On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
> The combination of technologies going under the name "HTML 5" have made/are
> making web technology based applications finally competitive with those
> built using conventional toolkits such as Qt, GTK+, and the Windows and Mac
> equivalents.
>
I think there is a major inflection point underway which GNOME should
internalize.
The combination of technologies going under the name "HTML 5" have
made/are making web technology based applications finally competitive
with those built using conventional toolkits such as Qt, GTK+, and the
Wi
2010/3/3 Andrew Cowie :
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:09 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
>> Like I say, I'm not
>> happy with the "vision" part of this (GNOME everywhere, and invisible)
>
> I'm not happy with the invisible part either.
>
> We *do* compete with three other desktops: Windows, Mac OS, and KDE.
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:15 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> vision for GNOME 2.x did.Back in February, I posted the
> following - it
> kind of got lost in the ensuing thread; but I think it's worth
> breaking
>
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:09 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Like I say, I'm not
> happy with the "vision" part of this (GNOME everywhere, and invisible)
I'm not happy with the invisible part either.
We *do* compete with three other desktops: Windows, Mac OS, and KDE.
Unless people know what GNOME is,
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>We probably could have had moblin be "GNOME Netbook". We probably could
>have had Maemo be "GNOME Smartphone". Or Sugar be "GNOME Education".
>
> It is fine if they promote GNOME, but remember that Maemo contains
> non-free softwa
Proposed project vision: Hidden in plain sight: Everyone using GNOME,
no-one noticing
This proposed goal might be ill-advised, because it's very good to be
noticed if one do something good. Especially for a project that needs
to attract support from people.
We probably could have had
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> vision for GNOME 2.x did.Back in February, I posted the following - it
> kind of got lost in the ensuing thread; but I think it's worth breaking
> out into a new discussion (marketing list CCed). Like I say, I'm not
> happy with the "vision" pa
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:08 -0600, Paul Cutler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 04:35 -0600, Andrew Savory wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
>
> >
> > Focussing in on one area that I can talk about: Qt is perceived by
> some to be stronger from a business perspective due to the 'more complete'
> offer
The meeting minutes for the February 18th board meeting is now public.
Refer here:
http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20100218
Other past board meetings are archived here:
http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes
-- text of the latest minutes follows --
Minu
Hi,
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 04:35 -0600, Andrew Savory wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Focussing in on one area that I can talk about: Qt is perceived by some to be
> stronger from a business perspective due to the 'more complete' offering:
> extensive documentation and an SDK.
Shaun McCance and I were tal
Hi,
Dave Neary wrote:
> vision for GNOME 2.x did.
>it doesn't offer a destination - it doesn't help anyone make
> decisions about what's important - in the way that the "simple, usable,
> beautiful" But perhaps it's the beginning of a vision that we can work on?
This was supposed to be:
...it
Hi,
vision for GNOME 2.x did.Back in February, I posted the following - it
kind of got lost in the ensuing thread; but I think it's worth breaking
out into a new discussion (marketing list CCed). Like I say, I'm not
happy with the "vision" part of this (GNOME everywhere, and invisible)
because it
Closing the thread.
--
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
14 matches
Mail list logo
