[Sugar-devel] TamTamMini

[Daniel Narvaez]

David,

if you want to make a fair comparison, you need to take in account what was
submitted!

Try to submit six copies of the same codebase (instead of a patch) to any
other free software project on heart. I bet our reaction will compare
*very* favourably in friendliness.

Seriously, stop thinking you are being treaten unfairly. You are not.

We appreciate ActivityCentral effort to work upstream, just keep it up and
give us a chance.



On 18 November 2013 23:07, David Farning <dfarning at activitycentral.com>wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131118/b22ec7af/attachment.html>