>> If we haven't had LSB, we wouldn't have been discussing XSB.
>> Current situation of XSB is very similar to this. If we go forward with one
>> more step , we will surely have more clear ideas about the higher levels.
>Wait, why are we calling it XSB?
I'm temporarily using the name "XSB".
I w
>1. There is more than desktop issue here, it is about linux
>and common ground in higher OS levels. Something like:
>
>-
>
>App config,
>desktop, and lots
>of other hl things
>
>(High Level
>Interoperability
>Group or something
>like that)
>
>-
>
>Libs and other
>softwar
>I totally agree... If I may suggest, I would say that maybe a "XSB"
>should be formed, separate from "LSB" and the "XSB" can be a "layer"
>added onto the top of the "LSB" at a later date.
By the help of this thread it is becoming more clearer that there is a need
for XSB (or whatever you call. P
>But not all linux installs will use desktops so why make them part of
>the standard-base? If you were creating a standard base for an end-user
>system your argument would make sense, but take into consideration that
>there are alot of servers, enbeded systems, etc. that don't use a
>desktop (or ev
4 matches
Mail list logo
