Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

Hello, > That subset is not enough: programs such as Tomboy depend on the other > libraries which are not in the ECMA subset and not covered. Also, > that community promise, even where it does apply, is not adequate. > If there was only some technique; Some sort of steps; Some sort of process

Re: What the board should or shouldn't say.

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >Why didn't you just say that at the beginning of this thread? (The > message, >not the fact that the board should say it. I don't think people should > wait >for the board to say/do everything.) That's nicely worded and it would

What the board should or shouldn't say.

Why didn't you just say that at the beginning of this thread? (The message, not the fact that the board should say it. I don't think people should wait for the board to say/do everything.) That's nicely worded and it would have been much more appropriate than many of your other post

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

C# the language, and the core .NET libraries are under a far-from-ideal "Community Promise" patent license. Sadly, this patent grant for the ideas embodied in those standards are made available by Microsoft to full implementations of C# and those core class libraries. But they

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

> Regarding Facebook's connections with the CIA, see > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook. > > The Guardian is a major UK newspaper. Maybe I am not too bright, but I failed to see the "close ties" that you quoted in your original message on February 26th. It has a lot of i

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >Maemo/Moblin/MeeGo use GNOME and we are proud of that. Of course, we > always >encourage organizations and projects to use more free software but we > should >not ostracise them because they don't use 100% free software. > > It

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

If GNOME is planning to operate servers, GNOME needs to consider when it is good or bad to encourage people to use servers. In the US, if you receive a subpoena to hand over data, you have the opportunity to plead in court to quash or reduce the subpoena. Success is not guaranteed; the court may i

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

I explained in Gran Canaria that supporting C# is useful but depending on it is risky. Thus, developing programs such as Mono and DotGNU is fine, but we should not write applications in C#. For explanation of these points, see http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono. This is why GNOME should

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

Maemo/Moblin/MeeGo use GNOME and we are proud of that. Of course, we always encourage organizations and projects to use more free software but we should not ostracise them because they don't use 100% free software. It is not a matter of ostracizing anyone. We are glad that they use GN

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

I wrote: > Let's not be in a rush to invite users to use servers -- even our own > -- instead of their own computers. That is the wrong direction to go. I chose those words carefully. They do not say we should eliminate all servers; I don't think that. For some purposes, servers are th

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

Regarding Facebook's connections with the CIA, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook. The Guardian is a major UK newspaper. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/fou

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

I'm quietly here reading this thread, because I'm not a Gnome contributor (at least with code) or foundation member, just an user, but after the latest posts I really think that now the thread missed completly its point and really became just something against RMS. My two cents. ___

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On 3/5/10 10:18 AM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote: > > I could help Richard and we could work together, but he has decided > that I am a traitor of the movement. Thanks for posting this, Miguel. It would seem to confirm that I'm not incorrect in finding this baffling. As someone who's reportedly been

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

> > > Synchronizing and sharing the notes are not SaaS, though editing might > > be SaaS. So at least some of this service is basically ok, provided > > Gnote can also use it (because Tomboy's dependence on C# is a problem). > > Again, I must certainly be missing something here, but if C# represen

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

2010/3/5 Lefty (石鏡 ) > > Because I shouldn't have to. More to the point, why didn't _you_? > > I didn't think it was necessary as I thought it was rather obvious. But if you thought it was necessary, as a member of the GNOME community, you should have said it rather than taking us down this rat h

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On 3/5/10 9:55 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: >> >> Perhaps it would have been better if someone from the Board had responded to >> the initial message from Mr. Stallman with regard to Facebook, saying >> >> 1) Attempting to rework or redefine G

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > > Perhaps it would have been better if someone from the Board had responded > to > the initial message from Mr. Stallman with regard to Facebook, saying > > 1) Attempting to rework or redefine GNOME 3 plans at this point, now that > they're pr

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On 3/5/10 9:19 AM, "Jonathon Jongsma" wrote: > > With all of the recent comments about how horrible foundation-list has become, > and how people are unsubscribing because of endless and pointless > argumentation, you *still* can't get yourself to refrain from adding more and > more heat to the thr

Stormy's Update: Week of March 1st

http://blogs.gnome.org/foundation/2010/03/05/stormys-update-week-of-march-1st/ Followed up on several sponsors for GUADEC. It is looking good from a sponsorship perspective! (Don't forget to submit your talk proposal !) Michael Meeks join

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:05 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 3/5/10 8:44 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote: > > > > "If everything gets done inside or through your browser, it would make > > toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete, > > except as platforms for a browser." >

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On 3/5/10 8:44 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote: > > "If everything gets done inside or through your browser, it would make > toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete, > except as platforms for a browser." Just so we're completely clear here, I'd suggest that "If everyt

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On 3/5/10 8:18 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > > "Lefty (石鏡 )" writes: >> the answer is [] not [] :avoid anything that runs on "a server". > > No one's suggested that. "Let's not be in a rush to invite users to use servers -- even our own -- instead of their own computers. That is the _wrong

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

This is the briefest possible reply to curb some misinterpretations that are dragging this out. I can go into more detail offlist. "Lefty (石鏡 )" writes: > the answer is [] not [] :avoid anything that runs on "a server". No one's suggested that. > Surely the open-ness or closed-ness of an appl

Re: On self-moderation and making GNOME a fun project again!

As for the discussion about strategic goals for GNOME: this is indeed an important topic. We apparently need to find a better way to discuss such a complex topic than just an open discussion, though. A solution could be to have someone collect feedback from the community, and then have a group of

Re: unsubscribing

On 03/05/2010 04:33 PM, Sandy Armstrong wrote: > >> I suggest to form workgroups which get a own mailinglist and the >> workgroup can discuss the topic (whatever that would be) inside the >> group and present the outcome of the discussion on foundation list. > > I'm not trying to knock your id

On self-moderation and making GNOME a fun project again!

Hey, This is a lengthy (and a bit naive, I guess ;-))) mail, so I'll provide a short summary here for people who don't want to read everything: Please try to self-moderate when participating to a heated discussion, and don't forget that our shared goal is to make GNOME rock, so let's all fo

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On 3/4/10 10:32 PM, "Liam R E Quin" wrote: >> >> Well, given this wide coverage, which I've somehow completely missed, there >> shouldn't be much challenge to your producing an actual citation > > I was a little looser than I should have been in my wording. Oh, indeed? > For media > coverage o

Re: unsubscribing

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Felix Kaser wrote: > > > On 03/05/2010 02:57 PM, Paul Cutler wrote: >> >> I don't really want to start the conversation again that we had about >> the Code of Conduct, but if our Foundation members are no longer >> participating in the conversation for all the reaso

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

> sillies :-) Lets not forget some of the low-level sillies found in the > kernel and base-syste, recently: software resume processes that > synchronously read huge chunks of the swap partition to checksum the > disk, single big kernel locks held for all module insertions, Modules is not showing u

Re: unsubscribing

On 03/05/2010 02:57 PM, Paul Cutler wrote: > > I don't really want to start the conversation again that we had about > the Code of Conduct, but if our Foundation members are no longer > participating in the conversation for all the reasons we are currently > seeing, I think we need to find a sol

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

Hi Jim, Actually at Igalia we share your view and concerns, and this is one of the reasons why we are putting a lot of effort into bringing modern and solid web technologies to the heart of GNOME, being WebKitGTK+ one of the key components that can enable the integration that you mention. Br, Ju

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:42 +, Alan Cox wrote: > > In my opinion you solve latency more by making services capable of > > pipelining, than by compressing data. And by making clients that make > > use of the remote service's pipelining capabilities. > Thats a bit naïve. They two solve totally d

Re: unsubscribing

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:41 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > I'm unsubscribing from foundation-list. > > Bye. > > I don't think I'm the only one who's disturbed by the fact that multiple Foundation members are leaving the list. I've also seen similar comments in #gnome-hackers from other Foundation

unsubscribing

I'm unsubscribing from foundation-list. Bye. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

> In my opinion you solve latency more by making services capable of > pipelining, than by compressing data. And by making clients that make > use of the remote service's pipelining capabilities. Thats a bit naïve. They two solve totally different problems and it is dependant upon the behaviour of

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:32 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:08 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > We debaters should decrease our traffic on this mailing list > > No. Stubborn people who insist on having the last word should stop > pointless arguments. It's bad enough when p

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 07:51 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote: I'm doing a huge [CUT] here, I hope you don't mind? > People like Google work *hard* on latency and understand > every byte counts (among many other things: go look at the google talks > by their engineers on the topic). In my opinion you so

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

The point I was trying to make was that HTML 5 (or more formally some of the API's for javascript for accessing local storage), among other things, enables offline use of web applications. Think google gears use in google calendar and gmail or google air. Note gears was just formally abando

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:08 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > We debaters should decrease our traffic on this mailing list No. Stubborn people who insist on having the last word should stop pointless arguments. It's bad enough when people think they can have a conversation with one of you. It's wors

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 21:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote: Hey Jud, > Sorry for intruding again, but it was recommended to me that I could > post this message. It was a sidenote on Philip Van Hoof's message, > regarding the promotion of GtkBuilder. Although the atmosphere just recovered from being te

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

Sorry for intruding again, but it was recommended to me that I could post this message. It was a sidenote on Philip Van Hoof's message, regarding the promotion of GtkBuilder. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > >> I hope you guys really don't write the XML by hand now.) > > N

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Johannes Schmid wrote: > That said, there is a lack of tutorial for getting started in GNOME > development, for example explaining the complete workflow from zero to a > complete distributable (at least tarball) application in anjuta. I was > very disappointed that