Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

[Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>]

On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 08:15 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote:
> Philip Van Hoof wrote:

Doing some more [CUT]ing.
 
> > In other words:
> > 
> > UI and client developers should learn to build state machines instead of
> > threads that work like (where [...] is ~ an IP frame):
> > 
> > "[ask], wait, [receive], process, [ask], wait, [receive], process"
> > 
> > Instead of that, do this:
> > 
> > "[ask ask ask] [receive receive], process, process, [receive], process"
> 
> Thank you very much for explaining HTTP/1.1 pipelining to the former 
> editor of the HTTP/1.1 standard... ;-)

Okay, 'oeps' ;-)

I was of course referring more to pipelining in general. Not just
pipelining for HTTP/1.1

[CUT - I hope you don't mind -]

> No, this is not the incentive driving toward obfuscation of code: the 
> apps get cached just like other web content; what you say about latency 
> is true in the general case, but not the case I'm pointing out.
> 
> I'm making the point that HTML 5 enables longer term and off line use of 
> cached apps, in a standardized way (a great improvement over google 
> gears or adobe air).
> 
> The issue encouraging obfuscation is *first time* use of applications, 
> or updates to applications.  Web applications can and often are updated 
> much more often than conventional apps have been; it is a fundamental 
> advantage they have due to the improved distribution channel.

So... what you are suggesting (when it comes to local desktop apps) is
that GNOME should improve, fundamentally, its distribution channel?

For example by implementing far more functions of the software as
Javascript plugins? (a possible example script language)

I think conventional apps can be updated as often as web apps are, but
it will require a fundamental different mindset about how to distribute
software.

I'm pro this. But it requires a fundamental change in how programmers
think about distributing their software. It wont be the only fundamental
change they need to make to stay relevant. So yes.

> My point, fundamentally, is that we must ensure that free software 
> alternatives never work *worse* than proprietary.  This should be be a 
> minimum standard we strive always to achieve.


Obviously, yes.


Thanks for your reply, Jim. Always nice to chat a bit with the pros.



Cheers, 

Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be