On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Aaron wrote:
> I was deep in meditation when Marcin Krol awoke me by saying:
> > > As I implied however, one purpose of a standard (and a primary motivation
> > > of the LSB project) is to give potential developers a "still" target, if
> &
ng like:
-
App config,
desktop, and lots
of other hl things
(High Level
Interoperability
Group or something
like that)
-
Libs and other
software found
in every distr
(LSB)
-
Kernel
(Linus and co.)
-
2. Call it anything but "stan
l Linux
Interoperability" ("ineroperability", because as we have seen "standard"
is a bit like dirty word among people who primarily want customizability),
with subgroups concentrating on vari
formats. Administrators/hackers because
> whenever they go to edit a configuration, there is a clear and universal
> interface to that configuration.
That's the way to "world domination". ;-)
Marcin Krol
-
Hiroshima 45 Tschernobyl 86 Windows 95
und, and building extensions (commercial, free software,
whatever really) on top of that. But in order to do that, you have
to have *some* common ground on important issues, and application
configuration especially in GUI area is important ground.
Marcin Krol
-
el and maintain such an
> archive, should it be considered useful.
OK. I think I will start working in my spare time on something
that would work like what we talk here about.
Marcin Krol
-
Hiroshima 45 Tschernobyl 86 Windows 95
so you have to
> introduce trigger scripts and so on. Doing it at launch time might be
> better, caching the results in a dot file for performance if necessary.
I meant kind of wrapper rather or new abstraction layer, but if your way
were more practical, I'd go for it.
Marcin Krol
-
Hiroshima 45 Tschernobyl 86 Windows 95
he only problem is settling down WHAT is absolutely necessary.
> > Some say "desktop is add-on product". Tell something like that to Mac
> > user.
> I don't argue that the desktop is important land, but I argue that
> standardizing on a specific de
ptional higher layers
or modules designed for interoperability rather than for prefering
any existing solution would be a good thing IMHO.
> > Hiroshima 45 Tschernobyl 86 Windows
> > 95
> nice Signatu
tally necessary. Or else we will see rerun of 'How Unix Was
Fractured' soap opera.
>all kinds of hell would break
> loose :)
Correct.
Marcin Krol
-
Hiroshima 45 Tschernobyl 86 Windows 95
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Davide Bolcioni wrote:
> Marcin Krol wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Greg S. Hayes wrote:
> >
> > > Desktops are a value added product
> >
> > Not at all. It's not seventies anymore. Now desktop (widely understood) is
eamlessly as possible to another wm when they decide to give it a try.
Marcin Krol
-
Hiroshima 45 Tschernobyl 86 Windows 95
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Aaron wrote:
> I was deep in meditation when Marcin Krol awoke me by saying:
> >
> > For heaven's sakes, no! Even bad standard is better than lack of standard.
>
> I don't think so. With a lack of a standard, one has the option of weedi
o make it only one way (MS approach), because
that way developed product would risk loosing too many users. IOW,
variety would keep developers on their toes to provide universal
product, but standard would also press them to make instantly usable
product.
Marcin Krol
-
Hiroshima 45 Tschernobyl 86 Windows 95
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Greg S. Hayes wrote:
> Desktops are a value added product
Not at all. It's not seventies anymore. Now desktop (widely understood) is
de facto part of OS.
Marcin Krol
-
Hiro
.
Desktop is everything. Who controls desktop, controls computing. Has
success of MS taught unixers nothing? "Alice in Unixland" should be
required reading on unix courses.
Marcin Krol
-
Hiroshima 45 Tschernobyl 86 Windows 95
16 matches
Mail list logo
