nanogui: re:
Subject:
RE:
From:
klindsay ####@####.####
Date:
11 May 1999 20:18:22 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990511131121.25205G-100000@mocha.mkintraweb.com>
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> >
> > The first version of nanoX that I write will definitely have some built-in window
> > management, in order to keep it small. In my opinion, *all* of nanoX should be
> > kept small, so that it can be used where X can't. Otherwise, why not just use X?
>
> I agree..
>
> Just one issue: Make sure the system still works fine without any window
> manager, the same way X does.
>
> For our use, for instance, we don't want the windows to be movable or
> resizable for the end user, and we don't want any visible borders
> stealing screen real estate, and I suspect that to be valid for a fair
> share of the PDA/set top box/webpad market.
I agree with this as well, you want just a plan blah X server going that
is very small. The real Nano-X. Having window managers modular will give
Nano-X Scalability. Vidar wants to use it on a PDA/Webpad, where I would
like to use it as a Linux Distribution Install since it will be much
smaller and faster than X. So I would like to add at some point a nice
looking window manager. Nano-X could become huge! But only if people want
to add a whole bunch of options to it for customization, but you can still
make it very small by just using the core. Perfect for everyone.
-------------------------
Kevin Lindsay
Stormix Technologies Inc.
00 75 CB D4 20 AB 02 8B 2E 22 C0 E7 F3 9A 2D 72
