Re: OO as GNOME software (topic change)

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:22:00PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 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?"

Let's take this logically.  I would then consider a GNOME app, an app that
uses GTK+ and the gnome libraries and looks and acts like the rest of gnome.
So if OO never does this, does it mean it's "bad" and that we need a
different office that does?  Not neccesairly.  I mean we don't have
gnome-kernel and gnome-xwindows and gnome-bash either, you need all those to
run a desktop environment, yet we are quite happy leaving them for other
projects.  Just because an app is not part of "GNOME" doesn't mean that it
can't be used at the same time, and it doesn't mean that we can't encourage
it's use.  I'd be very uncomfortable calling OO "The GNOME Office" if it
didn't use gnome libs.  But perhaps everyone in the future will use GNOME and
OO.  Who knows.  I don't think GNOME is anything less if it includes OO or
not.  In fact I don't see a reason to include it at all right now.  It's a
separate project, governed by a separate body, using different libraries and
widget sets, works on other platforms then GNOME ... shall I go on?  In fact
it has no real ties to GNOME.  So why should it be called GNOME.  Again, that
doesn't mean that we have to have our own versions of these apps.  All it
means that it's not part of GNOME, which it really isn't.

George

-- 
George <jirka 5z com>
   The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
                       -- W. Somerset Maugham