> So, if it is going to be restructured, I'd like to find these features
> on the new one too.
I don't think a restructuring is in order, other the one that has been
ongoing for a while. Those features will still be in place, if I
understand the way the new installer works at this point. I don't
think it is up to the user, however, it starts trying interfaces one
at a time with a certain priority until it finds one that initializes
correctly.
> Sure, you are right, but let user make their choice: this mean that
> gtk-fb will depend (and go) on a CD or network installation. With
Yes, I'm beginning to realize that this is probably the best place for
it (CD install).
> > I admit I'd rather have a less hokey widget set, but the other
> > advantage of BOGL is a compact utf8 and i18n library; does GTK have
> > something similar?
>
> I think this is not the point and taking the discussion on "this is
> better and
> this is not" whill not help.
Actually, I think this is a very important point. First, it has to
have international support. Second, the author? of bogl admits to it
having a hokey widget set. Well, that is the tradeoff between size
(fit on a floppy) and usability. I think its a justified tradeoff for
floppy based installations, the more I think about it.
I still think we should examine whether using the frame buffer over X
would be a benefit. Once the code is written for one, it should be
easy to make it work for the other (although I couldn't get
gtk-hello.c to compile with the frame buffer :))
--
Chris Ruffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP signature
