ICCCM vs. technology pimping (was: Re: No more module proposals - decisions need to be made)

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 11:56:06AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> I don't think that's the objective; the ISV app runtime requirements
> should be entirely covered by LSB.
> 
> fd.org release would be something more analogous to an X.org or GNOME
> release.

So, Havoc has noted this -- the LSB exists to define incredibly stable
ABIs, and thus it tends to move rather slowly.

Looking at the shape of the platform, there are two alternatives I see
thus far:
	* a very small set of specifications (think: ICCCM)
	* the above, plus pushing cool technologies that, while largely
	  standard, are not in the Oracle realm of LSBism; stuff like
	  D-BUS in April next year or such.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the merits of one versus the other?  My
current thoughts are that going with an fd.o ICCCM would be an
incredible waste of an opportunity.  There are others that think
differently, however (hi dude!), and if they want to expound on this in
public, that'd be fantastic.

Sorry about all this again -- I've been guilty of watching debates play
out and playing some out myself rather than trying to push things
forward.  If anyone thinks that the interactivity of a call would solve
anything, and can call me in from Denmark, that would be great.

Cheers,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel Stone                                            <daniel at freedesktop.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/platform/attachments/20041105/9e197d9b/attachment.pgp