links for 2006-10-12

8 Trackbacks

  1. By Planet GNOME on October 12, 2006 at 23:59

    October 12, 2006 10:18 PM

  2. By ...will he ever win? on October 13, 2006 at 06:01

    Jeff Waugh writes, “raised concerns about overselling Portland during the first DAM meeting, as it could harm long-term credibility with ISVs. Such unclear language has resulted in serious miscommunication…” That’s one way of putting it.

  3. By Linux Blog Aggregator on October 13, 2006 at 06:21

    links for 2006-10-12 October 13th, 2006 by jdub

  4. By Ian Murdock’s Weblog on October 13, 2006 at 12:08

    Jeff Waugh: “I raised concerns about overselling Portland during the first [OSDL Desktop Architects] meeting, as it could harm long-term credibility with ISVs. Such unclear language has resulted in serious miscommunication, and was not rectified in the 1.0.

  5. By dmarti's blog | LinuxWorld Community on October 13, 2006 at 12:43

    Jeff Waugh writes, “raised concerns about overselling Portland during the first DAM meeting, as it could harm long-term credibility with ISVs. Such unclear language has resulted in serious miscommunication…” That’s one way of putting it.

  6. messaged is problematic. Going back to SuSE’s decision to ship and support both GTK/GNOME and Qt/KDE, I’ve been skeptical of approaches that try to hedge their user interface bets. I do happen to believe that Project Portland is important, but like Jeff, Ian, and Murray Cumming I’m concerned that some of the claims being made about Portland are setting up unrealistic - and probably unmeetable - expectations. Portland, for example, wouldn’t seem to solve

  7. By Planet Debian on October 14, 2006 at 20:56

    Jeff Waugh: “I raised concerns about overselling Portland during the first [OSDL Desktop Architects] meeting, as it could harm long-term credibility with ISVs. Such unclear language has resulted in serious miscommunication, and was not rectified in the 1.0.

  8. messaged is problematic. Going back to SuSE’s decision to ship and support both GTK/GNOME and Qt/KDE, I’ve been skeptical of approaches that try to hedge their user interface bets. I do happen to believe that Project Portland is important, but like Jeff, Ian, and Murray Cumming I’m concerned that some of the claims being made about Portland are setting up unrealistic - and probably unmeetable - expectations. Portland, for example, wouldn’t seem to solve