Re: LiteStep and Linux?

On 8/15/07, Arve Barsnes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Afterstep might be a better base, but I'm not really a programmer, and I
> > haven't seen either Gnome or Afterstep's code.
> > Nothing wrong with basing it on something else if you ask me...
>
> AfterStep would be a good base, as it already has the Linux specific
> parts of it in place, and is generally more LiteStep-like than other
> WMs. Would still be a huge task though.
>
>
LS is a shell replacement for Windows and can not be turned into a
Linux window manager or desktop environment.
LS runs well under WINE which is nice for any user that runs many exes in Linux.
There are only module incompatibilities, which can probably be worked
around or could be fixed in WINE's code (if it's not compatible, it's
their fault since they are supposed to mimmic Windows).
I think we could make LS fit perfectly with WINE and propose it as a feature
for the WINE community (with a
minimalistic floating explorer bar or something).
Useability of LS under Linux could be agumented if there would be a
"bridge" between the emulated environment and the OS (which may already exist).
Such a bridge could be used in scripts, by lsxcommand or even by the
core to do pretty much anything.
An "inverse
bridge" could also be used to allow communication between a native
linux app that would communicate the systray/tasks and stuff to LS so
that it can act as a complete netive like desktop environment.

Or a simplified version of LS could be turned into a Linux desktop
environment although this would still be a major task and would require new
modules.

But there is already much competition in the alternative unix window manager
scene and some are quite similar to LS already.