Comment 1190 for bug 1

The key to solving this bug lies in the title of the bug.

Ubuntu needs marketing. Market it! The rest will follow ;)

Cheers,
Randall.

On 10-05-06 05:25 PM, Faldegast wrote:
>
>>> In general i think that we really need task forces in plural.
>>>
>> Agreed, but some we already have some (like kernel hackers, X.org guys,
>> people who build desktop environments, ...).
>>
> I know that a few project have very organized task forces. However
> neither of those you mention shows much of that.
>
>
>>> There are a lot of overlapping projects. One example is that KDE and Gnome should merge, at least when it comes to key technologies.
>>>
>> That would certainly help to reduce the desperate shortage of manpower.
>>
>
>
>>> 1. We need a standardized method for embedding objects. Like Java Beans and OLE/ActiveX in Windows. I mean how do you view a office document in a VS application, or create a PDF report? You find an ActiveX that can do it. KDE has KParts and Gnome has something similar, but we really need a standard for this. Or in other words we need a standard for Custom Controls. In OLE/ActiveX an object can be inproc (dynamically or statically linked) or out of proc (external server process that starts on demand). Also the app is totally oblivious to w
>>>
>>> 2. We need a visual editor that can create new Custom Controls, or design containers like forms/windows.
>>>
>>> The Lazarus FreePascal IDE is an interesting project.
>>>
>> So instead of learning how to properly use existing libraries and then
>> writing nice and clean code yourself you prefer to have some kind of
>> gizmo spit out some crap for you and you actually call that programming?
>> Thank god that most people writing free software don't take the same
>> approach, because I'm convinced that's just a way of making things
>> rapidly deteriorate. Don't get me wrong - I know these are very powerful
>> tools in the hands of a true professional, but they're also helping to
>> make things suck so much more when some lazy and incompetent fuck is
>> just abusing them to roll his piece of crap ASAP so that he could start
>> making easy money out of it and doesn't even have a clue of how to use
>> them properly. Unfortunately I've seen way too much crap that was
>> "programmed" exactly this way to prove my point.
>>
> What? Can you be more specific in how you come to this ramblings out of
> what i wrote? How would having a standard rather then (at least) two
> incompatible solutions create such a mess?
>
>
>>> Another thing that we need is a good native database library. We have
>>>
>> JDBC and ADO.NET. Perhaps one of them could be ported to C/C++? We also
>> have PHP Data Objects that is quite nice and probably implemented in C,
>> perhaps the C code could be used to make a "C Data Objects"?
>>
>> There are quite a few - libmysql, libpq, libsqlite... many of them with
>> bindings to whatever language you like. Just pick the best fit for your
>> desired application.
>>
> So how do i use libmysql to connect to my postres database again? None of those are database libraries. They are database-specific client libraries.
> The only C database lib i know that is actively developed i libzdb (http://www.tildeslash.com/libzdb/documentation.html).
>
>
>> I think the bottom line is that the programming model is completely
>> different and those who just want to make their job easy and cobble
>> something up without actually knowing anything about coding are gonna
>> have a very hard time getting used to it.
>>
> In what way is it different? Most things i suggest are already in the programming model. The OLE/ActiveX-component type of component model for OO programming does exist. It exists in the form of beans, kpart and bonobo. The only difference with creating a standard is that kde objects would be usable in gnome and gnome objects in kde.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail i mobilen på 5 sekunder!
> http://new.windowslivemobile.msn.com/SE-SE/windows-live-hotmail/default.aspx
>
>