Hi Exactly, it is what the GNU is all about "Freedom" for me to bake the cake and for you to have a copy of the recipe if you wish and even modify it as I'm not perfect. But if time is pressing, you can still have a piece to eat on the hoof, if you wish. Freedom.... Freedom.... Freedom.... Freedom... Gena >Hahahahaha! that was cute! > >I ain't domesticated anymore! I prefer to buy my cake and eat it too! >Now if I had sufficient time to make that cake, I'd probably grind my own >spices and decorate it really nice! but the point herein is obviously, >the masses aren't going to want to tailor things and write scripts and so >forth so there is where sharing these things will be necessary to promote >Linux as being palateible to those who don't want to bake that cake! > >Amanda Lee > > > >On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Georgina wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Here's how I see it, I might be entirely wrong but its how I understand thin gs: >> >> You want to eat some cake? Well you can buy a uniform one off the shelf. >> The one you buy today will taste the same as the one you buy next week. You >> can't really change any aspect of it. >> >> However, you can make one yourself and you can choose which of the many >> available parts to make up your whole. You can gather a variety of >> parts or can even go back as far as growing them yourself. Thus you don't h ave >> to spread your cake with jam to make it palatable, you just make it to fit >> your taste. If X is the flour, eggs and butter. Gnome and KDE are differen t >> combinations of fruit or other flavourings. >> >> Jam here in the UK means fruit preserve, I think that it is known as jelly i n >> other parts. >> >> Gena >> >> >> >> > Thanks. I understand what you are saying. Does this mean that >> >there would not be a fix for X-Windows like the MSAA in Windows? Would we >> >need some kind of major off-screen model? >> > >> >-- charlie Crawford. >> > >> >At 11:09 AM 1/22/02 -0700, you wrote: >> >>Actually, being familiar with X myself, I'll answer this one. >> >> >> >>Xwindows, is a misnomer, in reality, it's just an X server, and clients. T he >> >>server draws to the screen, and sends user input to the clients. The clien ts >> >>are the applications, the clients are usually on the same machine as the >> >>server, but they don't have to be. >> >> >> >>X itself is nothing more than a network protocol for sending graphic data to >> >>an X workstation, the X protocol has no provisions for button, text box, o r >> >>any widgets for that matter, it has: line, circle, filled circle, rectangl e, >> >>filled rectangle, pixmap, etc... >> >> >> >>X also sends keyboard input and mouse click locations to the applications >> >>that own the windows they occur in. Beyond that, X's only other capabilit y >> >>is to send text glyphs (rendered in a given font) back to applications tha t >> >>request them. >> >> >> >>As for widgets, and controls, and a nice unified API for writing programs, >> >>you need a "toolkit library". What's a toolkit library you ask? A better >> >>question might be "what isn't a toolkit library?" >> >>First of all, there are a lot of toolkit libraries out there, some are ver y >> >>simple (Athena) while some have a full-blown callback API and can be adjus ted >> >>with themes (GTK, GTK+) and some are object-oriented C++ based APIs (QT). >> >>They all basically do the same thing, provide functions/objects/structures to >> >>the application to draw typical GUI widgets, and send draw requests to the X >> >>server. Here's the hairy part, each toolkit has its own look and feel, has >> >>its own API, has its own conventions, and basically has its own everything . >> >> >> >>There's also the seperate window manager, which is simply another X client >> >>which registers a few special functions with the X server so it can get th e >> >>location and owner of each window and add decorations and task switching >> >>behavior. Some (most) window managers do more than this, but they all do a t >> >>least this. >> >> >> >>Windows, on the other had, has the equivalent of the toolkit library and >> >>window manager built into the kernel (sort of) and most applications eithe r >> >>use that, or a custom one that is very similar to it. >> >> >> >>I'm sure this is incomplete, but I've already been wracking my brain for a n >> >>hour over it, so I'll close here, feel free to ask questions or tell me ab out >> >>parts that are unclear. >> >> > Good to see you on this list. I wonder if there are some folks >> >> out there >> >> > familiar with XWindows to share the kind of navigation that goes on wit h >> >> > it? I have no idea. Is it the same icons and rdio buttons and all of >> >> > tht? How is it different than windows and how much more easy would acc ess >> >> > be to develop in the XWindows environment? These are important questio ns >> >> > to your point I imagine. >> >> > >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>Speakup mailing list >> >>Speakup at braille.uwo.ca >> >>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Speakup mailing list >> >Speakup at braille.uwo.ca >> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Speakup mailing list >> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Speakup mailing list >Speakup at braille.uwo.ca >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
