On Oct 1, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Kok, Auke-jan H wrote:
>
> I've been asking the same questions as everyone else. If I get answers
> back that I can share, I most certainly will. For now, I'd like to ask
> everyone to submit questions to Dawn Foster, and keep asking. Answers
> will come - be patien
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 21:29 +, Jarmo Kuronen wrote:
> > I feel as if you over-estimate Intel's software development efforts for
> > MeeGo.
>
> Lets be realistic, what there is left, really, after N+I has left the
> building?
Freedom.
___
MeeGo-dev
On 10/01/2011 10:29 PM, Jarmo Kuronen wrote:
I feel as if you over-estimate Intel's software development efforts for
MeeGo.
Lets be realistic, what there is left, really, after N+I has left the building?
- Jarmo
___
How about the MeeGo community?
___
> I feel as if you over-estimate Intel's software development efforts for
> MeeGo.
Lets be realistic, what there is left, really, after N+I has left the building?
- Jarmo
___
MeeGo-dev mailing list
MeeGo-dev@meego.com
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/me
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Michael Hasselmann
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 10:13 -0500, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
>>> With Intel removing the lion's share of those developer resources...
>>> it would be foolish to continue
On 10/01/2011 11:19 AM, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Michael Hasselmann
wrote:
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 10:13 -0500, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
With Intel removing the lion's share of those developer resources...
it would be foolish to continue that failed approa
as a vehicle for Qt-based
products?
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Dayo wrote:
>>>
>>> Fine... pick IVI. Pick *something*.
>>>
>>> MeeGo's complexity ({Netbook,Handset,IVI,Tablet} x {i586,armv7} x
>>> {MeeGoCompliance,PlatformCompliance,Devic
eeGo as a vehicle for Qt-based
products?
I consider that a kind of reference UI experience and "demo" is fundamental for
Meego. Probably a good starting point could be the incorporation of KDE +
Wayland in this area.
Also, it could be interesting to talk to guys at projects like Openm
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Michael Hasselmann
wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 10:13 -0500, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
>> With Intel removing the lion's share of those developer resources...
>> it would be foolish to continue that failed approach. It sets
>> everyone up for failure.
>
> I fe
On 10/01/2011 04:13 PM, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Dayo wrote:
Fine... pick IVI. Pick *something*.
MeeGo's complexity ({Netbook,Handset,IVI,Tablet} x {i586,armv7} x
{MeeGoCompliance,PlatformCompliance,DeviceCompliance}) was apparently too
much to bear even wit
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 10:13 -0500, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
> With Intel removing the lion's share of those developer resources...
> it would be foolish to continue that failed approach. It sets
> everyone up for failure.
I feel as if you over-estimate Intel's software development efforts for
I consider that a kind of reference UI experience and "demo" is
fundamental for Meego. Probably a good starting point could be the
incorporation of KDE + Wayland in this area.
Also, it could be interesting to talk to guys at projects like Openmoko,
GPE, etc to join efforts and to avoid fragm
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Dayo wrote:
>>>
>>> Fine... pick IVI. Pick *something*.
>>>
>>> MeeGo's complexity ({Netbook,Handset,IVI,Tablet} x {i586,armv7} x
>>> {MeeGoCompliance,PlatformCompliance,DeviceCompliance}) was apparently too
>>> much to bear even with corporate sponsorship. If you
On 10/01/2011 12:53 PM, Sivan Greenberg wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
On 09/29/2011 10:20 AM, Nasa wrote:
1) Concentrate on the handset and *ONLY* on it from now onward. "Do
one thing and do it best (tm)".
Why would you exclude 4/5 of the people involve
On Oct 1, 2011, at 2:28 PM, ext Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
> On 09/29/2011 10:20 AM, Nasa wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 1) Concentrate on the handset and *ONLY* on it from now onward. "Do
>>> one thing and do it best (tm)".
>>>
>>
>> Why would you exclude 4/5 of the people involved in the meego project?
>
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
> On 09/29/2011 10:20 AM, Nasa wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 1) Concentrate on the handset and *ONLY* on it from now onward. "Do
>>> one thing and do it best (tm)".
>>>
>>
>> Why would you exclude 4/5 of the people involved in the meego project?
>> Ha
On 10/01/2011 06:58 AM, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
On 09/29/2011 10:20 AM, Nasa wrote:
1) Concentrate on the handset and *ONLY* on it from now onward. "Do
one thing and do it best (tm)".
Why would you exclude 4/5 of the people involved in the meego project?
Handsets weren't even the large
On 09/29/2011 10:20 AM, Nasa wrote:
1) Concentrate on the handset and *ONLY* on it from now onward. "Do
one thing and do it best (tm)".
Why would you exclude 4/5 of the people involved in the meego project?
Handsets weren't even the largest part of the project...
Fine... pick IVI. Pick *
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Robin Burchell
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Nasa wrote:
>>> So I'll shed some light on how I see this and how we should proceed:
>>>
>>> 1) Concentrate on the handset and *ONLY* on it from now onward. "Do
>>> one thing and do it best (tm)".
>>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 16:37, Robin Burchell wrote:
>
> Personal area of interest, perhaps. Anyway, we don't need to exclude
> anyone here - anyone can come and play ball. In my view of the ideal
> MeeGo universe, UX is entirely seperate projects from MeeGo itself -
> MeeGo Core is just the basic
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Nasa wrote:
>> So I'll shed some light on how I see this and how we should proceed:
>>
>> 1) Concentrate on the handset and *ONLY* on it from now onward. "Do
>> one thing and do it best (tm)".
>>
>
> Why would you exclude 4/5 of the people involved in the meeg
- Original Message -
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Robin Burchell
> wrote:
> > Obviously, we'd probably need to rethink some things like project
> > governance, infrastructure, etc - but provided these can be solved,
> > what do you all think? Can it be business as usual?
> >
> I be
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Robin Burchell
wrote:
> Obviously, we'd probably need to rethink some things like project
> governance, infrastructure, etc - but provided these can be solved,
> what do you all think? Can it be business as usual?
>
I believe so. In fact I think this could actually
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 15:03, Robin Burchell wrote:
> So Intel has upped and gone Tizen. What I wonder is: does this have to
> actually spell the end of MeeGo?
No, but as you address - infrastructure is one of the biggest things.
How long until LF/Intel turn off *.meego.com?
> Obviously, we'd p
24 matches
Mail list logo
