sardaukar siet wrote: > Is there a 3.x coming anytime soon? Changing the major version of a product usually implies a break in backwards compatibility. Perhaps a change from 2.x to 3.x for Gnome would go along with a change from gtk-2.x to gtk-3.x. That said, I'm not looking forward to 3.x, as I'm quite happy with the way our custom-built gtk2 software works. > Where are the revolutionary ideas on the desktop? Compiz? Enlightenment? I think these projects are pushing the revolutionary stuff on the desktop. I don't see gnome so much as a desktop 'product' as a collection of desktop software - probably because I don't use Gnome / Metacity directly ... I use Enlightenment, with gnome software. For me, the software means things like nautilus, totem, gimp, evince. I'm quite happy with the way these work, and I can't really see any revolutionary changes ahead for these products. > Is maintaining such a large C-codebase becoming a nightmare to manage? ? > If so, why not dump C? I write all my apps in Perl ( gtk2-perl ), but when I get around to putting some finishing touches on my Perl projects, I'll be heading *towards* C, not away from it. C seems to be the choice of language for Linux developers. Maybe for simple desktop stuff like photo management etc it doesn't exactly make sense to write the *GUI* in C, but it certainly makes sense to write the *libraries* in C, and once you've got developers writing libraries in C, then they're free to write apps in C too. People are free to write competing software in other languages. > Why not start a GNOME-3 project and start adding experimental code and > features to it? What's with the pre-occupation with the number 3? :) There is enough experimental code slipping into so-called stable releases. For example, I'm having to rebuild quite a bit of software on a number of desktop machines ( ie downgrade to gtk-2.8.x ) at the moment because of some interesting bugs in gtk-2.10.x's treeview stuff. What sort of experimental stuff are you looking for anyway? > Please consider embracing C# I don't think so. The minute people start rewriting bits of gnome in C# is the minute I jump ship. I think people are more than aware of the legal minefield Gnome would be wading into by embracing a Microsoft technology such as C#. At the *very* least, assuming they don't use their trademark dirty tactics to crush the competition, we would be playing an eternal game of catch-up. That's required for a project like OpenOffice, where MS Office compatibility is an absolute requirement to get people to use their product. But this requirement - C# compatibility - is NOT a requirement for gnome or for desktop linux. Why do we have to lend credibility and developers to their environment anyway? What's wrong with C for libraries and scripting languages such as Perl and Python for lazy people? Sure there are good reasons for not using C for everything. But there's a BIG difference between advising people against using C, and advising people to use C#. For example, Hell will freeze over before I use C#. -- Daniel Kasak IT Developer NUS Consulting Group Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060 T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989 email: dkasak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au _______________________________________________ gnome-list mailing list gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
