[Sugar-devel] TamTamMini

[David Farning]

Did anyone else notice a difference in how this Activity and Pippy were handled?

With pippy the maintainers quickly responded with "Cool someone else
wants to add value to the project. Here are my notes. Good luck."

With TamTam the maintainer responded with "My way or the highway."


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also note that we don't necessarily need to fix the code ourselves, good
> profiling data is often acted on by lower level libraries maintainers. The
> default strategy is to pretend it's higher level code fault of course, but
> issues can't be denied or ignored when proven by numbers and test cases :P
>
>
> On Monday, 18 November 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>>
>> And we can tackle lower level stuff... It's free and open code too! :)
>>
>> On Monday, 18 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>>
>>> There are some ow level stuff, but we can solve some problems in the
>>> activities too.
>>> You can see the other thread I started about performance.
>>> Also, dsd solved some of the problems related with the dynamic bindings.
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Sebastian Silva
>>> <sebastian at fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> El 17/11/13 12:58, Gonzalo Odiard escribió:
>>>>
>>>> I hope we can solve the performance problems then you don't need use a
>>>> old Sugar version,
>>>> to avoid all these problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't think it's likely you or me will be able to fix this one.
>>>> It's lower level than Python
>>>> and it looks to be by design of the lower level libraries.
>>>>
>>>> Note this mainly affects the XO1 which is already considered End Of
>>>> Life. I think efforts are
>>>> much more productive in trying to make the GNU+Sugar user experience
>>>> excellent on
>>>> Classmates and other netbooks.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, we are not the only ones affected. The entire LXDE desktop
>>>> environment has decided
>>>> to forego migrating to GTK3 and instead decided to port everything to
>>>> QT.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a quote from the initial release of the QT file manager PCManFM
>>>> [1]:
>>>> "I, however, need to admit that working with Qt/C++ is much more
>>>> pleasant and productive than messing with C/GObject/GTK+.
>>>> Since GTK+ 3 breaks backward compatibility a lot and it becomes more
>>>> memory hungry and slower, I don’t see much advantage of GTK+ now. GTK+ 2 is
>>>> lighter, but it’s no longer true for GTK+ 3. Ironically, fixing all of the
>>>> broken compatibility is even harder than porting to Qt in some cases
>>>> (PCManFM IMO is one of them).
>>>> So If someone is starting a whole new project and is thinking about what
>>>> GUI toolkit to use, personally I might recommend Qt if you’re not targeting
>>>> Gnome 3."
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://blog.lxde.org/?p=990
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Narvaez
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>



-- 
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com