nanogui: Thread: GGI + wishes

Has anyone finished a stable GGI driver yet, if so, when can I (we?)
expect to see a release, the GGI driver in pre3 doesn't seem to want to
compile, and having GGI would allow me to start work under X as apposed
to having the 4th monitor on my desk :)

I, like everyone else, has my own plan for nano, and am awaiting someone
to release a widget set for me to toy with, I don't want to duplicate
the effort so am currently working on the backend of my code, and
awaiting for someone else to complete the libraries I need before I
start on the frontend.

I would like to think that my application (I'm keeping it quiet for now,
thanks, until I get a little further with it) may make a nice flagship
applet for nano.

	-Darran

--
Darran D. Rimron                              ####@####.####
Mobile: +44 17808 49 25 49                 Pager: +44 76543 07647
Rimron Design & Consultancy              http://www.rimron.co.uk/
Phone: +44 1708 766 959                     Fax: +44 1708 766 959

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Darran D. Rimron wrote:
> Has anyone finished a stable GGI driver yet, if so, when can I (we?)

I was sent one, I'll have a go at integrating it tonight. I did set GGI up
a couple of weeks ago with an eye to integrating the GGI driver, but I
couldn't seem to get it stable (GGI itself, that is).

> expect to see a release, the GGI driver in pre3 doesn't seem to want to
> compile, and having GGI would allow me to start work under X as apposed

That's because the driver isn't there, just the makefile infrastructure.

> I would like to think that my application (I'm keeping it quiet for now,
> thanks, until I get a little further with it) may make a nice flagship
> applet for nano.

Somebody was actually talking about porting Mozilla to it and using it as
the basis for a set top box, but I don't know what happened to that.

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
> Sent: 17 June 1999 09:20
> Subject: Re: GGI + wishes
>
> Somebody was actually talking about porting Mozilla to it and
> using it as the basis for a set top box, but I don't know what
> happened to that.

Theory: (and I could be talking out of my backside here) If Greg is
"porting" a Win32 API set to nano, it may be easier to port the Win32
version of Mozilla as apposed to the Linux one (I *STRESS* I know
nothing about the internals of Mozilla). But, I stress again, I could be
talking out of my arse here....

	-Darran

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Darran D. Rimron wrote:
> Theory: (and I could be talking out of my backside here) If Greg is
> "porting" a Win32 API set to nano, it may be easier to port the Win32
> version of Mozilla as apposed to the Linux one (I *STRESS* I know
> nothing about the internals of Mozilla). But, I stress again, I could be
> talking out of my arse here....

I think he was talking about porting not the browser, but the rendering
engine, in a custom (very limited, but intentionally so, as seemingly some
people want that out of an "internet appliance") user interface which
would be written directly on top of Nano-X itself, without any specific
general purpose widget set. For porting the entire browser, hopefully it
shouldn't be too hard to port either the GTK+ or Win32 version once we
have a GTK+ port, and if Greg's Win32 is close enough to the real Win32.
So then it'd be up to you whether you want a configurable GTK+ based UI
(which can be configured to look like Win32 if you really want), or just
the Win32 UI (which will probably have lower memory requirements than
GTK+).

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------