Re: OO as GNOME software (topic change)

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu> writes: 
> I'm interested in what we consider to be GNOME software... For example,
> in the case of OO, is it still GNOME software if it doesn't use GTK+,
> and provides Bonobo support through an external bridge? IMO, consistent
> look and feel (where standard widgets are necessary but not sufficient)
> is one of the major features a desktop environment has to offer a user.
> I realize the OO team wants to maintain cross platform compatibility,
> but I think AbiWord has a much more palatable approach to this. At the
> very least it should look like the GTK+ theme, even if it uses its own
> widget set underneath.
> 
> Or rather maybe I should ask it this way...what makes OO GNOME software
> other than divine impetit? As far as I can tell its platform agnostic
> other than the couple Bonobo<->UNO bridges people are working on to make
> it interoperate. But considering that sufficient to be GNOME software
> would be exactly like saying all GNOME software has become KDE software
> and vice-versa if someone were to write a KParts Bonobo bridge (I
> realize this is infeasible).
> 

I think it's sort of a metaphysical question - like discussing the
"essence of GNOME software." ;-) It isn't going to have much answer.

What practical issue are you concerned about? Whether it's in a GNOME
release, whether they get to claim to be part of GNOME, etc. - I think
that kind of concrete issue is more productive to discuss than "what
is GNOME software?"

Havoc