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.com
