Comments on: the new GNOME duality

By: Chascon

Chascon — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:06:47 +0000

“GNOME’s stack is not as good as others that are on the market when it comes to platform-based decisions and platform experience. In particular, Qt and Apple’s platform are both very developer friendly and make it very easy for developers to create good-looking, modern looking apps.”

Do you think that GnuStep and Étoilé finally makes sense, what with making it easy to develop and port OS X apps back and forth from OS X and non-OS X platforms? I gather some Gnustep implementation would be running fine and dandy by now if people hadn’t spent so much time and energy on Gnome and KDE, and you wouldn’t have had to deal with licensing issues as what KDE had or the staleness of what Gnome has become –a Apple classic interface imitation/variant.

By: markus

markus — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:59:47 +0000

But there is more towards GTK3.

The change to include nice and easy .css is an example. Maybe the .css files need to be “adapted”, but the basic idea is the same – use one css file for your GTK projects, your browser experience, your websites etc…

And this alone is something USERS want!

You dismiss the move to GTK3 too early.

By: Rants heard ’round the Community ver. 10 • Blog Archive • fuzion

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:21:44 +0000

[...] Christopher Blizzard on Gtk+ 3.0. [...]

By: Quim Gil: This is not a GTK+ 3.0 blog post | Christian eBuddy Blog

Quim Gil: This is not a GTK+ 3.0 blog post | Christian eBuddy Blog — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:14:25 +0000

[...] is evolving from decadentism to apocalypticism, with elements of final time, esoterism, conspiracy, dualism and reincarnation. It’s confusing… but solvable, since confusion is just a mental [...]

By: self_liar

self_liar — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:34:58 +0000

Monomononononononononononono – NO!

The big problem of Gnome is Mono.

Sad, telepathy will use Mono.

By: Shreyas

Shreyas — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:54:42 +0000

IMHO, the real question is “if we believe commodity mobile hardware is the future”. If commodity mobile hardware takes the same path as computers did in the 80s then its important to have an offering when it happens.

In that sense a gnome mobile release for some devices is a product which showcases the same set of values which Gnome on the desktop does.

I have followed the Gnome Mobile initiative since the beginning, as you mentioned it has mostly focused on the platform v/s focusing on what we have always done brilliantly, release a product regularly.

I understand that supporting different hardware and devices might be hard, but thats the real challenge going forward. How do we make gnome a mobile platform which scales hardware and screen size barriers and how do we make it easily installable on various devices?

Anyway, my two cents. Thanks for the thought provoking post.

By: Quim

Quim — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:58:33 +0000

Hum, I hope I meant a “whole”. :)

By: Quim

Quim — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:57:47 +0000

Beautiful post, thank you! I started writing an answer but at some point I realized that I had a hole blog post (above).

By: This is not a GTK+ 3.0 blog post « flors

This is not a GTK+ 3.0 blog post « flors — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:16:14 +0000

By: Lefty

Lefty — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:08:44 +0000

I want to make sure I understand how you see things dividing up in this duality. (And in passing, I think there are potential name-space issues that can cause confusion in these discussions…)

On the one hand, certainly the GNOME desktop program doesn’t represent a good usage model for typical mobile devices, even MID-style devices, most likely. So there needs to be some replacement, or replacements more likely, for the end-user general interface to the system as a whole. It seems like Hildon is a popular choice for MID devices in this space.

On the other hand, are we saying that, for example, GTK+ as it stands, is somehow “not right” in some broad and not-readily-correctable way in areas or applications specific to mobile devices? I don’t think that’s true, but I’d be very interested in hearing opinions to the contrary…

(We might want to focus more effort on adaptations for “peculiar” hardware features for the purpose of doing more advanced UI on mobile devices, as I discussed in the “Eye Candy” presentation last week; we might similarly want to continue improving DirectFB and OpenGL/ES support, but those don’t seem to really be systemic issues…)