Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 03:01:47 -0400 From: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au Cc: hasty@rah.star-gate.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Plugin? (Re: Complaining at Warner Brothers? ) Message-ID: <199706160701.DAA17792@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199706160050.KAA08372@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> (message from Michael Smith on Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:20:59 %2B0930 (CST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:20:59 +0930 (CST) > (IMHO, plugins allow you to do some of the things you could do if > you actually had the source, in a way that requires more work for everyone.) No, plugins let the user extend the functionality of their software without having to have the source, or the resources to build it. I fail to see where either of these would be huge advantages. If I have the resources to run X, I have th resources to run gcc. And with E-scape, you're almost forced by the GPL to get the source. The Tcl plugin is pretty damn handy. IMHO you should make your browser more, not less, modular. Not only does it make your job easier, it makes life easier for someone wanting to develop an extension either for general distribution or with a specific target group in mind (eg. for an embedded or vertical solution). You've raised a good point. It is desireable for E-scape to eventually suport the functionality of the TCL plugin, although I think that it won't be written strictly as a plugin. I'm also realizing that I need to come up with an adaquate framework in my code for these random pieces. There is more to life than HTML and images :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706160701.DAA17792>