[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: glib in kdesupport: yes or no?
From:       Havoc Pennington <hp () redhat ! com>
Date:       2003-03-11 23:24:15
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:48:52PM -0800, Adam Treat wrote:
> 
> Two rules I've discerned:
> 
> 1.  If it helps to promote GNOME or seems to make GNOME look good then \
> some go to great lengths to include it.
> 
> 2.  If it somehow makes GNOME look bad or is not particularly convienent \
> to the discussion at hand then it's not really GNOME until the next time \
> it comes up and then back to rule 1. 
> ie, OpenOffice isn't really a part of GNOME so you can't fault RedHat for \
> choosing this non-'GNOME' app over KOffice in KDE/BlueCurve. (see rule 2) \
> ...  http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/ (see rule 1)
> 

Your point about inconsistency only makes sense if you think that the
same entity is doing both the Red Hat default application selection,
and http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/

However, http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/ comes from Christian
Schaller, and the Red Hat default apps come from the Red Hat product
team.

Not that it even *matters* - clearly the only thing we *should* care
about is whether the apps are the best ones, not which group they
originate from.

You may also be mixing two definitions of "GNOME app" or "KDE app" -
one might be "GNOME or KDE claims credit or blessing for the app" and
one might be "the app uses the GNOME or KDE platform." Where
OpenOffice is arguably "GNOME-affiliated" by the first definition but
clearly is not a GNOME app by the second.

And the second definition is definitely the one that's relevant if
we're really talking about technical merits of the apps rather than
politics.

Havoc


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]