[Desktop_architects] Portland: The LinuxDesktop IntegrationInterface

[Brooks, Phil]

> They boil down to pure Xlib.
Exactly - the OpenWindows vs. Motif issue did not advance the cause of
Unix (we used Xlib then).  We are replaying that issue.

> using different widget libraries is common on all platforms, and is
-not- the problem here.
That is definitely the direction it seems like we should go.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: desktop_architects-bounces at lists.osdl.org
[mailto:desktop_architects-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of George
Staikos
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 10:48 AM
To: Steve Northover
Cc: desktop_architects at lists.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [Desktop_architects] Portland: The LinuxDesktop
IntegrationInterface

On Monday 05 December 2005 12:09, Steve Northover wrote:
> What?
>
> While there are many possible widget toolkits that execute on a given
> platform, by definition, the native widgets for the platform come from
the
> operating system vendor.  The operating system vendors define the look
and

  If you want to use that argument, then these are wrong:

> Unix (AIX, HP, Solaris)
> - Motif
> - GTK (Solaris only)
>
> Linux
> - GTK+
> - Qt
> - Fox
> - Motif
> - ... others?

  They boil down to pure Xlib.

  Unless you want to talk "operating system vendors define the look", in
which 
case the only native thing is a completely non-customized app, which
uses 
exactly and only what the OS vendor uses, and that means every Linux 
distribution is a different OS entirely from an ISV perspective.

  This is more of a 'rathole' than anything that came up in Portland.
The 
fact of the matter is, using different widget libraries is common on all

platforms, and is -not- the problem here.  It's being treated as a
scapegoat 
for inability to properly define the real problem.

-- 
George Staikos
KDE Developer				http://www.kde.org/
Staikos Computing Services Inc.		http://www.staikos.net/