imrana on Thu, Nov 26, 1998 at 12:39:12PM +:
> >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 cle
>> 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
BadlandZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think that now is the time for the LSB to take on making X
> window managers more compatible. But, I do think that getting X window
> managers more compatible (API/config files) is something that should
> start ASAP. Therefore, why not approach GNOM
> 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?
--
Matthew Miller --
>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
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, imrana wrote:
> >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
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, BadlandZ wrote:
> 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. For the sake of
Generally agreed, but there is one thing more: it i
>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
8 matches
Mail list logo
