Re: 4.7pre4

* Slava Zanko <slavazanko gmail com> schrieb:


> >> To me not. In really small systems better to use busybox without mc. Or
> >> just older versions of mc...
> > What a great suggestion ;-o
> Why not? For example: do you tried to run KDE4 under your embedded
> hardware? I'm sure, you never think about this :).
> Is KDE1 or more lightweight (and older) WM  have chance to run?

I never ever considered KDE1 for embedded systems, always had been
far too fat for that. But MC once was well suited for them.

> And what percentage of running mc greater: on end-user desktop (or on
> servers via ssh-connect) or in poor embedded devices?

Actually, I know a lot of people using mc on small memory
systems (from routers or controlling devices to VZs).
Do you really want to piss off that userbase ? 

> I'm talking about console file manager too. But I'm talking about  less
> codebase and as result easy to support (maintain); use all standart
> technology(libraries), with many opportunities for featurefull
> development. 

What do you maintain on long approved code ?

> A result, I want to see mc with minimal size of executable and hard
> dependencies to glib and s-lang(ncurses) only. All other dependencies
> will calculated in runtime via dlopen/dlsum. And mc will have plugins
> for extend basic functionality.

Plugins are a great way for making applications unreliable.

> For example, 'syntax coloring' plugin for editor. If some file is
> present (/usr/lib/mc/ then editor have
> syntax highlight. Otherwise not. Same like for skins... or for filenames
> highlight... or for any other currently hardcoded visual effects.

Why not just as a build-time flag ?

 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service -
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]