Re: LiteStep and Linux?

On 8/15/07, Roy Gathercoal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Are these competitors (Linux shells similar to LiteStep) open source?


In the Unix world, a shell generally means the shell of the command
line interface. They sometime
call the graphic server (X Window), window manager and desktop
environment the Graphical Shell.
I think most if not all Linux
window managers and/or desktop environments are open source.

If so, would it be possible and useful (two very different questions) to
> take one of these "similar to LiteStep already" shells and create some
> sort of bridge that would do the on-the-fly translation between LiteStep
> and the Linux machines?


Possibly, LS is a clone of these
competitors. Some still have text based config files that are almost
identical to what you can find in a
step.rc file.
You would need some sort of stripped
FVWM that would communicate information with a modified LS core under
WINE. The different
tasks could all be offloaded to LS or be shared between the two apps.
Althoug, it would need a significant amount of work.

Here are a couple of potential benefits:
>
> (1) An increasing number of users seem to be packing U3 portable
> desktops around with them. Thus they can boot from the U3 and start with
> their own familiar/preferred desktop, configurations, utilities, etc.
>
> Might it be useful to a Windows/LiteStep user to be able to move back
> and forth with the (apparently) same desktop?


I don't like U3, mainly due to the way it was programmed. It probably is
possible to put LS on a U3 device.

(2) It seems unlikely there will be a shortage of users looking for an
> alternative to Windows.  Sadly, Linux will not give Microsoft a run for
> their money. Even taking together all of the non-Windows desktops it
> seems unlikely that Microsoft strategists will lose much sleep over
> market share loss.


I don't agree with you. Yes windows will still be the main OS in the
coming years but Linux will progress slowly, as it has done in the
last few years.
The alternative to Windows continue to be (in pretty much that order) : OSX,
Linux, BSD and Solaris, which can all run Linux programs natively and WINE.

Especially in Asian markets, where some project that more computers will
> be sold than in the US and Europe in just a few years! Note, for
> example, that one recent theme skinning contest (with some really nifty
> toys to the winners) was dominated by entries from China.
>
> This would not be my choice if I had something to do with it, but it
> does seem to be the fact--in spite of any of my possible contributions
> (!) Microsoft isn't going away soon. I do have to admit, though, that I
> do not at all miss the days when every hardware and software purchase
> required its own set of drivers and "play nice with others" utilities.
>
> So it seems reasonable that if we were to reestablish a solid base of
> themes it would serve the LiteStep community exceeding well.


I agree, more nice themes is always a good thing. Really impressive
themes get a visible place on skinning websites by winning awards and
stuff and many try LS just to use the cool theme they saw.

Also, I consider the LS themes to be generally of a better quality than what
can be found on most unix skinning and many windows skinning.

From what I am hearing, however, it seems that many of the most
> experienced theme creators/LiteStep program developers have moved away
> from Windows.


I don't beleive most of them, maybe half or less. Many still need to use
windows.

Putting all this together, doesn't it make sense that if LiteStep were
> able to run platform-independent (or at least, Linux-friendly) we will
> be more likely to continue to attract the contributions of our most
> experienced developers? I would imagine that a good part of the
> motivation to create themes (apart from the lucrative financial
> incentives and wide ranging perks--cough, cough) comes from the themer's
> desire to try something out/create something new on their own desktop.


LS has not been designed to be platform independent and would need
major work for the core to work natively in Linux.
And even then, all the modules would need to be rewritten also using
some OS abstration layer.

If we were to combine some measure of Linux compatibility with a
> paradigm shift pairing great graphic design with phenomenal programming,
> LiteStep would likely emerge as the "industry standard" and the measure
> of every other package.


You are pretty much describing Gnome, KDE or
GnuStep which have already achieved this status and they can be used
in Windows with cygwin.


If we are going to create great desktop environments, don't we need this
> community of experienced/highly skilled programmers?
>
> So is it possible? Is it probable? Is it likely to be worth it?


Possible : Well everything is possible
Probable : Not much
Worth it : Considering the amount of work needed and the existing
competition, I don't beleive modifying LS to be portable would be worth it.

What we can do is look at what is available in the shell scene on both sides
of the OS world and use our observations to inspire
us on the new things we do with LS.

We can also fix what needs to be fixed to have a complete support of Vista32
and later Vista64. We can do the same thing with WINE and work around
WINE's glitches or correct their code so that LS works flawlessy there also.
Once we've done that, we can look at what else we can do.

Antoine