Phonon 4.5 Supports Logging To Zeitgeist

[liam]

NIH or idiocy. Btw. what was the reason gnome folks switched confirmation buttons? I don't see any benefits in gnome being 'corporate'. Looking at gnome3 and gnome shell it seems to be rather hobby.

Confirmation buttons?
I'm not sure I was saying that one was better than the other just making the observation that Gnome is simply developed primarily by people who are being paid to do it (thus scratching an itch of their employer).
As far as GS is concerned I would say that it started out as a "hobby" (though I would characterize more like brainstorming followed by mockups and sprints), it seems as though it is going to be the direction the gnome desktop takes, thus it will have to be made suitable for corporate-types.
Again, simply observations.

[TheBlackCat]

I never claimed to have evidence that said otherwise, only that Aaron doesn't follow gnome development to the point necessary to make claims about intentions.

Why does it require knowing the internals of gnome development? All we need to look at the results. KDE routinely accepts stuff developed by the Gnome community for the explicit sake of cross-desktop collaboration, even if KDE already has a superior solution the designed themselves. Gnome, however, very rarely does this. Even if they don't have their own solution to a problem, they will develop a new one rather than use KDE's.

So it the problem goes a lot further than just KDE accepting Gnome technologies but not the other way around. KDE actually abandons their own technology in favor of Gnome's, or at the very least supports both, even if the Gnome version is inferior to their own. Gnome, on the other hand, creates their own incompatible and often inferior versions of KDE technologies from scratch rather than using an existing KDE technology.

So when it comes from the other side, KDE developers actually make life more difficult for themselves in order to promote cross-desktop compatibility, while Gnome developers make life more difficult for themselves in order to avoid it.

Even 4 or 5 incidents simply isn't enough to draw these conclusions.

How many, then, would it take before you are convinced? You are also assuming it is a conscious decision to not accept anything developed by KDE, rather than a subconcious bias that the developers subconciously reinforce on each other.

If anyone wishes to provide complete timeline along with communications about all tech issues involving KDE and Gnome since '97 be my guest.

Are you kidding? Just come out and say it: "there is no possible evidence that would convince me". It is more honest than throwing out a demand for evidence that is obviously intended to be unachievable. Besides, even if someone did this, do you honestly expect us to believe you would actually read it all? You are just stonewalling here.

This sort of attitude is part of the reason why cross-desktop collaboration is in such a sorry state rate now. It is a categorical refusal to even consider the possibility that the problem even exists in the first place.

You can see this on the discussion on Aaron's blog post, the commenters on the Gnome side did everything they could to avoid discussing the general problem. They nitpicked every imaginable detail, but no matter how many times commenters on the KDE side asked them to actually address the more general issue they were ignored, or flat-out told by the Gnome side that it wasn't important.

Unless we take a realstic assessment of the situation and find where problems lie, nothing will ever improve

Personally, I think this is a waste of time

Thank you for proving my point. I, on the other hand, think that cross-desktop compatibility is a huge deal and about as far from a waste of time as you can imagine. But that only seems to be the KDE attitude.

[smitty3268]

I never claimed to have evidence that said otherwise, only that Aaron doesn't follow gnome development to the point necessary to make claims about intentions. Even 4 or 5 incidents simply isn't enough to draw these conclusions. Intentionality is a hard thing to prove and it would require something more along the lines of what Jeff Waugh had recently done with his posts about the history of the whole indicator mess, but even that doesn't really say much about intentions in KDE.
I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone in this thread has been involved with any of these things, or has done the research to make up for it, enough to say anything about intentions.
If anyone wishes to provide complete timeline along with communications about all tech issues involving KDE and Gnome since '97 be my guest.
Personally, I think this is a waste of time and Aaron seems like a hothead, and him bringing this up shortly before the Summit suggests a lack of control. As was said in the comments of those posts of his, meetings in person don't as often turn into the counter-productive flamefests.
Hell, look what was managed a few months back in Europe when the major distros met and spoke about common "app store" API and infrastructure.

I'm not talking about Aaron, or intentions, or anything else that can be opinionized. I'm talking about cold, hard facts. And the facts are that if you look at the number of KDE technologies that have been adopted by Gnome, they're practically non-existant. Look at Gnome tech adopted by KDE, and it's all over the place. Explain that however you want, the facts are that things move one way but not the other.

[Awesomeness]

the gnome "steering group" didn't see a use, at the time, for zeitgeist.

This is inaccurate. The GNOME people were always interested in Zeitgeist. However they deemed it not to be ready by 3.0 which, btw, was true at that time (2010).
The integration was just postponed, not completely rejected. Expect Zeitgeist to be included in GNOME 3.2 or 3.4.

Someone mentioned that qt smartphones are now defunct. This isn't entirely true. While there's not a lot of hope for Nokia implementing it short of Windows phones flopping and it's current CEO fired for losing money, I believe that there's a Chinese phone maker that's been helping develop MeeGo and they are looking to use in some of their phones.

Nokia said they still want to use MeeGo for “mobile computers” which is Nokia terminology for smartohones with bad battery life (see N900 – officially a “mobile computer”, not a smartphone).

If someone who has worked extensively in Gnome can show consistent rejection of crossdesktop standards without good reason then I would agree there is something to it.

DCOP was a KDE technology (but not depending on KDE libraries) that basically did everything dbus does but already 3 years before dbus was even started. KDE adopted dbus and kicked DCOP even though DCOP was more stable at that time.
More recent rejections by the GNOME people are the already mentioned StatusNotifier API, Akonadi, and the proposal to even work together on common specs for window compositors (the work is currently ongoing between KWin and Compiz only).

[liam]

http://blog.jospoortvliet.com/2011/0...mperative.html