On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 20:37 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> I would not count Gnome3 as usable on such device anyway - it is too
> resource hungry even on a typical x86 tablet.
Do you have any evidence of that? My tablet doesn't have a fast graphics
card (integrated Intel on Atom CPU), but certainly not
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 15:06 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> This is especially true given that there is NO tablet that can run a
> completely free operating system.
Whoever dreams of free software tablets (whenever I see some GNOME
community members talking about "Mobile" as a target, or even an
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> This is especially true given that there is NO tablet that can run a
> completely free operating system. Only desktop and laptop machines
> can do that. Thus, those of us who want to live in freedom need to
> avoid tablets.
The upcomin
> This is especially true given that there is NO tablet that can run a
> completely free operating system. Only desktop and laptop machines
This is not quite true. The options are very limited and in some cases
you cannot use all the hardware (often the 3D acceleration) but there are
a few such d
We started GNOME so that GNU/Linux would have a 100% free
> software desktop environment, which is why the G in GNOME stands for
> GNU.
Except that it doesn't. GNOME is not an acronym any more.
The G stands for GNU anyway.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Founda
> GNU/Linux is mostly used on PCs, but we want it to be used on tablets
> and phones too. Thus, making GNOME work well on those machines is
> useful. However, until the day people prefer to do programming on a
> tablet, the desktop will remain important.
Is the GNU system for
> Your TV allows that:
> http://prolost.com/blog/2011/3/28/your-new-tv-ruins-movies.html
>
> I don't think we want to compare GNOME to TVs with awful UIs.
There is nothing awful about the TV UI. Look at the facts. The problem
with TV settings is the same as the benchmarketing game in computing -
On 28 November 2012 09:53, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>> And why can't it be shipped by default? Whats wrong with that?
>
> that is not entirely our decision, considering that GNOME is currently
> shipped by distributions downstream of us. the most that GNOME as
> project can do is saying the the twea
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:33:56PM +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> as opposed to the days of GNOME 2.x, the tweak UI tool is actually
> maintained, hosted on git.gnome.org, released along with the rest of
> GNOME, and designed by the GNOME design team. but, obviously, having
> three maintained UIs
On 28 Nov 2012, at 16:11, Alan Cox wrote:
> If you look at say a modern digital TV - which is a product that
> notoriously has to deal with everyone from the totally tech clueless to
> the video nuts who want to hand adjust everything then it is all in the
> settings.
>
> Most of it you don't no
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:26:22AM -0500, Emily Gonyer wrote:
> Exactly. This is what most browsers do now as well - they have a
> 'preferences' with very basic, standard things (much as we have in
> settings currently). Then theres a little button for "advanced" - and
> then you get all sorts of s
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > Lets be intellectually honest - a command line client editor is *NOT*
>> > user-friendly.
>>
>> I don't agree at all with this assessment: it depends entirely on the
>> audience it is targeting.
>
> If the goal is freedom then presumably the g
> > Lets be intellectually honest - a command line client editor is *NOT*
> > user-friendly.
>
> I don't agree at all with this assessment: it depends entirely on the
> audience it is targeting.
If the goal is freedom then presumably the goal is freedom for all not
freedom for the special elite w
hi;
On 28 November 2012 14:42, Emily Gonyer wrote:
>> with the first one being the one shipped by default.
>
> Lets be intellectually honest - a command line client editor is *NOT*
> user-friendly.
I don't agree at all with this assessment: it depends entirely on the
audience it is targeting.
>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi Dave;
>
> On 28 November 2012 13:57, Dave Neary wrote:
And if GNOME continues to bury all the configuration in secret corners
without a UI, and even the basic stuff only by an add on (tweak tool)
you'll continue to fail t
hi Dave;
On 28 November 2012 13:57, Dave Neary wrote:
>>> And if GNOME continues to bury all the configuration in secret corners
>>> without a UI, and even the basic stuff only by an add on (tweak tool)
>>> you'll continue to fail to empower users to modify their computing
>>> environment.
>>
>>
Hi,
On 11/28/2012 02:33 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 28 November 2012 11:02, Alan Cox wrote:
And if GNOME continues to bury all the configuration in secret corners
without a UI, and even the basic stuff only by an add on (tweak tool)
you'll continue to fail to empower users to modify their co
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:33:26 +
Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi;
>
> On 28 November 2012 11:02, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> What I took from that is that the freedom to modify your computing
> >> environment is only meaningful in the first degree to programmers.
> >
> > And if GNOME continues to bury a
hi;
On 28 November 2012 11:02, Alan Cox wrote:
>> What I took from that is that the freedom to modify your computing
>> environment is only meaningful in the first degree to programmers.
>
> And if GNOME continues to bury all the configuration in secret corners
> without a UI, and even the basic
> digress). The goal we should be aiming for is freedom for all computer
> users, and like it or not, the majority of computer uses in the next 5
> years will be on phones and tablets.
>
> To pretend otherwise and focus on PC-style devices is trying to gain
> traction in a shrinking market, which
> What I took from that is that the freedom to modify your computing
> environment is only meaningful in the first degree to programmers.
And if GNOME continues to bury all the configuration in secret corners
without a UI, and even the basic stuff only by an add on (tweak tool)
you'll continue t
2012/11/28 Bastien Nocera
> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:22 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > I'm really not worried about programmers desktops - GNU/Linux is so
> > widespread in the technical fields that this is a battle we are
> > already doing well in (not as well as I'd like, I'm still massively
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:22 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:06 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>
> >> Is the GNU system for programmers only ? I doubt that is what you
> >> mean.
> >
> > I'm sure it isn't.
>
> I know
- Mensaje original -
> De: Jeremy Bicha
> Para:
> CC: foundation-list@gnome.org
> Enviado: Miércoles 28 de noviembre de 2012 3:28
> Asunto: Re: GNOME now
>
> On 27 November 2012 19:51, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> When what you're really talking about is GNU, please don't call it
>>
Hi,
On 11/28/2012 02:06 AM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
GNU/Linux is mostly used on PCs, but we want it to be used on tablets
and phones too. Thus, making GNOME work well on those machines is
useful. However, until the day people prefer to d
2012/11/28 Jeremy Allison
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:06 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>
> >> Is the GNU system for programmers only ? I doubt that is what you
> >> mean.
> >
> > I'm sure it isn't.
>
> I know :-), I'm just pointing out tha
26 matches
Mail list logo
