nanogui: Status?
Subject:
RE: Status?
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
7 Sep 1999 20:02:50 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9909072059460.16279-100000@www.linuxhacker.org>
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> > I think the best way to go for nano-X would be the approach I took
> > for MicroWindows.
> I'm not sure I agree with this. X is fairly complex compared to what it
> should be possible to run Mozilla on.
I agree. X is a very large, complex API. I think we should just extend the
Nano-X API as much as is needed, and avoid the more complex parts of X.
--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
