> This ISV disagrees, and would look at every improve-integration-via- > optional-call case on a cost-benefit basis, I think. Sure, if I want something badly enough, I will jump through any hoops that are there to provide it. For convenience features that make the end user's experience more consistent, I will just say "Linux doesn't really provide any sort of consistent way of doing that."
> Well, if by "prefer" you mean "in a perfect future in which someone > else did it for us exactly in accordance with our application model, > etc.", then yeah, sign me up. =) Application model? I am looking for a consistent platform model. The debate here is whether it would be more beneficial to a consistent platform model to put something like Rudi together or to put a bunch of effort into DT_USEFUL so that people can write a bunch of conditional code that tries to do the best it can in most places. I don't know enough about Rudi to endorse it, but DT_USEFUL is not something I would lay any bets on solving the problems of providing a full featured desktop experience for end users. Phil -----Original Message----- From: Mike Shaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 9:39 AM To: Brooks, Phil Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Desktop_architects] Runtime dependency limitations On 19-Dec-05, at 12:29 PM, Brooks, Phil wrote: > ISVs would prefer not to fiddle with anything that is optional or > implemented in more than one way depending upon choices that the > user made (i.e. which distro is loaded, which desktop is running > etc.) This ISV disagrees, and would look at every improve-integration-via- optional-call case on a cost-benefit basis, I think. Well, if by "prefer" you mean "in a perfect future in which someone else did it for us exactly in accordance with our application model, etc.", then yeah, sign me up. =) Mike
_______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
