This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new!

Re:Oh, I get it just fine, thanks

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 29, 2006 08:23 AM
So what you actually complain about is the P.R. talk?

Yes, probably press releases state more than the technical descriptions, but where is the surprise?
And, yes, projects evolve, and projects develop, and projects alter their aims. Again, where is the surprise?

The aim of the Portland project was always a short/mid-term aim which was aimed at specific needs of ISVs- it never aimed at creating a unified look. And since you've wrote about gtk-qt-engine and bluecurve that's exactly what a reader could think.

And to write like is dead or was just to produce specs is misleading. Guess what, dbus lives and so do a lot of other projects of fd.o. fd.o itself also, btw.
Sure, several projects of fd.o are dead today, but keep in mind that fd.o is also *meant* to be a breeding place to check what comes out.
And writing like the gtk-qt-engine is something like the LSB is just disturbing. The first thing does not have anything to do with the other one, and I'm quite sure that you know that. And, also, writing about the LSB like it is dead or has no relevant meaning at all today is also just strange and does not help anyone.

Do not compare apples with pears or even with bananas. Not even if the P.R. of both was misleading at the launch of these projects. If you wanted to complain about P.R. and marketing, do it, but with the right words. For example, mention them at least once in your article.

And, talking about words: are you aware of the fact that neither in the quote nor in the given link to the newsforge article you will find the word "unify"? You introduced it in case of the Portland Project.


Return to The Portland project: No silver bullet for hairy problem of multiple desktops