- From: Matthew <matthew advantio com>
- To: "Jorge Gomes Silva" <jgs plurimarketing pt>
- Cc: <gnome-list gnome org>
- Subject: RE: Desktop
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:12:19 -0500
>I'm really clueless but <snip>
>The problem appears to be that some of the best Gnome hackers don't
>understand that some ppl may not be interested in using Gnome Libs. Not
>because Gnome Libs is bad or good but, because these ppl don't need'em.
For being "clueless" you sure hit the nail right on the head. Anytime that I
dare to mention that people may not want to link their project to the gnome
libs I get flamed by the upper echilons of the gnome community. Be it here or
on #gnome. It's getting rather borg-ish.
>Gnome Libs include, I believe, some "components"/widgets that would make a
>lot of sense in GTK+ (GnomeCanvas and GtkHtml) and that would make GTK+ a
>much stronger toolkit. However the maintainers of these components seem to
>have some resistance in allowing them to go into GTK+ and a lot o ppl don't
>understand why (me included). Some of these ppl think that a general use
>widget like "GnomeCanvas" could become "GTKCanvas" (no deps os Gnome Libs)
>and a Gnome wrapper could be written around it. However mantainers have the
>last word and, for what I've seen these widgets won't go into GTK+
A strong Gtk makes for a strong Gnome. That can't be refuted openly.
However, a weak gtk doesn't necessarily mean a weak Gnome, because Gnome is a
widget set also. The trend is to include the newer widgets in Gnome. The
mentality is this: If you want to use the neat-o widgets in your app, then you
have to -lgnome. You don't want to link gnome? Why? Are you on crack? Are
your users on crack? (crack addiction being their favorite accusation).
That is until some enterprising developer comes along and un-gnomifies a widget
into a stock gtk widget (cschtml, gtkcanvas), which is usually met with high
praise on gtk-list and flames on gnome-list. Of course that widget has no
chance of making it into Gtk. That's the part that I don't understand. Smells
>There is also a problem that I really don't understand which seems to be
>some hostility from Helixcode (or some of their most important hackers)
>regarding Redhat (Miguel de Icaza being quoted as saying "RH Gnome sucks"
>and complaning that RH controls the gnome.org domain).
I see the hostility at times, but I don't think that the "RH Gnome sucks" was
meant to be hostile. I think that it was a shot at the default screen layout
that's shipped with RH, which could be nicer.
>Some ppl may think (and I hope they are wrong) that this antagonism from
>Helixcode (?) towards RH is because RH is shipping their own Gnome package
>and not contracting Helixcode to provide Gnome.
Could be. The situation will unfold. Personally I like Helix's distro. I use
it here on my RH6.1 box. It would be advantagous to Redhat to use it, in my
opinion. They could then reassign the guys packaging up their Gnome to
ungnomify some of the widgets. :)
>So, long live Gnome.
Yes, in whatever incarnation. And, more importantly, long live Gtk.
] [Thread Prev