is new lib dependency possible for 3.5.2?

[Michael Pyne]

On Sunday 29 January 2006 15:45, Leo Savernik wrote:
> It is not about *some* C-library, it's about *glib*, without which nothing
> of gnome would remotely exist. If we introduce a hard dependency on glib
> I can vividly imagine the Ximian
> marketing meisters telling corporate IT deciders, "... it [KDE] is based on
> the same libraries like gnome, but needlessly duplicates functionality. So
> it uses up twice the RAM and is twice as slow. Why going with the cheap
> copy when you can have the original?". This statement is full of lies, but
> it's called marketing for a reason.

As opposed to the normal FUD about how C++ applications are humungous, slow 
memory-hogs compared to the RAW SPEED of C libraries? ;)  And besides, we 
both also rely on libxml2 (hosted on gnome.org), as has been pointed out 
elsewhere, not to mention glibc (although not hosted on gnome.org).

They are always going to have stuff for their marketing dept. to point out as 
a potential flaw.

And besides, we can use this as a marketing advantage as well.  KDE is, as a 
project, better able to identify useful libraries upon which to base 
development.  i.e. KDE always brings the best technology available, even if 
we didn't write it.

I mean really, how is this potential "feature" supposed to look good for our 
Marketing Working Group?

"FEATURE: KDE doesn't use the standard xkb parsing library, instead using our 
own implementation which is always 2 steps away from the standard and 
sometimes broken.  This adds 5-8 bugs and saves 25K of demand-paged code."

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20060129/e3266c0f/attachment.sig>