If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
GNOME's GTK+ 3.10 Irons Out HiDPI, Wayland Support
Are you saying that be multiplatform doesn't hurt Linux?
Yes? It's absolute necessarity for the success of Linux. There's no high profile Linux apps that aren't cross-platform and that's no suprise; it's hard to motivate people to write software for a single, relatively small, platform when you could as well write it for everyone. The possibility of using same software on both Windows and Linux eases the transition from Windows to Linux.
-and now is the time for you to provide some evidence. Show us some links that justifies any other desktop gives back at least as much as Gnome. Gnome did the work on HiDPI and CM.
You are the one who is coming out with with the grandiose claims about how GNOME is "leading" Wayland development. The burden is on you to back up your ludicrous claims you keep spewing out, though I doubt you will.
There is a difference between making apps multiplatform and having a tool kit taking it to the extreme. Qt want to make app code do "write once, deploy everywhere" That is NOT what Linux needs. Linux should never compromise on this.
I don't see what the problem is supposed to be. Are you suggesting we should pick an inferior toolkit because Qt has too good multiplatform support?
Thank you for providing a link to Rob Bradfords extensive work. As said this GNOME developer does a lot of work upstream. Sure you could as well provide links to his Gnomey blog http://www.robster.org.uk/blog/ or his extensive work on gnome git trees as cogl org clutter. Or maybe even his gnome/wayland talk at GUADEC.
Do you have more links to prove my point?
No, because as you can clearly see that most commits are from intel employees where most of them work on wayland for different reasons as gnome.
Calling anything but Qt for inferior is not very smart. Qts contributor license agreement makes Qt inferior.
I didn't say that. You seem to claim that excellent multiplatform support is a bad thing. So if Qt is the best tool for the job, should people not use it because it offers too good multiplatform support? Luckily people tend to make choises on software based on technical and not political reasons.
The end product is NOT Qt Free. It is Qt. Don't you get it?
The name of the open source Qt is not "Qt Free" it's just Qt. The proprietary version of Qt is called Qt Enterprise. Qt is under LGPLv2.1+ and GPLv3 license and it won't change no matter how much you try to bend the truth.
Be specific. I picked up the name of the most active commiter ar first page of your link. He is a Gnome developer doing his work on gnome trees as well as weston. Oh maybe you want to point to Intels Tizen3 based on the Gnome stack?
I don't how Intels Tizen3 has anything to do with my post or with gnome. Anyway just looking at the first page, picking only one developer and disregarding any other contribution made by other people is not very professional.
If that is how you feel, YOU should provide a better link. It was just too bad you picked a link showing a Gnome developer dominating at the Wayland commit log. Better luck next time. Thanks for proving my point anyway.
Haha. Rob has like two third of the commits on your link.
It filtered by the Intel.com domain. First of all not all Intel developers use that domain (including the lead developer and creator of Wayland) and secondly there are a lot of non-Intel Wayland developers, most notably Collabora.
Of course he is a Gnome developer, he says so him self. I suggest you go read his blog. Even if you refuse to listen to him, then think about what you are saying. Bu your logic the only Linux developers are those paid by Linux Foundation. How far will you stretch your logic to deny Gnome is doing a lot of work at wayland/weston upstream?
Nobody is denying that gnome developers also do work on wayland, but you said yourself on the first page that gnome is leading wayland development which isn't true.
As stated earlier and also to be read from the very article you are commenting:
Gnome did the COLOR MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR WESTON
Gnome did the HiDPI WORK FOR WAYLAND and for WESTON.
That's it. Im asking for you to provide links to wayland consumers matching this kind of upstream work. Sure Rob did his work for Gnome, but I didn't bring that up. And even if you can't find some one matching this work, find some one who can match Matthias Clasen's overall knowledge about Wayland, someone who read and understood wayland to the same level. Someone good enough to fix the documentation more than once.
Provide your documentation or keep quite.
You seem to be missing the point, sure those examples are from people involved in GNOME, but your assertion that GNOME is "leading the way with Wayland" would imply that as a whole, the GNOME project are heavily involved with a sizable proportion of GNOME developers spending significant amount of time and resources working directly upstream on Wayland. If that was happening, your assertion would be valid but instead all you can show is that some of the GNOME developers also occasionally contribute directly with Wayland or work on their documentation. If someone who worked at McDonalds submitted patches to a project in their own spare time and outside of work, does that mean McDonalds itself is involved in the project, or "leading the way" on the project just because the person works for them? Of course not.
I don't personally feel DE project's like GNOME, KDE etc. as a whole should be heavily involved in the direct development of the Wayland protocol anyway, since Wayland is supposed to be a neutral protocol and it would be wrong for it to be heavily influenced by the needs of just one DE, like Mir. As you have pointed out, GNOME etc. are "consumers" and the onus is on them to make their "products" work with Wayland, not the other way round.
Finally, why should I provide any documentation? Again, you are the one making ridiculous assertions so the onus is on you to support your arguments but yet again your a failing to do that, Instead you are moving the goalposts, a sign that you have lost the argument.