[openbeos] Re: Visual design stuff again
- From: "Simon Taylor" <simontaylor1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:13:22 +0100 BST
> > I do see there is a certain inconsistency though, in that all the
> > teams
> > knocking out "internal" code are happy to take the API and then
> > implement it as they see fit, with whatever improvements they think
> > work in that framework - whereas the UI "implementation" is pretty
> > much
> > pixel-for-pixel identical to R5. Changes in implementation go from
> > the
> > simple "I've added flag y to our function x to be more POSIX
> > compatible", to "We're putting all the networking in the kernel" -
> > these type of changes are almost always welcomed. Yet if someone
> > came
> > along tomorrow and said "I've made all the widgets look more
> > modern,
> > and the OS as a whole much more appealing to a wider audience", I
> > think
> > they would face a lot of resistance getting the code accepted. Am I
> > the
> > only one who sees this as an inconsistency?
>
> If we had a roughly working and nearly complete userland networking
> system,
> and someone came along and said they were going to do a kernelland
> version,
> with a boottime flag to choose between the two, I for one would argue
> they
> should spend their time elsewhere till we get R1 out. We don't have
> such a
> system, though, so we may as well do it all in the kernel to begin
> with.
I would agree with that.
> If we had a roughly working and nearly complete implementation of the
> R5
> equivalent of the DiskDevice API, we probably wouldn't be doing a new
> and
> vastly improved version like we currently are.
That too.
> If we had a roughly working and nearly complete set of R5 UI
> components,
> which in this case we do, and someone said they wanted to add in a
> new
> look, I would say we should wait and do it right later once we get R1
> out.
The key difference here is 2-fold:
1) The large majority of the implementations of old and new are the
same.
2) A new look will have a dramatic effect on how R1 is perceived, and
better reflect the fact that the OS is 100% new code, and the few
hundreds lines of code are therefore justifiable.
Anyway, this is more a reason for why I should be encouraged to code
something else, rather than an argument "for" keeping the current look.
I have already decided that I will try to code a new look, just for
personal interest. Whether you want it or not is what I am trying to
work out.
> This is why I don't believe we're being inconsistent, but it's a fair
> question. :-)
And a very good answer, I thought.
> -Tyler
Simon
Other related posts:
