Re: Re: LiteStep and Linux?

Not to mention, that Litestep was loosely based on a shell that was
originally for linux anyway.  Nice to see your still around jugg.

On 9/12/07, chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> What makes Litestep... Litestep is simply a plain text based
> configuration system that loads plugins and provides access to Windows
> shell resources for those plugins.  Litestep is a *replacement* shell
> (keep that in mind).
>
> The thing that people don't understand is that *underneath* of Litestep
> is a standardized OS and shell services that doesn't vary much from one
> person's desktop to the next.  So regardless of how archaic Litestep may
> be to some peoples view point, they can still work with it because
> everything else on their OS is familiar (notepad, explorer file manager,
> alt+tab, download-able install packages etc).  There is no learning
> curve beyond Litestep.
>
> Now jump into Linux... a whole different story.  There are desktop
> environments (DE) out there that are also a plain text file
> configuration that load plugins.  Not really any different than what we
> see in Litestep.  The biggest difference is what is running under the
> DE... the resources provided.  Because the OS setup could be any
> combination of distro, window manager etc, this type of DE does not get
> a lot of support or plugins written for it, and the plugins that do get
> written for it are probably not going to target the same resources you
> have available on your system.
>
> So, the big fellas, KDE, GNOME... the ones that have included the
> kitchen sink, well for these a lot of plugins have been written.  But
> like Explorer, the target audience doesn't want to mess with
> configuration as much, and therefor the configuration can't be free-form.
>
> Remember I mentioned that Litestep is a *replacement* shell?  Well, you
> could take a KDE system as your "standard", and replace the KDE
> configuration system and plugin architecture with a different one,
> utilizing all other aspects of a KDE install.  As when replacing
> Explorer in Windows, one would have to offer interfaces to the KDE
> services etc.  With that, you would now have a replacement shell for KDE
> systems (whether that replacement shell was written in the vein of
> geoshell, bblean, or litestep is besides the point).
>
> "Litestep for Linux" is an oxymoron.
>
> chris
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Can't Unsubscribe? Check http://desktopian.org/listunsub.html
>         LS List Homepage: http://wuzzle.org/list/litestep.php
>             Get the LS FAQ: http://lsfaq.shellfront.org
>
>


-- 
Fidel

---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can't Unsubscribe? Check http://desktopian.org/listunsub.html
        LS List Homepage: http://wuzzle.org/list/litestep.php
            Get the LS FAQ: http://lsfaq.shellfront.org