On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Dayo <roneywo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fine... pick IVI. Pick *something*.
>>>
>>> MeeGo's complexity ({Netbook,Handset,IVI,Tablet} x {i586,armv7} x
>>> {MeeGoCompliance,PlatformCompliance,DeviceCompliance}) was apparently too
>>> much to bear even with corporate sponsorship. If you continue as a
>>> community project, it's important to narrow this down in order to
>>> succeed.
>>
>> ++1 That is why I said so the first place. Trying to do everything and
>> in the same time proved us very wrong.
>>
> I don't see a problem with keeping the various implementations of MeeGo
> alive, if there are people interested in contributing to them. Naturally, if
> a project receives no active contributions it goes stale and dies, but why
> kill it preemptively?
Many of us believe that supporting all the verticals and profiles
failed because it fragmented developers... and there were not enough
developers to support it all. I honestly believe that it is a large
reason why MeeGo has been more or less floundering.
With Intel removing the lion's share of those developer resources...
it would be foolish to continue that failed approach. It sets
everyone up for failure.
By re-focusing the goals to ONE THING... the hard-to-rely-on community
development model (*cough*Debian*cough*) has a reasonable chance of
accomplishing those goals. Once achieved, you may find room to re-add
those other verticals on top of a stable foundation.
-gabriel
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
MeeGo-dev@meego.com
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
