On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:42 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
> So, what does this really mean? I am not sure. It could be simply calm
> before the storm (in a positive sense), or it could suggest that both
> projects have lost corporate support and consequently vigor inherent to
> well-supported initiatives. Yet, reading the comments does bring up some
> interesting issues, many of which may very well redefine the future of Linux
> as we know it.
there is nothing inherently broken about gtk/gnome, and i myself
perceive it to have grown into an useable and matured stage, except for
performance issues.
at such a point, steady ongoing development can be harmful, in that it
rips open established and working structures. in other words: never
change a running system.
any project inevitable reaches a point where its defined goals are
reached and only a little amount of work remains to be done.
i would call this a settlement, not a stagnation. the usual reaction to
posts like these are: if you want something changed, pick it up, change
it, but quit bitching about it.
please don't forget that this is not a race. we are not dependent on
commercial support. we are a do-ocracy. at least that's how i see it.
-- Leonard Ritter -- Freelance Art & Logic -- http://www.leonard-ritter.comReceived on Mon Feb 19 20:15:04 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 19 2007 - 20:15:04 EET