Re: GTK+ 2.10.7 released
- From: Richard Boaz <riboaz xs4all nl>
- To: Gian Mario Tagliaretti <g tagliaretti gmail com>
- Cc: gtk-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GTK+ 2.10.7 released
- Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:36:43 +0100
i think what Sergei has been saying, while becoming a bit convoluted
after a few iterations, is obvious, and you said it yourself: be
accurate when placing information on a FAQ: could it be made more
accurate? if yes, then make it so. why all the arguing about a yes
or no question?
but what i think is really going on, as these flare-ups seem to be
occuring with a little more frequency these days, is the same old
problem that has dogged gtk+ (and this list) for as long as i've been
whenever someone makes a suggestion as to how gtk+ could somehow be
made better, the gtk+ developers always tend to come off with an
attitude that it can't actually be made better and that the person's
commentary is way misguided (and will spend endless emails wearing
the person down until they just go away).
and this is crap, something can always be made better, it's a mere
question of how much you care to make it so; but, typically, those
responsible for gtk+'s development and distribution always seem to
take exception to this.
as a developer of scientific software, i am required to make my app
available on three platforms: LINUX, MAC OS X, and Solaris, soon to
be adding windows, running on every continent in the world including
antarctica (meaning: few resources/connections). some two years ago
i asked about compiling static exe's to solve the obvious
distribution problem here, and the answer i got was that this was not
a good idea. in fact, after having put some effort into it, i've
concluded it's not possible (seems that the gtk+ powers-that-be have
decided that since it's not a good idea, it shouldn't be made
possible, or am i wrong here?). and not only do i have to provide on
three different platforms, i have no guarantee that the end-user
knows anything about something called gtk+ and all the nightmare
requirements involved in installing it.
and why should they?
as i stated then, and i'll say again, gtk+ is a fabulous piece of
software, it's a crying shame no on there cares enough to make it
easily distributable and installable from source so that my terribly
useful software built on top of it might actually get executed by
someone who could not care less about gtk+.
so sergei comes along, sees this gap, and tries to fill it with his
own little piece of development. my kudos to him. and ever since,
it's been a bashing game (because he points out too often that he has
a solution for the gap, making the gap too visible? interesting that
no one at gtk+ has considered including his software for actual gtk+
in all seriousness, how many of the gtk+ developers actually have to
use gtk+ in the real world? making apps to be distributed to unknown
users all over the world on multiple platforms? problems, in
general, do not get fixed when they are not seen or suffered, in my
experience. how many gtk+ developers have to suffer installing gtk+
for the first time, over and over? few, i would imagine.
it's a question of attitude, and in my experience, anytime anyone
comes along and points out how gtk+ could somehow be made better, or
whatever, they quickly regret it; i admire sergei's stamina.
the real world beckons, oh ivory tower; shall thee truly not heed the
On Jan 6, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Gian Mario Tagliaretti wrote:
2007/1/6, Sergei Steshenko <sergstesh yahoo com>:
So, should everyone distrust the claim that there are no memory
leaks in 2.8.20 ?
You don't want to understand the meaning on the sentence in the FAQ,
where is the point in going on with this rant? Behdad and David have
already explained the situation, are you trolling?
What EXACTLY are you trying to achieve?
Will you feel much better if someone will change the sentence in
Last but not least, please LEARN HOW TO QUOTE.
Gian Mario Tagliaretti
gtk-list mailing list
gtk-list gnome org
] [Thread Prev