Re: Re: LiteStep and Linux?

I think I got this. Linux (at least as it exists now) already requires 
some sort of shell and you can stick any of a number of shells into/onto 
a particular Linux distribution. So LiteStep, which is from its seeds 
designed to replace Explorer, would be unnecessary in a Linux system. 
Why would you want to replace something when you could choose what to 
put there in the first place?

Thanks for inviting me, Chris, I hope you don't regret it!

chris 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).
>. . .

>. . . 

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
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
    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