Re: The State of GNOME
- From: Daniel Burrows <Daniel_Burrows brown edu>
- To: SEGV <mlepage cgocable net>
- Cc: gnome-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: The State of GNOME
- Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:00:57 -0500
On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 11:53:27PM -0500, SEGV was heard to say:
> Richard Hult wrote:
> > On 26 Feb, SEGV wrote:
> > > Preben Randhol wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Albert Strasheim <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > >>
> > >> | I don't know how much of this instability is to be blamed on Gtk+/GLib
> > >> | [which has really turned into a mess with the 1.0/1.1 issues], but it's
> > >> | still most horrible.
> > >>
> > >> Well now 1.2 is here...
> > >
> > > That in itself implies months of testing and debugging with the new libraries.
> > > In the real world, you don't just drop new foundation libraries into place,
> > > compile, and ship.
> > Well, gtk+ 1.2 = gtk+ 1.1.x + months of testing and debugging.
> You miss the point. GTK+ 1.2 itself may be tested and debugged, but GNOME using
> GTK+ 1.2 has not.
Um. As far as I know, the main difference in behavior between GTK+ 1.2 and
the last in the 1.1.x series is that a constant was changed from
"1.1.19" (or whatever) to "1.2.0". Gnome has been written for GTK+1.2. This
isn't a new foundation library that's being dropped in, it _is_ Gnome's
Using a metaphor in front of Ridcully was like a red rag to a--was like
using something very annoying in the presence of someone who was very annoyed
-- Terry Pratchett, _Lords and Ladies_
] [Thread Prev