Don't blame LSB and standards, please: was: Re: Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please

[Miloslav Trmač]

2014-04-01 14:22 GMT+02:00 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com>:
>
> On 04/01/2014 11:57 AM, Christian Schaller wrote:
>>
>> Well I think the real disagreement here is what the products is supposed
to be
>> about. The WG wants to create an integrated product that is clearly
identifiable,
>> not a 'mix your own' cookbook. We want to the Workstation to be as
clearlyidentifiable
>> and targetable a product as MacOSX is, while I think you want the
workstation to be the
>> equivalent of shipping a random desktop system on top of Darwin and still
>> claim it is 'MacOSX'.
>>
>> Christian
>
>
> Which is equivalent of saying that the serverWG should tie them to a
single
> server role.

I don't think this is quite precise.  The Server WG is, essentially,
inventing a new, *single*, D-Bus API for roles (and assuming a
*single*glibc API for server implementation[1]) .  On the desktop, we
already have
GTK[23], Qt[45], and more fundamentally disjoint alternatives, and from
time to time *actually matters* whether applications are all using a single
one, or many (e.g. new features have to be implemented once vs. ~four
times).
    Mirek

[1] Well, and it gets really complicated above glibc. The above-glibc layer
is really fragmented and there isn't much consensus over whether any
particular library is "canonical" / " official".  "Luckily", many server
implementations want to be portable to different OSes so they tend to
reimplement these libraries instead using them, so the fragmentation
doesn't matter... which in effect makes the fragmentation even worse.
    Mirek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20140401/73ad4562/attachment.html>