On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Marcin Krol wrote:
> 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
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
> > > you will, rather than a "moving" t
Jean-Eric Cuendet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm asking me a question. There is now 2 big desktops for Linux: KDE
> and Gnome.
This issue has come up at several meetings with Linux distributors and
developers. The general view (which I share) is that the LSB should
not address the desktop qui
[ My appologies, the message that Marcin is replying to should have
been sent to the mailing list but I forgot to change the headers in
elm (hey it was 2am ;-). Nonetheless, I'll try to clarify somethings
which only make sense with a copy of my message.
On a related note, I replied to an
On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > I think Greg has a good point. I would be nice to include the desktop as
> > > a part of the OS for a personal workstation, but having the choice of no
> > > GUI is why some people choose linux.
> > That's why layered or modular standard with op
> I hereby volunteer to be virtual Jon Postel and maintain such an
> archive, should it be considered useful.
You need to grow the beard, otherwise yes I think this is a veyr good idea.
It'll also encourage library vendors and people like the perl and python
projects to provide reference naming sc
On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Davide Bolcioni wrote:
> Agreed. I see a few possible approaches to solve the problem:
> 1) provide a standard set of services application writers can use, i.e.
> a single fully specified API (Macintosh or Windows; Linux might still
> have different implementations but their c
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Aaron wrote:
> > Who said standard *prevents* you from doing so? I am last one to consider
> > conserve-it-in-the-plastic MS approach. Just implement modifiable
> > standard. Irreplaceable standard - that is the problem definitely.
> As I implied however, one purpose of a st
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Joel Maher wrote:
>
>
> > I think Greg has a good point. I would be nice to include the desktop as
> > a part of the OS for a personal workstation, but having the choice of no
> > GUI is why some people choose linux.
>
> That's why layered or modular standard with optio
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Joel Maher wrote:
> I think Greg has a good point. I would be nice to include the desktop as
> a part of the OS for a personal workstation, but having the choice of no
> GUI is why some people choose linux.
That's why layered or modular standard with optional higher layer
Marcin Krol wrote:
[ snip modularity vs. one model ...]
> Yes, they are expected. Problem is, they don't adapt - user
> has to do it. In order to do so, user has to acquire large quantities
> of intrinsic and otherwise useless knowledge. It's not
> impossible - it's uneconomic. IMHO, the whole p
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
> > de facto part of OS.
> >
> > Marcin Krol
> In
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, 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
> de facto part of OS.
>
I think Greg has a good point. I would be nice to include
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > An API to access either Gnome or KDE desktop strikes me as beyond the
> > > scope of the LSB.
> >
> > 1. How about *generic desktop API*. 2. If there is any reason for LSB, it
> > is desktop.
> KDE is outside of any LSB work.
Favoring any particular s
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 weeding
> through available products/impleme
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Rob Current wrote:
> It's NOT. KDE is ugly as sin.
A matter of taste in 100%.
> placed which included such things as:
>
> NAME Large Icon Small Icon Command Line
> MAIN--
> Netscape netscape.xpm netscape-mini.xpm /usr/local/netscape/netscape
> EMACSemacs.x
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
> de facto part of OS.
>
> Marcin Krol
In my opinion, one of the major points of the Unix approach is precise
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
-
Hiroshima 45
Comments below ...
Rob Current wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Marcin Krol wrote:
> > Probably E and GNUStep are. However, it is not important which desktop is
> > most popular *right now*. KDE would be very important even if it were not
> > very ergonomic or aesthetic.
>
> It's NOT. KDE is ugl
The lsb should stay out of desktop standardization. Not all linux
implementations use desktops (or need them) and it would be a shame to
cut embedded servers and various linux implementations out of the linux
standard. Desktops are a value added product that should be handled by
the ISVs and distri
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 weeding
through available products/implementations for a "best-of-breed" product.
Usually
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Marcin Krol wrote:
> Probably E and GNUStep are. However, it is not important which desktop is
> most popular *right now*. KDE would be very important even if it were not
> very ergonomic or aesthetic.
It's NOT. KDE is ugly as sin. Following Motif'ish styling clues to create
> > An API to access either Gnome or KDE desktop strikes me as beyond the
> > scope of the LSB.
>
> 1. How about *generic desktop API*. 2. If there is any reason for LSB, it
> is desktop.
KDE is outside of any LSB work. Remember the main reason for the LSB is
at least notionally commercial softw
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, BadlandZ wrote:
> Jean-Eric Cuendet wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm asking me a question. There is now 2 big desktops for Linux: KDE and
> > Gnome.
> > Couldn't we add an API to access either Gnome or KDE desktop for the
> > applications to interact with them.
> > So, a Word proces
gt; To: Jean-Eric Cuendet; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Desktop normalization
>
> Jean-Eric Cuendet wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > I'm asking me a question. There is now 2 big desktops for Linux: KDE
> and
> > Gnome.
> > Couldn't we add an API
Jean-Eric Cuendet wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I'm asking me a question. There is now 2 big desktops for Linux: KDE and
> Gnome.
> Couldn't we add an API to access either Gnome or KDE desktop for the
> applications to interact with them.
> So, a Word processor could access Gnome if it's running Gnome or KD
26 matches
Mail list logo
