 12:56 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The reason we are so strongly opposed to app stores is that we are fairly
convinced that the mere fact of having them available WILL:
* reduce the number of applications
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 13:32:45 -0500,
Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Inclusion in the respository may be a goal for packages that are
already FOSS, but no one decides on a FOSS license just to be part of
Fedora.
I believe there have been some licenses changed to remove
Am 04.11.2013 19:25, schrieb Florian Müllner:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Florian Müllner wrote:
... or users having to update their *entire* system to
unstable/experimental versions if they want to try the lastest
Firefox/Libreoffice/Eclipse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 01:54 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 12:56 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The reason we are so strongly opposed to app stores is that we
are fairly convinced
Am 04.11.2013 19:32, schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
e, we probably would end up reducing the number of applications
available in the standard yum repos. I'm not as convinced as you are
that this is a bad thing. Right now, there's really no distinction
between what constitutes the operating system
Hi
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Then either upstream or the Fedora packager should just build the unstable
version against the stable Fedora in a PPA. See e.g. kde-unstable for KDE
betas. We just need to get that COPR stuff (the Fedora PPAs) done so that
setting up
Am 04.11.2013 19:33, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
It is outrageous that it's 2013 and I still have to upgrade my whole
system just to get the latest LibreOffice version to name an example.
no it is the reason why who have tousands of packages which are working
togehter and get security updates for
On 11/03/2013 03:43 PM, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 14:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
That really didn't have anything to do with the merits of Objective C, or
even of the desktop, but only with marketing. If Objective C were that
great, we'd all be using
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 04.11.2013 19:33, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
It is outrageous that it's 2013 and I still have to upgrade my whole
system just to get the latest LibreOffice version to name an example.
no it is the reason why who have
101 - 200 of 288 matches
Mail list logo
