The latest issue of The GNOME Journal features thoughts about marketing GNOME, a review of RSS feed readers for GNOME, a short preview on modeling with K-3D, an introduction to F-Spot, an introduction to Foresight Desktop Linux, and a review of Robert Love’s ‘Linux Kernel Development’, 2nd Edition.
I hope that F-Spot gets included in the next Ubuntu.
I whish mono would be included, so we could just apt-get cool mono apps like beagle and F-Spot. Better yet, I whish those cool apps weren’t written with mono at all.
F-Spot is already in universe for Ubuntu Hoary. You can apt-get install beagle in Breezy already, and it’s planned to be installed by default in the final release.
http://udu.wiki.ubuntu.com/Mono
Jeff Waugh proposed a goal for GNOME: 10% market share by 2010
hahahhahaha
Let me continue on with that …
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!
You can do this now with an RPM based distro (SUSE). Install apt4rpm, run synaptic, also you can use rcd/red-carpet (xenwhatever) and get the latest mono from novell directly.
I mis-read the last part. of your statement.. Dont feel like you are missing out on anything with F-spot.. gthumb is still much better.
All f-spot has going for it is the time-line.
Yes gthumb is great and I dont know what all the fuss about f-spot is because people talk about gthumb like it never was here.
> Yes gthumb is great and I dont know what all the fuss
> about f-spot is because people talk about gthumb like
> it never was here.
That’s Marketing talk.
a) It promotes MONO which is probably intended.
b) It promotes F-Spot which was started by Ettore Perazzoli (who died some years ago).
c) It lifts Miguel’s seat for another 2 places, because he was the one who continued it after Ettores dead.
d) GThumb’s author is probably not l33t enough for the GNOME crowd. If it’s not a tool created through nepotism then it probably will never become part of GNOME.
Get over it people. Microsoft isn’t going to strike Mono down. The only time MS said anything in the direction of patents was when they wanted to implement some of the cool new stuff that was suposed to go into longhorn. They don’t give a rats about Mono, at worst they ignore it (as long as they don’t want to implement any of their cool new stuff thats geting later and later in delivery) and at best Mono is legiamizing .NET for them since they have something cross platform to point to.
Mono and .NET aren’t to bad, the platform is nice, and even if RedHat and Sun won’t imbrace it. Ubuntu and others (Novel and Suse) will. There are some nice apps for users that show promis, if they keep up the development pace. And for Developers Monodevelop is starting to look interesting with some of the plugins poping up.
The only thing about it that I’m not to fond about is that it brings the exe extention to UNIX but I can live with that.
Mono will always lag behind the microsoft version. MS will release a new version, new language enhancements, new cool libraries and Mono will spend the next year reimplementing those. In the meantime, MS has a new .NET with oh so cool new features. Winning that race is impossible. In direct comparison, MS will always win, and that’s all what MS marketing needs to make Linux look bad.
I also don’t understand why re-engineering a MS produkt is a good thing while we have Java as an established solution that provides so much more and is way more mature.
Mono will always lag behind the microsoft version. MS will release a new version, new language enhancements, new cool libraries and Mono will spend the next year reimplementing those…
I don’t think Mono is behind MS, because Mono is not equal .Net.
We don’t have to care what .Net and MS are doing, we have C# and the CLI as ISO standard (much more than we have from java) and with these two things we can create a great framework for the whole UNIX platform even with some compatibility to windows. That’s simply great and it’s completely independent from what MS is doing with .Net.
also don’t understand why re-engineering a MS produkt is a good thing while we have Java as an established solution that provides so much more and is way more mature.
it’s not a MS produkt, it’s a ISO standard like many other languages (beside java). And based on this standard we can create a great platform for UNIX. We don’t have to care about what MS is doing based on the standard, that’s not our problem.
For example, it’s the same like MS has an C compiler and Unix has an C compiler. Both has different libs, toolkits,.. for their platform but who cares? It’s important that there is a standard and based on the standard you can creat a perfect framework for your platform.
> I don’t think Mono is behind MS, because Mono is not
> equal .Net. We don’t have to care what .Net and MS
> are doing, we have C# and the CLI as ISO standard
> (much more than we have from java) and with these two
> things we can create a great framework for the whole
> UNIX platform even with some compatibility to
> windows. That’s simply great and it’s completely
> independent from what MS is doing with .Net.
This and your other paragraph (which I don’t want to quote all) is of course totally right. But you forget reality here. The majority of C# and .NET coders and people will follow the path of Microsoft and not the path of Novell. The majority of Desktops are still found with Microsoft products, the amount of sold computers still ship with Microsoft products. People who play with serious money still want Microsoft products because products that don’t cost money are worth nothing (some people still follow this opinion). So no matter how hard you try to manifest C# and MONO or how hard you want to make it a fine competitor to Microsoft – you can still be sure that people will follow MS. As many Web developers still (even now after years) refer to IE as the standards leading technology. You will have hard times to convince people to see it as difference.
This and your other paragraph (which I don’t want to quote all) is of course totally right. But you forget reality here. The majority of C# and .NET coders and people will follow the path of Microsoft and not the path of Novell.
if they code for the MS platform they can follow .NET. That’s no problem, maybe that’s even the best solution. But if you code for more platforms or for the Unix platform you will follow the Mono path.
At the end it’s really simple. It’s the same way that MS has VisualC++ and a MS-toolkit and we have g++ and GTKmm. From your point you can say g++ and GTKmm is always behind VisualC++ because the majority of Desktops are still found with Microsoft. But with this argument you missed the real point. It’s not about convince MS people to follow the GTKmm path. GTKmm is simply a Unix C++ Toolkit. It’s not a question GTKmm or VisualC++, its the question great Toolkit for Unix or great Toolkit for Windows.
Same is with .Net and Mono. There are two different thinks. They may have the same base but at the end there is a Framework for the Unix world and a Framework for the MS World. If you life in the MS world, feel free to chose the MS Toolkit. This has nothing to do with our Framework for our world, at the end it’s the same like with every other programming language or framework.
We don’t need a competition with MS, we just want a great framework on the base of an open ISO standard for our platform and that’s what we can get from Mono, no more and no less.
> Same is with .Net and Mono. There are two different
> thinks. They may have the same base but at the end
> there is a Framework for the Unix world and a Framework
> for the MS World. If you life in the MS world, feel
> free to chose the MS Toolkit. This has nothing to do
> with our Framework for our world, at the end it’s the
> same like with every other programming language or
> framework.
You are of course right again and I don’t want to quote all your comments. But please let me ask you what problem you want to solve with MONO and C# that can’t be solved with the already existing languages such as JAVA, Python, Ruby and even C++ ?
Pointer issue ? No, Memory issue ? No….
The problem that MS wanted to solve with C# and .NET was to offer a product which people would be willing to pay for. It was a marketing thing, to bind people, to offer something new, the industry was crying for.
Now the problem is that the industry, the IT, and most of the MS fanboys will stick with MS products. So what problem are you solving on UNIX architecture when you are missing exactly the audience that still runs behind MS ?
Hope I was able to bring up my point.
But please let me ask you what problem you want to solve with MONO and C# that can’t be solved with the already existing languages such as JAVA, Python, Ruby and even C++ ?
i’m not a expert about the difference of all the programming languages. But some people say that the language independence is a great thing for Mono. Even Mono has a much shorter development time it’s already faster and use less memory than java (note, that i talk about free java implementations), some people say this is a adnavtage of the architecture. Other people say that C# is a sexy language, more powerfull than java and somethink like a evolution of java…
I think you can find many arguments for and again Mono and C#. It’s the same if you compare C and C++, Java and Python, Scheme and Lisp,… At the end every think has it advantage and disadvantage and someone like language/framework A and someone other like language/framework B.
The problem that MS wanted to solve with C# and .NET was to offer a product which people would be willing to pay for.
but that’s not our problem.
MS also wants to solve some problem with there C++, C,… compiler, this wasn’t a problem for us and our c++,c,.. compiler, so why should be there .Net plans a problem for us?
So if we are totally not interested in competing with MS, I’d be interested why not choosing a trusted and established framework for our platform?
And when MS decides to put their $$$ investments into introducing .NET version X, will we port all our apps, run behind them and try to keep up – or pretend that our framework is good enough and live with Mono?
I simply cannot believe that Mono will just lay back, not follow the MS way and say “yep, we’re a great platform now, we don’t care for MS”.
I’d be interested why not choosing a trusted and established framework for our platform?
Because the developer has decided that C# and the CLI is an interesting platform for the future. Other developer think different and work on gcj and gnome-java or work on C++ and Gtkmm or work on Python and pyGtk or stay on C and Gtk+,… it’s not that there is now Mono and every other languages are dead, it’s just another option.
And when MS decides to put their $$$ investments into introducing .NET version X, will we port all our apps, run behind them and try to keep up – or pretend that our framework is good enough and live with Mono?
What if MS decides to put their $$$ investments into introducing VisualC++ version X will we port all our C++ apps, run behind them and try to keep up – or pretend that our framework is good enough and live with Gtkmm?
I hope you see it. Just because MS has start something or has something simular has nothing to do with us. We just use an existing standard and create the best framework we can. The same we do it with every other language/framework.
> What if MS decides to put their $$$ investments into introducing VisualC++ version X will we port all our C++ apps, run behind them and try to keep up – or pretend that our framework is good enough and live with Gtkmm?
And that’s where my point is
If MS introduces a newer version of C++, we don’t care. There’s still aCC, Intel C++, xlC, gcc, Mac, Borland and dozens of other compiler manufacturers and thousands of tools and billions of existing lines of code. Who cares for a MS-only version of a better C++? Even on Windows, I can choose between standard C++ compilers from different vendors.
MS is the only one who offers .NET tools. If they release version X of their stuff, 98% of all the related tools will follow. All the new articles in computer magazines, the students in university, everyone will switch. Mono not following the wagon? Unlikely.
I hope that my message of the “vendor lock-in danger” is clearer now
Even on Windows, I can choose between standard C++ compilers from different vendors.
Yes, on .Net you don’t have a decision. But you can use another Framework -> Mono and you don’t have the problem. Or you are a “old-school guy” and stay on Java, C++,…
I think the main problem is that people hear the name MS and get panic.
But the reallity is so simple.
People who code on the MS platform will use VisualC++, Borland C++ (with MS libs), .Net, VisualBasic, Delphi,… If you are on this platform and use one of this frameworks you will go with the framework from version to version.
People who Code on the Unix platform will use C, C++, C#, Python, the Mono Framework,… and the GNOME libs, KDE libs,… And they will go with their platform from version to version.
And than there is a group of people who develop cross platform for the Unix and MS platform. Maybe they will use something like Qt, java or maybe Mono. And like the other two groups, they will go with their framework from version to version.
But all tree groups have their platforms and their tools and are completely independent from the other groups.
> But all tree groups have their platforms and their tools and are completely independent from the other groups.
And that’s the problem of Mono. The group is too small to qualify as “independent” group. It’s too deeply interlinked with MS. If Mono doesn’t follow the MS path, I’d have to choose whether to learn Mono or .NET, because they’ll differ. New people from university will learn .NET, articles in magazines will be about .NET code, people in companies will write .NET applications and tools.
Python has the freedom to develop itself into a direction it wants to. Mono can stay on the .NET path or be instantly depraved of a large part of its user base (== .NET developers, students learning .NET, researchers etc.).
Is Mono able to sustain itself without the .NET user base? Hmmm…
You’re making this too much of an either/or. Mono won’t pursue perfect compliance with MS .Net, but it will be close in the sense that you can still use c# in pretty much the same way (soon VB.net as well) and the base libraries will be similar, etc. The main purpose of Mono, though, is to build a kick-ass development framework for GNOME, as de Icaza has said many times. And, to their credit, we are seeing lots of very cool GNOME technology coming from this framework. In fact, I’d say that both Mono and Python are the focus of innovative energy in the GNOME community right now. Now their separate camps, but there is nothing preventing Python from running on the Mono framework.
sorry harryF but we repeat again and again the same thing. That leads to nothing, so i think we better stop here. For me, you look on the whole think from a MS point of view, i have no interest in MS. I see a interesting ISO standard (C# and CLI) and see that we can build some interesiting framework for the Unix platform (and even beyond the Unix platform), that’s all.
The same we have done on top of the ISO standard of C, C++,… MS doing for their platform what they think they have to do, Apple doing for their platform what they think they have to do and we are doing for our platform what we think we have to do.
All your arguments are based on the argument “MS is so big and we are so small” But with this argument you can argue again C, C++,… If you say “The big MS doing with standard X that and if we don’t do the same we are lost”. With this argument you can even argue again the whole GNU/Linux system, because MS is so big.
>And that’s where my point is
If MS introduces a newer
>version of C++, we don’t care.
And if MS introduces a newer version of .NET we don’t care either. All mono needs to be is a functional implementation of the newest standard for C#/CLI and there it is about as good as MS. Sure there are is an implementation of the MS stack on top of Mono but with the exeption of ASP.NET they are insignificant.
Who is the “us” you keep on referring to?
I hope you see it. Just because MS has start something or has something simular has nothing to do with us.
Other C++ implementations can be implemented independently of Visual C++ and anything Microsoft does. Microsoft didn’t invent C++, nor does it run in an environment Microsoft controls. Mono cannot do that. It depends on the standard Microsoft controls, and when a new standard comes along that adds new features to the CLR then Mono will be compelled to adopt them, or come up with their own ways of doing it.
Here’s the cluestick. They’re not inventing their own ways of doing things. They’re not inventing their own APIs. A stated goal of Mono for cross-platform development (I don’t know where this cross-platform thing came from to be honest) is that applications run under Microsoft’s .Net and vice versa. If you look at the presentation from Brainshare they actively promoted Mono on the basis of taking a Visual Studio project, compiled for Microsoft’s CLR and framework, and ran it on Linux and Mac OS. When other parts of Novell are using Java and Qt for that sort of thing I simply cannot see the point in investing resources needlessly, but I digress. You simply cannot do that without paying attention to everything Microsoft does with .Net and implementing it.
So, is Mono a cross-platform development tool (there are tools that are far, far better) or is it a development tool for Unix/Linux platforms. If it’s the latter then you simply don’t need to implement any of Microsoft’s technology, their APIs or any of the features of their latest .Net version. Come up with a different roadmap. This “We’re using Mono because we want a good technology and we don’t care what Microsoft does” attitude simply doesn’t stand up. It is a Microsoft technology!
> I don’t think Mono is behind MS, because Mono is not equal .Net.
And that I don’t understand. Why reengineer that technology in the first place? To create something 70% compatible? To be compared to MS technologies and always appear 30% worse than them?
The CLI is an ISO standard. Unfortunately, MS controls it. When they push a new version of the standard, guess who’ll have all the tools needed to support it already finished? Mono lagging even more behind, Linux the even worse alternative in the great comparison charts.
> And based on this standard we can create a great platform for UNIX.
With a built-in vendor lock-in. We can’t get too far away from MS otherwise we’ll have that incompatible-with-everything fork, so we’re forced to play the chase-MS game.
>And that I don’t understand. Why reengineer that
>technology in the first place? To create something 70%
>compatible? To be compared to MS technologies and always
>appear 30% worse than them?
The idea was never to be like MS, they just provided a good solution to a problem that preexisted in the GNOME comunity. So if people consider it to be a pale clone thats their problem. Mono was always about GNOME and will always be about GNOME. You could almost say that its recemblance to .NET is not so important.
>The CLI is an ISO standard. Unfortunately, MS controls
>it. When they push a new version of the standard, guess
>who’ll have all the tools needed to support it already
>finished? Mono lagging even more behind, Linux the even
>worse alternative in the great comparison charts.
If I remember right MS wasn’t the only one ho had some input on the 2.0 version of tha standard and I think even the Mono project had some say, but don’t quote me on that. Other then that I find it funy that Mono isn’t having as bad a time geting to their 2.0 version then Microsoft is having.
> If I remember right MS wasn’t the only one ho had some input on the 2.0 version of tha standard and I think even the Mono project had some say, but don’t quote me on that. Other then that I find it funy that Mono isn’t having as bad a time geting to their 2.0 version then Microsoft is having.
Weren’t you the one that said that Mono is not blindly following MS? So MS releases 2.0 and Mono sprints after. No community to discuss this, no thinking “how could _we_ do it best for our platform”, no, there’s a new MS standard, panic, quick, start porting. Open Source at its best.
Weren’t you the one that said that Mono is not blindly following MS? So MS releases 2.0 and Mono sprints after.
No, we don’t sprint after MS, we continue to implement the ISO standard and the ISO standard has a new version -> 2.0.
This has nothing to do with MS, the ISO standard get enlarged by MS, Novell and some other companies wich are in the standard committee.
If there is an new C# standard everyone will implement it (MS, Mono, dotGNU,..) like everyone implement a new C or C++ standard.
Even if i have said it again and again. You look to much on MS. For me you look like a rabbit which see a snake and get stiff and get panic. Forget it, thats a new technology with a new open standard no more and no less. It makes no difference if MS is implementing the standard too.
I don’t know why use F-Spot when you have digikam available. It rocks! The image effects are excellent, the image treatment tools very complete, and many plugins like a GL slideshow.
It’s lightweight, even for a GNOME user (Digikam+kdelibs compared to F-Spot+mono), has more features, active development.
Recently, Jeff Waugh proposed a goal for GNOME: 10% market share by 2010. This has become the slogan “10×10”; you may have seen this lately.
Sigh. I think people have heard far too much of this. Too much hot air only harms Linux and alternative desktops, and let’s face it, there’s been a lot coming from this direction. ’10×10′?! Are you damn well kidding me?
This proposal seems to have met with approval by the GNOME community
Did it really? Well there’s a shock.
I’m sorry to point out the reality to these guys, but when Eugenia created all that controversy with a couple of articles about Gnome a while ago, comparing straightforwardly it to proprietary software, she was right. Every single one of them, without exception, came out and complained telling everyone that it was an open source software project, people were giving their time for free and you simply couldn’t talk about any open source project in that manner. Now they have an initiative where they want to take 10% market share from that very same proprietary software?! I’m sorry, but if you want to get to that position then you have to be compared in that light – however unfavourable you may find it.
You can apply this to all open source projects by the way, but particularly to the area of the desktop.
Apart from spewing negative energy, what exactly is your point?
Apart from spewing negative energy, what exactly is your point?
Read it. Apart from spewing pointless crap we’ve all heard before for many, many years, what exactly is the point of yet another marketing gimmick?
I think the point is that we contribute to Open Source for fun. We will stop when we’re bored or out of time. Making business plans for Open Source projects is like becoming yet another company with a product. Suddenly, you’ll have to compete with other companies.
The way out is to put investments into a project, pushing it into the direction you want and thus effectively destroying the community. We’re already seeing several projects where mostly full time employees contribute. I don’t believe that’s the Bazaar way or the spirit of Free Software / Open Source.
harryF wrote: I think the point is that we contribute to Open Source for fun. We will stop when we’re bored or out of time.
Nothing stops you doing that. It’s absolutly OK if you don’t like to join the game. Just because there are quite a few people who can stand the challenge, and many more who feel grateful for more commitment in Open Source projects, it doesn’t mean they don’t have fun anymore. For them, the challenge may be the fun.
The way out is to put investments into a project, pushing it into the direction you want and thus effectively destroying the community.
There are many different communities; basically each project has one of its own. So why shouldn’t some of them explore new ways? Try to improve? Try to concentrate on certain goals?
It’s not that you would depend on them; according to your own words, it’s just for fun anyway. Relax.
> It’s not that you would depend on them; according to your own words, it’s just for fun anyway. Relax.
As soon as a company comes in and creates business plans, the fun goes away. By design, a company invests money to make more money. Which pushes a project into the direction the company wants. Freedom? Creativity? Gone.
harryF wrote: Freedom? Creativity? Gone.
Are you talking about GNOME? I’d say: A stable platform, so you’re able to express your freedom and creativity. Build any application you’d like. Pick the libraries you’d like. Invent your own desktop enviroment. Nothing stops you from doing that.
And if, one day, you’d like other people to use your application or desktop environment, you’re probably happy if its foundation is properly distributed and stable.
> Are you talking about GNOME? I’d say: A stable platform, so you’re able to express your freedom and creativity.
Okay, let’s see… I want to replace technology A by something better. Let’s say replacing the IPC layer with something that is faster and takes less memory. A dynamic community would jump on it, for the love of their project, to make the platform better and for the fun of it. Even if it sets the project back a bit, but the end result will be better. A project with mainly payed developers who have to meet deadlines and goals set by their manager is way less likely to do that. They already invested $$$ in technology A, they would be mad to toss it.
One of the wonderful things I experienced in Open Source is that people are not afraid to refactor things to make the project better in total. Having a company in there relying on their investments is a blocker. “Stable” is good, but not in a MS way where “stable” means that they don’t fix bugs and don’t fix their APIs because that could mean that some company somewhere would have to rewrite stuff and therefore lose money.
What light? Are you referring to when Eugenia was complaining because someone on a mailing list told her that volunteer developers will work on whatever they feel like?
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9933
I don’t see how that position is any more relevant now, because some have aspirations for widespread acceptance of GNOME.
What light? Are you referring to when Eugenia was complaining because someone on a mailing list told her that volunteer developers will work on whatever they feel like?
What Eugenia was talking about were things that were essential for Gnome to get anywhere near Windows and Mac OS. They didn’t want to talk about it then but they still feel they can carry themselves on a cushion of hot air.
I don’t see how that position is any more relevant now, because some have aspirations for widespread acceptance of GNOME.
If you want to convince people to use Gnome over Windows and Mac OS you have to address the issues at hand, and you simply cannot go talking about getting people to adopt Gnome, or X or Y without it. Once you start talking about things in those terms then it’s a different world.
That’s an issue that needs to be solved, not just with Gnome, but many user-facing open source projects.
First they started to hack on GNOME…
…. then some corporate joined …..
Later on they all became usability experts….
…. meanwhile Ximian got sold to Novell ….
People started with politics and became politicans….
…. meanwhile more companies have stomped out of the dark around GNOME in hope to copy Ximians success ….
People all became Marketing experts ….
People around GNOME start their own ventures ….
Question ? What happened with GNOME and what will be next ?
Usability experts, Marketing experts, Venture experts all over night and where is the desktop ?
good question
in the meanwhile why you don’t take a look at this ?
tada
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2005-July/msg00007.h…
Certification for GNOME Apps
What references do said people have to be able to speak about Marketing ? It looks to me that first every normal coder, part time hacker, etc. became an usability expert basing their ideals upon nothing, just that what they assume to be right and messed most apps up. Then said same people became Marketing experts doing wrong marketing of an still immature project. What do we expect next, the ordinary people start to fear using the word GNOME in their application because they get a nice letter from GNOME e.V. or GNOME Foundation telling them to pay a fee because their app uses the terminology (GNOME) in it ? If you head over to planet.gnome.org or planet.gnome.de (or how the link is correctly called) then you see the people talk about GNOME e.V. for example like it is a company or venture. It’s quite scary since I was in the assumption that we talk about GNOME, fun, hacking, cool Desktop. Reading comments of some people make one believe they are competing against Microsoft, acting like global and big players and talk like they dominate the entire globe…..
If the only interest of your life is reading news on OSNews.org and blame gnome, why don’t you register http://www.blame-gnome.org or http://www.bashing-gnome.org and spare us this continuous and annoying muttering?
I wrote the article, and I have a PhD in marketing.
It’s nice to see a review of K-3D. Now, I love Blender (once you’ve learned its interface, it’s amazingly fast), but K-3D has the professional, pretty, useful interface that reminds me somewhat of Maya, and might attract more people to the idea of an open-source 3d modeler. Plus, RenderMan means you can use your choice of high-quality renderers. Highly neat.
Wow, TomBoy, Beagle, F-Spot etc. will be included in the next version of Ubuntu, Is going to be a kick ass desktop.
I look for MS to release an Office binary after a successful C# port.
Now that Gnome has forced Qt into the GPL, it’s fulfilled its purpose.
> The idea was never to be like MS, they just provided a
> good solution to a problem that preexisted in the GNOME
> comunity.
My friend, the problems that preexists in the GNOME community can not be solved with MONO, since MONO solves an issue but not the real problems
In the marketing article the author lists the potential markets but fails to mention the most important one.
This is the list:
1. Private users
2. Organizations
3. F/OSS Distributors
4. Independent Software Vendors (ISVs)
I propose that the number one market for Gnome is:
Gnome developers
Also first he talks about how “No one wants a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.”
Then he goes on to suggest that “GNOME needs to clearly delineate what software is “part of” GNOME, as opposed to software that works with GNOME.”
Isn’t these statements in conflict with each other? Wouldn’t it be more correct to “clearly delneate what services GNOME shall provide”?
I’m not sure what you mean here. Could you be more explicit please?
> I propose that the number one market for Gnome is:
> Gnome developers
Indeed, that’s why it’s so hard to become a member of the GNOME community and/or contribute to it. If you look close at the people who do GNOME then you figure out that it’s the same for years. The unwanted ones got flamed out and new ones are ‘programmed’ the way how the existing developers like them.
If you are some loser lame ass who want to contribute to GNOME and if you worked your ass off on some things that you call your pet projects or contributed large chunks of bugreports, patches and other stuff then you are still some loser. And you are the überloser if you start having your own opinion.
If you are one of those then asking for a CVS account ends up with no replies or ignorance, if you ask to have your project become part on GNOME cvs then nobody cares either, if you have some great ideas then everyone of them tells you how much it sucks.
But dare if you have a company name in your email address or you work for a company. Wow this changes everything, you get all the stuff above within hours. There are even people who pulls so much suger up your ass that it’s enough for the rest of your life. Want CVS access, no problem, want your project become part of GNOME cvs then no problem, hey want a mailinglist no problem.
The only way to become part of GNOME somehow is to create your own little world and community besides the real GNOME world, if you spent some time with GNOME then you realize that the german GNOME people are doing their own world stuff, the indian GNOME people do their own, the hispano people do their own and everyone seem to pray to the real GNOME people.
That’s of course also a way to control GNOME, it doesn’t matter if you do anything for GNOME or not, you only need a company name, be an accepted one from the CORE people or be one of those who started it. The rest is lifetime guarantee. No matter what you do, whom you blame, whom you piss off it’s ok because it’s you.
John, you are right the only marketing here is self marketing. Btw: I am speaking about experience here.
Your conspiracy theories are truly amazing.
By GNOME developers, do you mean (a) “people who develop applications that are included in GNOME” or (b) “people who develop applications that target the GNOME developement platform”?
If (a), then you are an ISV. If (b) then you are part of GNOME. And you are right, “internal marketing” is important, but IMHO that is HRM (Human Resource Management), not Marketing. I am, however, an adademic geek, so YMMV.
In my original statment I meant simply that GNOME exists as it is only because it is the sytem that the GNOME developers wanted, not because they wanted to sell it.
The number one reason (for me atleast) to contribute to an OSS project is to utilze the network effect for the simple goal of making the product better for me.
Me, me, me!
Okay, to be honest, I actually get some perverted joy out of knowing that my contributions is helping other people… mabey it gives a me sense of purpose in life… who knows.
Why do you set a goal like 10×10? There must be some value in it, and if it isn’t money, then what is it?
> Your conspiracy theories are truly amazing.
Not just that, they are also truly true!
Or how do you explain the permanent increase of dissatisfied users and pissed off people who do feel the same. If you treat your audience like assholes then be sure to receive the same back!
And how do you measure this increase? Or are they just hunches?