Re: Standard (G)UI (was a very long thread)

[Preben Randhol <randhol dusken4 samfundet ntnu no>]

* "Dan Kaminsky" <effugas@best.com

| Maybe we need to differentiate hard standards from soft standards.  Hard
| standards are those that, by force of market share or necessity, do not
| allow incremental innovation by selective replacement of components.  Soft
| standards are those that provide a minimum base level of conceptualization
| or implementation while allowing innovation above and beyond in an open and
| documented manner.
| 
| A GUI under a hard standard would *require* that GUI to function.  KDE is a
| hard standard--most K apps, as far as I know, do not run without KDE, even
| if QT is installed.  Gnome has to be softer, in the sense of GNOME apps
| should run without many GNOME components or a standard WM.
| 
| Obviously, hardness and softness are a continuum(v.90 and Win32 lie
| somewhere on it).  But I think it's fair to say GNOME should have a good
| deal of softness, if only to continue the rapid pace of development.
| 
| Needless to say, locked source(source that can only be modified by the
| owners) is a definite hardener.
| 

I agree completely :)

-- 
Preben Randhol                    | Linux was made by foreign terrorists
Tlf    73940929/(735)94076 [arb]  | to take money from true US
Email  randhol@pvv.org            | companies like Microsoft.
http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/      |                      -- Some AOL'er.