Re: GNOME, .Net and Mono

On 4 Feb 2002, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > Now (slowly) with gnumeric and few other programs I can live without MS
> > products aroud in growing and comfortable way. Probalby many GNOME
> > programers was invest own time and talent for allow themeselve relize
> > effective enviroment for allow materialize this kind target with only
> > minimal compatibility area with "other enviroments" in so simple way as
> > possible. Think .. how many from as now are thinking on MS and
> > consequences existing this firm ? Realy so many ? How many from as was
> > trying to develop sometring because "MS have someting" ? realy so many ?
> > or how many from as was tring develop GNOME for have only (and simple)
> > "good tool (TM)" ? IMHO *many* .. many from as was develop many things not
> > because "MS have this" but "because this proper way" with looking on MS
> > and/or *only* for consult/test own ideas is it correct or not (?) and
> > *nothing* more.
> Well, the funny thing, most of the big GNOME apps looks, feel, and act
> just like Microsoft products.  ~,^  OK, OK, they're moving in their own
> directions now (once the functionality they needed to compete with MS
> was in place).

L&F it is not this level about I'm tring talk. Please don't mix L&F and
how it was developed on groud :)

> > places. Haskel, Lisp, C++ .. sorry not for me because this allow develop
> > some things in simplet way but not some simple and soe faster way as I can
> > imagine. I want develp harder but more effective/faster/smaller
> > executables. IMHO thinking on .NET will be good thinking like way like on
> Yes, you want to optimize.  Other people want to quickly create powerful
> apps.  With the average home machine running 1ghz+ processors and RAM of
> at least 256MB (by the time GNOME is using .Net anyways) we will have
> the cycles/memory to spare for language like Python and so on
> (especially in a VM like Mono).  Desktop apps don't need some of the
> optimizations that things like games or scientific apps will need.

All because I want DOUS not DMUO application. Please allow me unroll :)

DOUS: Develop Ones - Use Many
DMUO: Develop Many - Use Ones

Siple I want application developed ones and used many times .. not 
constantly developed as NE&NT (Never Ending & Not This) solution :)

In deleted by me fragment in your answer you are describe current
situaction with Evolution. Sorry but IMHO Evolution is still DMUO example
only because it is so .. slow :-> It sill isn't so effective and faster
than other mail GNOME applications (I I know Evolution is'nt only mail
clent .. but :). Maybe Evolution will stop for me DMUO example when it
will be faster than now for example on startup time :) (?) Main
executable is smaller than gnumeric:

$ ls -l /usr/X11R6/bin/{gnumeric,evolution}
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root       314560 lut  4 03:32 /usr/X11R6/bin/evolution
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root      1650396 lut  1 01:45 /usr/X11R6/bin/gnumeric

but on my system it seems it statrs slewer than gnumeric. Do you know
something about how to speedup startup time application like Evolution ?
What is still neccessary ? I'm look few times inside Evolutions and I'm
impressed good level modularization but still .. it is slow. Maybe it need
still some work on ground ORB* level ?

> > incorporate mico without deeper redeveloping. And what ? Nothig. Mico was
> > droped and now IMHO KDE is without good alternatives for this. Why all
> > this ? Because ORBit is *only* neccessary subset orginal functionalities
> > prepared with "*I* need this" and nothing more in mind .. not because
> > "some language vendors to Microsoft need this".
> Ok, the KDE argument is against you.  KDE dropped a technology without
> thinking it thru, so you say.  Thus, avoiding .Net without exploring its
> useful would be the wrong thing to do, right?  ^,^

Yes .. right :)
But still I want poit it will be good think on .NET not as targer but 
only as possible way.

*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm|*e-mail: kloczek rudy mif pg gda pl*

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]