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

[Rex Dieter]

On 04/01/2014 06:30 AM, Christian Schaller wrote:
> Sure, but considering that such a requirements list would include a lot
> of look and feel, behavior, system service usage, developer API availability
>   and so on, it would in some cases require quite radical code changes in the
> respective desktops.
>
> And we could change the requirement in the Workstation for Qt5 to be available
> to instead say 'there has to be an implementation of the Qt5 API available', which opens up
> for people to write their own implementations, but I don't see it as a very realistic
> thing for anyone to do or an especially worthwhile one.

There's arguably a problem with your hypothetical scenario.

Fedora already has > 1 standards-based Desktop implementations, but only 
1 Qt5.  And frankly, if some better Qt5 implementation came along, great 
(but still unlikely, in agreement with you).

-- Rex