Re: Informal poll

On Wednesday 16 April 2003 04:28, Micah Dowty wrote:

> >
> > Just the (hopefully unnecessary) plea to keep in mind that a major
> > strength of pg is it's potential good portability to non-Linux embedded
> > targets. Some of those targets only offer a C-Compiler and limited POSIX
> > compatibility. Don't leave this market sector to NanoX!
>
> Definitely. I'd love to get PicoGUI working on eCos, OSKit, NetBSD, L4...
> the main problem currently is that the build system is quite baroque.
>

Well, time to get people pissed at me. I think if the build system is the 
thing holding us back from these platforms, then we should fix the build 
system. I don't think we need a rewrite of PicoGUI to operate on these 
platforms. In fact, from what I've heard of the new system, I'm worried about 
cross platform compatibility. How well can oM work on eCos, Windows, HP-UX. 
If PicoGUI has to be staticly compiled on all of these platforms to work at 
all, because I know for a fact that HP-UX's dynamic loader is wierd and 
Apache can't use it for it's modules, then what is the advantage of ripping 
up all we have done so far to build a pie in the sky new system? I think 
having your HTML rendering component on a remote machine and attached to the 
PicoGUI server on the local mahcine is a cool idea, but in the end I think 
thats all it is, a cool idea. On a large scale, thats going to cause huge 
problems in terms of bandwidth, and security. I think there is a major case 
for sticking with PG1, because PG1 is as it's name describes it, its a GUI. 
It is not a distributed computing system. If you want to make a distributed 
computing app, then cool! But leave the GUI to be a GUI. 



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf