From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 27 07:20:32 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA06386 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 07:20:32 -0800 Received: from ra.dkuug.dk (ra.dkuug.dk [193.88.44.193]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA06377 ; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 07:20:21 -0800 Received: (from sos@localhost) by ra.dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA16649; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 16:16:50 +0100 Message-Id: <199511271516.QAA16649@ra.dkuug.dk> Subject: Re: Thoughts on the install and on Red Hat Linux. To: jfieber@indiana.edu (John Fieber) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 16:16:49 +0100 (MET) Cc: phk@critter.tfs.com, sos@freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, cshenton@apollo.hq.nasa.gov, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "John Fieber" at Nov 27, 95 08:47:12 am From: sos@freebsd.org Reply-to: sos@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1607 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk In reply to John Fieber who wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > Considering the problems, I belive that an X11-based installation is > > >not< the thing we should do before we can do a !X11-based installation > > to some level of satisfaction. > > Yes! Listen to the man! Exactly my words... What I propose is a "modern" version of curses/dialog that uses a simple graphic interface with a simple designer interface... It doesn't require all the space/setup/whatever that X does, but could easily be made to run under X later... What I was after was that it should be damnd easy to design/implement the user interface, if thats not the case we won't get any graphical utilities (how many do we have now ????) I do see we have a problem with text only machinery, for that we propbly stilll should use curses/dialog. If we can get a definition done on the function interface, then I'm ready to change it, if we get real serious we would design it so that curses/dialog <> "my baby" would have the same interface on the functioncall level, then we could have both textonly/graphical solutions... I'll stop dreaming now.... > (This is not to say that we shouldn't keep an X based install in the back > of our minds though. We don't want to make design decisions that > eliminate future options.) Sure, that was why I was ready to do a X backend to my baby project... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Soren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team So much code to hack -- so little time.