[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNUe] Re: GNUe (was 'What's up?')
Re: [GNUe] Re: GNUe (was 'What's up?')
Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:42:06 -0500
My experience is similar.
I've been watching for about a year now, and think the concept of the
project is sound (which is why I'm watching).
My first experiences trying to set something up with GNUe was not
favorable. There was no clear path to setup the "minimal try-me"
configuration and see what was there. At the time, I just considered it
immature, and decided to hang back and see how things proceeded. Aside
from a mild flame war about a convention, this list has been pretty
My acessment of the situation is that this is a huge undertaking, and is
understaffed. There are interesting dribbles of work all over the map,
but closure seems to be a problem, and the package seems to be melting
down under it's own weight.
I would like to see a straightforward path to go from ground zero to
database forms that takes less than a page to describe, and gets you
going. This might exist, but 1/2 day milling through what I had to work
with didn't yield it, so there seems to be a problem somewhere.
This architecture is an onion, and the inner layers haven't solidified
enough to build on top of it, and results aren't coming fast enough to
maintain the momentum. There could be lots of work going on behind the
scenes, but it isn't getting closure.
In reality, if I want to incorporate this package into my development
life, I'm going to want to start small, and see how far it can go. Show
me small, and we'll talk about dreamware when small is solid.
I think this is a good idea, but it needs a little CPR. I think to
attract the forces that are going to get it to critical mass, it needs to
do something demostrably useful right out of the box, and submit that
until that happens, the casual browser is going to keep right on walking.
But I'll put my time where my mouth is. I don't know any of the
developers of this package per se, but if this goal is considered useful
by the powers that be, I would be willing to spend some time cleaning up
and documenting the "getting started" process, including a meaningful
excercise to convince a "buyer" that this thing works.
I won't do this unsupported - somebody that has worked (or worked on)
this system needs to step up and tell me that I will be well supported if
I take this on.
> On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 17:02, Darryl Caldwell wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 10:33:30AM +0000, Peter Sullivan wrote:
> > > In article <address@hidden>, Derek
> > > Neighbors <address@hidden> writes
> > > >Yes we have a very real problem with people thinking this project
> > > >highly viable when it is. The interesting thing is we actually
> > > >the core of a study on how to communicate in a distributed world
> > > >
> > >
> > Hi all,
> > Meaning no disrespect to the hard volunteer work you have all done, I
> > continue to bypass GNUe until there is up-to-date docs, more
> > traffic on this list, case studies, and screen shots of working apps
> > in the field. Is anyone besides Derek and Jason using this stuff? Show
> > me.
> > I have complained before that all new developments are regulated to
> > discussions, which is not a good log for developer serious about
> > researching solutions. I don't want to spend anymore time grepping IRC
> > logs....
> > Sorry for kicking up dust, but I suspect this is what is holding up
> > the horde.
> and I've been monitoring this list just wondering the same thing, I
> think that sourceforge uses the term 'vitality'
> It took me a week to get Derek to acknowledge an email and I'm almost
> ready to start a new project wondering if I'm gonna get any support at
> all. Not meaning to dump on Derek at all, just wondering aloud if this
> is going to get critical mass.
> Gnue mailing list
- Re: [GNUe] Re: GNUe (was 'What's up?'),