From gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx Fri Feb 3 06:00:33 2006 From: gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx (Gain Paolo Mureddu) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:00:33 -0600 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. Message-ID: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I write to this list out of a discussion held on both the Fedora Forum.org site and on the Marketing list. Before I get down to the details, I think a bit of background is in order. First of all, I'm no formal programmer nor developer, I'm merely a user (a power user, if you will) with basic C and scarse programming knowledge at best, but no formal C nor programmin in general training whatsoever. I'm an avid GNOME user and have been a Red Hat Linux user for quite some time, starting back in late 90s with Red Hat 5, and I've kept "close to home" with Fedora. What does all this has to do with the fedora-desktop list? Keep reading, please. With the update of KDE to version 3.5 for Fedora Core 4, I noticed a tendency on Red Hat/Fedora's side, which I found strange, and did (and still do) not understand: Why is KDE upgradeable and GNOME seems to always lag behind? It then it struck me like lightning: This was not the first time this question has been asked, and more importantly it as also been discussed on public forums, and I have even participated of those discussions... However, now I find myself asking the same question and for the first time the commonly given answers don't quite satisfy me, so put another way: Why isn't GNOME update-able in between Red Hat/Fedora releases? Usually the answer given was the degree of complexity of the software and the amount of packages it touches, which in itself would warrant a whole distro upgrade, where as KDE is more monolithic and as such is easier to maintain. I'm not saying that this holds true today, nor that it has even been true before. Just that these are commonly given answers to the question. So I still don't quite grasp why *exactly* is GNOME so much more complex in comparison to KDE, or why does it has so many components "broken-out" into smaller packages, which in turn seem to be exactly what holds back GNOME from inclusion of newer versions to the distribution... In this sense, it would seem as if GNOME's modularity was its Achilles' ankle, for upgrades in a current Fedora/Red Hat release, anyway. It has been no surprise that Red Hat in the past, and now Fedora's development seem tied to GNOME's development cycle (I'm not saying that this is the case, like publicly sated about Ubuntu, for example; is only coincidence). However, since the release of Red Hat Network (RHN) I don't remember (not that there has not been one) a whole GNOME update available from RHN, while I do remember various ocations for KDE and its libraries... Seems odd. What prevents that GNOME upgrades could be released as an update from RHN or via yum repositories? The lifespan of a Fedora distribution before moving to Legacy and support ceased from the traditional channles is of about 1 year, which means at least two GNOME revisions (one every 6 months on fixed dates). This, I think, is important as not only these new GNOME revisions add features (and some bugs too), but also solve some other bugs. I don't mean to start a GNOME Vs KDE flamewar or anything like that, we've already had our share of those on other channels, but to know why is this the case with GNOME and new versions not making their way into current release versions before they are moved to Legacy, that's all. Thanks in advance for any input. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD4l/EXM+XOp70dwoRAkjiAJ94wN9Zzn4+oAXvUpYGk/X5nSHAAwCeMpIw stJ02KMqFloBR5i7avAEugQ= =TkyQ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD4vGBXM+XOp70dwoRAp/cAJ4oYnySPQM9ow5T+HakMEKeHjucMQCfTiqM gQL00j/YmlBWQ3CRCU2Rou8= =Hklm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Nathan.Rohrlach at mincom.com Fri Feb 3 06:03:53 2006 From: Nathan.Rohrlach at mincom.com (Nathan.Rohrlach at mincom.com) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:03:53 +1000 Subject: Nathan Rohrlach is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 30/01/2006 and will not return until 13/02/2006. I will respond to your message when I return. Please mail or ring the MMS Support Centre if you require further assistance. Support.Centre at mincom.com +61 7 3303 3876 -- This transmission is for the intended addressee only and is confidential information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender and delete the transmission. The contents of this e-mail are the opinion of the writer only and are not endorsed by the Mincom Group of companies unless expressly stated otherwise. From mclasen at redhat.com Fri Feb 3 06:25:17 2006 From: mclasen at redhat.com (Matthias Clasen) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 01:25:17 -0500 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. In-Reply-To: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> References: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> Message-ID: <1138947917.2683.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 00:00 -0600, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > So I still don't quite grasp why *exactly* is GNOME so much more > complex in comparison to KDE, or why does it has so many components > "broken-out" into smaller packages, which in turn seem to be exactly > what holds back GNOME from inclusion of newer versions to the > distribution... In this sense, it would seem as if GNOME's modularity > was its Achilles' ankle, for upgrades in a current Fedora/Red Hat > release, anyway. It is not *that* much more complex to build all of gnome, although there are some packages lower in the stack which may have tight dependencies on newish kernels, like hal. It took me ~1.5 days to get the recent 2.13.90 release of Gnome into rawhide. It is more a result of limited resources, which we prefer to spend on the next release, rather than the previous one... Matthias From gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx Fri Feb 3 06:35:54 2006 From: gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx (Gain Paolo Mureddu) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:35:54 -0600 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. In-Reply-To: <1138947917.2683.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> Message-ID: <43E2F9CA.7000702@prodigy.net.mx> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Matthias Clasen wrote: > > It is not *that* much more complex to build all of gnome, although > there are some packages lower in the stack which may have tight > dependencies on newish kernels, like hal. It took me ~1.5 days to > get the recent 2.13.90 release of Gnome into rawhide. > > It is more a result of limited resources, which we prefer to spend > on the next release, rather than the previous one... > > Matthias Still, the expected lifespan of any given Fedora release is of about one year before moving to Legacy, and there has been a lot of "cross updates" availabe for Core 3 and 4 when 3 was still "current" (i.e before moving to Legacy). And another thing... This may be more suited for the -devel list than this one, but here goes as it has to do with the desktop functionality (rather than direct development, though): Is there any plan in place to phase out moves from "current" to Legacy of any Fedora vesion by providing the necessary yum configurations as updates when the Legacy infrastructure is in place to provide the scarse update packages? It'd be nice to have the default configuration automatically replaced with updated repository data, makes migration seamless. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD4vnJXM+XOp70dwoRAjmpAJ9lCg07kvPxlrAoj+Ro/WMz2v/P+wCfWjl5 jv5MMcVxQIF1PQdzueqv/DQ= =/AJw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Feb 3 06:51:34 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:21:34 +0530 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. In-Reply-To: <43E2F9CA.7000702@prodigy.net.mx> References: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> <43E2F9CA.7000702@prodigy.net.mx> Message-ID: <43E2FD76.6000307@fedoraproject.org> Hi >Still, the expected lifespan of any given Fedora release is of about >one year before moving to Legacy, and there has been a lot of "cross >updates" availabe for Core 3 and 4 when 3 was still "current" (i.e >before moving to Legacy). > > The expected lifespan within core depends on the subsequent releases. >And another thing... This may be more suited for the -devel list than >this one, but here goes as it has to do with the desktop functionality >(rather than direct development, though): Is there any plan in place >to phase out moves from "current" to Legacy of any Fedora vesion by >providing the necessary yum configurations as updates when the Legacy >infrastructure is in place to provide the scarse update packages? It'd >be nice to have the default configuration automatically replaced with >updated repository data, makes migration seamless. > > Already part of the proposed plans. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/33303 -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers From gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx Fri Feb 3 18:18:05 2006 From: gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx (Gain Paolo Mureddu) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:18:05 -0600 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. In-Reply-To: <43E2FD76.6000307@fedoraproject.org> References: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> <43E2F9CA.7000702@prodigy.net.mx> <43E2FD76.6000307@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <43E39E5D.70704@prodigy.net.mx> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi The expected lifespan within core depends on the subsequent > releases. Which, last I heard, was a cycle of about 6 months, hence one year per release, as they are being "replaced", becuase they are not moved into Legacy right away, but until the next release reaches Test 2 stage. There's the "new" release, then the "current" release (for lack of a better term), then the ones in Legacy, until "next" reaches Test 2 stage, where "current" moves to Legacy and "new" becomes "current". > Already part of the proposed plans. > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/33303 > Excellent! That way people won't have to move right away, and gives chance of planned upgrades. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD455cXM+XOp70dwoRAuqCAJoDUKXEDCyp55PkWwrGn+vcP0NFjQCfTs1F WRPBdb8L3La0spTtKILB1bg= =finF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Feb 4 10:31:28 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:01:28 +0530 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. In-Reply-To: <43E39E5D.70704@prodigy.net.mx> References: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> <43E2F9CA.7000702@prodigy.net.mx> <43E2FD76.6000307@fedoraproject.org> <43E39E5D.70704@prodigy.net.mx> Message-ID: <43E48280.7030402@fedoraproject.org> Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > >>Hi The expected lifespan within core depends on the subsequent >>releases. >> >> > >Which, last I heard, was a cycle of about 6 months, hence one year per >release, as they are being "replaced", becuase they are not moved into >Legacy right away, but until the next release reaches Test 2 stage. >There's the "new" release, then the "current" release (for lack of a >better term), then the ones in Legacy, until "next" reaches Test 2 >stage, where "current" moves to Legacy and "new" becomes "current". > Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ for the details. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers From gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx Sat Feb 4 16:43:04 2006 From: gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx (Gain Paolo Mureddu) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:43:04 -0600 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. In-Reply-To: <43E48280.7030402@fedoraproject.org> References: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> <43E2F9CA.7000702@prodigy.net.mx> <43E2FD76.6000307@fedoraproject.org> <43E39E5D.70704@prodigy.net.mx> <43E48280.7030402@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <43E4D998.2@prodigy.net.mx> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ for the details. > Yes, which is exactly (much better worded, mind you) what I meant. Which means the lifespan of a single Fedora release is that of two releases (i.e FC3 moved into Legacy when FC5T2 was announced), in general approximately a one year cycle. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD5NmYXM+XOp70dwoRAs/EAJ0UV9ybhpC6atUvpHIuYQUOiDz0dACfYXwD z5OcZqBm9aAEhw786zK88SI= =Tpnz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx Sat Feb 4 18:09:27 2006 From: gmureddu at prodigy.net.mx (Gain Paolo Mureddu) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:09:27 -0600 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. In-Reply-To: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> References: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> Message-ID: <43E4EDD7.30806@prodigy.net.mx> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The original point of my discussion has been vindicated: There's yet again, another KDE update with all its libs and all other programs to 3.5.1, and got me wondering, GNOME 2.12 should be almost 6 months now and Fedora Core 4 never got an update for it, nor was there an update for Fedora Core 3 to update from 2.8 to 2.10 once Core 4 was out as an update. I know resources are limited, and yet KDE has had a major version update, where GNOME has had none... What I find oddest about this, is that Fedora is built around GNOME (or GTK+ at least) and GNOME's even the default desktop, and yet the one with a major revamp is KDE? Call me stupid, but I plainly don't understand this, and goes beyond the fact I use GNOME over KDE, I'm sure a lot of KDE users and fans in Fedora are quite happy with the updates, I just wonder why this is not the case with the *default* DE... Seems odd. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD5O3WXM+XOp70dwoRAnzNAJ94gou+ncf9Zd/fJr6qh9cx0pqFTACfRbG8 pAGGjR655bFAYADZdQX66lE= =dCdV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From johnp at redhat.com Sat Feb 4 19:09:40 2006 From: johnp at redhat.com (John (J5) Palmieri) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 14:09:40 -0500 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. In-Reply-To: <43E4EDD7.30806@prodigy.net.mx> References: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> <43E4EDD7.30806@prodigy.net.mx> Message-ID: <1139080180.4950.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> You fail to see that major development in GNOME itself is done by the desktop team at Red Hat. GNOME is heavily dependent on the whole stack of technologies that make up the OS. Moving from one version to the next means new dependencies on lower layer technologies such as HAL, D- BUS and others. Not to mention all the SE-Linux changes that would need to be made. Sure we could ship a new version without these tight dependencies but then you often lose functionality or bugs pop up from interactions that we would not have time to test. We prefer to leave older version stable with bug fixes and leave development to happen in Rawhide with stabilization happening right before a new release. Put it this way, we could spend our time constantly updating GNOME in older releases and chasing down regressions or we can build new functionality to compete with other OS's. This doesn't preclude someone from going out and building an alternative repository for GNOME updates on older versions of Fedora. On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 12:09 -0600, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The original point of my discussion has been vindicated: There's yet > again, another KDE update with all its libs and all other programs to > 3.5.1, and got me wondering, GNOME 2.12 should be almost 6 months now > and Fedora Core 4 never got an update for it, nor was there an update > for Fedora Core 3 to update from 2.8 to 2.10 once Core 4 was out as an > update. I know resources are limited, and yet KDE has had a major > version update, where GNOME has had none... What I find oddest about > this, is that Fedora is built around GNOME (or GTK+ at least) and > GNOME's even the default desktop, and yet the one with a major revamp > is KDE? Call me stupid, but I plainly don't understand this, and goes > beyond the fact I use GNOME over KDE, I'm sure a lot of KDE users and > fans in Fedora are quite happy with the updates, I just wonder why > this is not the case with the *default* DE... Seems odd. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFD5O3WXM+XOp70dwoRAnzNAJ94gou+ncf9Zd/fJr6qh9cx0pqFTACfRbG8 > pAGGjR655bFAYADZdQX66lE= > =dCdV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- John (J5) Palmieri From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Feb 5 16:16:23 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:46:23 +0530 Subject: GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability. In-Reply-To: <43E4D998.2@prodigy.net.mx> References: <43E2F181.90200@prodigy.net.mx> <43E2F9CA.7000702@prodigy.net.mx> <43E2FD76.6000307@fedoraproject.org> <43E39E5D.70704@prodigy.net.mx> <43E48280.7030402@fedoraproject.org> <43E4D998.2@prodigy.net.mx> Message-ID: <43E624D7.5000004@fedoraproject.org> Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > >>Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ for the details. >> >> >> >Yes, which is exactly (much better worded, mind you) what I meant. >Which means the lifespan of a single Fedora release is that of two >releases (i.e FC3 moved into Legacy when FC5T2 was announced), in >general approximately a one year cycle. > None of the Fedora releases have been EOL'ed yet. Fedora Core 1,2 and 3 is maintained by Fedora Legacy project. Fedora Core 4 and the test/development releases are maintained by the Fedora Core team. The lifecycle of Fedora can be extended to any amount of time as long as the community is willing to maintain it. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers From gnomeuser at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 21:33:42 2006 From: gnomeuser at gmail.com (David Nielsen) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:33:42 +0100 Subject: Proposing a switch to Tango Message-ID: <1140557623.24450.12.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> Hi list I would like to propose replacing the bluecurve icon theme with tango[1]. There are a number of good reasons for doing this. 1. Tango implements the icon naming standard, a desirable improvement over the current mess. Eventually this should mean that icons apply univerisally, be that in Firefox, OpenOffice, KDE or GNOME. 2. Tango is a near complete icon set with a clear design style - this is means we get a consistent experience through out the interface regardless of the DE. Not only independent of DE but consistent between the icons themselves. 3. Tango is actively developed by paid developers and the community, it would be more worthwhile to contribute to this effort than continue to produce Bluecurve on our own. 4. Branding using icons is counterproductive to switching between distros, if we adopt the same standard icons as used in Foresight, OpenSuSE and many others (and I understand Ubuntu might be switching to Tango in Dapper+1), it would be increasingly easy for users to adopt Fedora as the interface is similar. In conclusion, switching to Tango makes sense from an investment return POV, a user experience POV and it's an easy transistion. I would like to propose that the switch be done with the beginning of the FC6 development cycle. Kind Regards David Nielsen [1] www.tango-project.org -- Obligatory shameless blog plug - the GNOME commentary located at: www.lovesunix.net/blog From stevelist at silverorange.com Wed Feb 22 00:51:49 2006 From: stevelist at silverorange.com (Steven Garrity) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:51:49 -0400 Subject: Proposing a switch to Tango In-Reply-To: <1140557623.24450.12.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> References: <1140557623.24450.12.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> Message-ID: <43FBB5A5.8060300@silverorange.com> David Nielsen wrote: > I would like to propose replacing the bluecurve icon theme with > tango[1]. There are a number of good reasons for doing this. [excellent list of good reasons snipped] As someone is involved in the Tango project, and a happy Fedora user, I would love to see this. I would also like to make it known that if there are perceived hurdles to the adoption of the Tango icon theme in Fedora, we would like to know about them so we can fix them! We're easily accessible on the tango-artists mailing list [1] and in #tango on freenode. Come ask questions! Tango is still a young enough project that there is room for Fedora and its developers to have a significant impact on the nature and direction of the project. It's a great time to get involved. Also, Tango is not just an icon set - it is a set of visual style guidelines. Fedora could be a "Tango-friendly" distribution, share all of the benefits of being a tango-ified desktop, and still maintain its own visual identity. For example, key icons can be changed somewhat to conform to corporate (or "foundational" ;-) identity and yet still conform to the fundamental Tango visual style guidelines. Translation: if you hate the folder icon (or any particular icon), relax - it's not carved in stone. Another small note - something David didn't include in his fine lists of reasons to adopt Tango icons: more apps are starting to get Tango-style icons. This is part of the goal of the project - to great a common visual base to which application developers can create apps and application icons that nicely fit in with the rest of the desktop. For example, Sound Juicer, Cowbell, F-Spot, Desktbar-applet, Diva, Banshee (and more) are already adopting icons that fit well with the Tango-style. Having such a key distro as Fedora take on the Tango style would be a huge incentive for more application developers (and distros) to do the same. I can't speak on behalf of the entire Tango project, but as someone interested and involved in the project, I will do my best to answer questions/concerns about possible Fedora adoption here on the list. Cheers, Steven Garrity [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/tango-artists From rstrode at redhat.com Wed Feb 22 17:21:10 2006 From: rstrode at redhat.com (Ray Strode) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:21:10 -0500 Subject: Proposing a switch to Tango In-Reply-To: <1140557623.24450.12.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> References: <1140557623.24450.12.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> Message-ID: <1140628870.2464.42.camel@halflap> Hi, > I would like to propose replacing the bluecurve icon theme with > tango[1]. So it's definitely too late for FC5, given that test3 is already out. My thoughts are we should wait until GNOME adopts it. If upstream GNOME adopts it, it would be a lot easier choice to make. Just my thoughts, though... --Ray From gnomeuser at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 18:13:33 2006 From: gnomeuser at gmail.com (David Nielsen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:13:33 +0100 Subject: Proposing a switch to Tango In-Reply-To: <1140628870.2464.42.camel@halflap> References: <1140557623.24450.12.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> <1140628870.2464.42.camel@halflap> Message-ID: <1140632014.2218.0.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> ons, 22 02 2006 kl. 12:21 -0500, skrev Ray Strode: > Hi, > > > I would like to propose replacing the bluecurve icon theme with > > tango[1]. > So it's definitely too late for FC5, given that test3 is already out. > > My thoughts are we should wait until GNOME adopts it. If upstream GNOME > adopts it, it would be a lot easier choice to make. > > Just my thoughts, though... I specifically suggested this be done for the FC6 cycle. Upstream is not looking to adopt Tango out of the fear that without vendor support, it will look like a GNOME only project and thus scare off the KDE crowd. Or so it seems. Thus vendor buy in is very important, I for one, would love to welcome my new Tango overlords to Fedora since I find their style very pleasing and I agree with the aims out getting a unified icon standard. It sounds like The tango developers and artists are very keen on cooperating with us to make this happen. - David -- Obligatory shameless blog plug - the GNOME commentary located at: www.lovesunix.net/blog From alexl at redhat.com Thu Feb 23 09:36:45 2006 From: alexl at redhat.com (Alexander Larsson) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:36:45 +0100 Subject: Proposing a switch to Tango In-Reply-To: <1140632014.2218.0.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> References: <1140557623.24450.12.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> <1140628870.2464.42.camel@halflap> <1140632014.2218.0.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> Message-ID: <1140687406.29574.6.camel@greebo> On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 19:13 +0100, David Nielsen wrote: > Upstream is not looking to adopt Tango out of the fear that without > vendor support, it will look like a GNOME only project and thus scare > off the KDE crowd. Or so it seems. Thus vendor buy in is very important, > I for one, would love to welcome my new Tango overlords to Fedora since > I find their style very pleasing and I agree with the aims out getting a > unified icon standard. As part of "upstream" I just have to ask where you saw this. I haven't seen anythiong like it before. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc alexl at redhat.com alla at lysator.liu.se He's a superhumanly strong native American househusband moving from town to town, helping folk in trouble. She's a radical kleptomaniac soap star with an evil twin sister. They fight crime! From gnomeuser at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 12:00:30 2006 From: gnomeuser at gmail.com (David Nielsen) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:00:30 +0100 Subject: Proposing a switch to Tango In-Reply-To: <1140687406.29574.6.camel@greebo> References: <1140557623.24450.12.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> <1140628870.2464.42.camel@halflap> <1140632014.2218.0.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> <1140687406.29574.6.camel@greebo> Message-ID: <1140696031.2166.3.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> tor, 23 02 2006 kl. 10:36 +0100, skrev Alexander Larsson: > On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 19:13 +0100, David Nielsen wrote: > > Upstream is not looking to adopt Tango out of the fear that without > > vendor support, it will look like a GNOME only project and thus scare > > off the KDE crowd. Or so it seems. Thus vendor buy in is very important, > > I for one, would love to welcome my new Tango overlords to Fedora since > > I find their style very pleasing and I agree with the aims out getting a > > unified icon standard. > > As part of "upstream" I just have to ask where you saw this. I haven't > seen anythiong like it before. I believe dobey made the comment that GNOME was not switching to Tango because it was hard to convince KDE that this wasn't a GNOME project. And I agree that we need adoption of the standard first, so untill GNOME actually supports it well we can let the argument rest. - David -- Obligatory shameless blog plug - the GNOME commentary located at: www.lovesunix.net/blog From wtogami at redhat.com Mon Feb 27 00:18:00 2006 From: wtogami at redhat.com (Warren Togami) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:18:00 -0500 Subject: Proposing a switch to Tango In-Reply-To: <1140696031.2166.3.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> References: <1140557623.24450.12.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> <1140628870.2464.42.camel@halflap> <1140632014.2218.0.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> <1140687406.29574.6.camel@greebo> <1140696031.2166.3.camel@price.stavtrup-st.dk> Message-ID: <44024538.9010805@redhat.com> David Nielsen wrote: > tor, 23 02 2006 kl. 10:36 +0100, skrev Alexander Larsson: >> On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 19:13 +0100, David Nielsen wrote: >>> Upstream is not looking to adopt Tango out of the fear that without >>> vendor support, it will look like a GNOME only project and thus scare >>> off the KDE crowd. Or so it seems. Thus vendor buy in is very important, >>> I for one, would love to welcome my new Tango overlords to Fedora since >>> I find their style very pleasing and I agree with the aims out getting a >>> unified icon standard. >> As part of "upstream" I just have to ask where you saw this. I haven't >> seen anythiong like it before. > > > I believe dobey made the comment that GNOME was not switching to Tango > because it was hard to convince KDE that this wasn't a GNOME project. > And I agree that we need adoption of the standard first, so untill GNOME > actually supports it well we can let the argument rest. > > - David I don't understand the logical behind thinking that Red Hat deciding on something would make it more attractive to KDE. Quite the opposite no? Warren Togami wtogami at redhat.com From regrock at comcast.net Tue Feb 28 19:15:52 2006 From: regrock at comcast.net (Reggie Matthews) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:15:52 -0500 Subject: wireless access Message-ID: <200602281955.k1SJtZTp029790@mx1.redhat.com> Hello, I'm new to the Fedora community..Wanting to know how I can use add a wireless card to my workstation to access the internet?!!? thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nman64 at n-man.com Tue Feb 28 20:18:13 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick Barnes) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:18:13 -0600 Subject: wireless access In-Reply-To: <200602281955.k1SJtZTp029790@mx1.redhat.com> References: <200602281955.k1SJtZTp029790@mx1.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200602281418.16925.nman64@n-man.com> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 13:15, Reggie Matthews wrote: > Hello, > > I'm new to the Fedora community..Wanting to know how I can use add a > wireless card to my workstation to access the internet?!!? > > thanks > > Your question is off-topic for this list. For end-user support, please see fedora-list at redhat.com. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PostIsOffTopic http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available URL: