[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux-NG

>From Francis Whittle on Monday, 30 December, 2002:
[lots of snipping throughout]
>>Imagine GIMP, fully usable for image manipulation as a
>>text-based command.
>Whaddya' mean imagine?  You can already.  Well perhaps not fully, but 

For one, GIMP was an example.  The ideas are quite nice.  For instance,
  being able to, as discussed, script OpenOffice externally, *from
  any language* without having the GUI ever appear.  All it takes is
  the shared library core (the hardest part by far), and the framework
  which I don't think would be very difficult.  (In fact, I'm downloading
  the bash shource as we speak to look at the problem more closely).
I think it'd be terribly useful.  For one, it'd reduce the redundancy
  in the system *and* unify the system if one makes the interface separate
  from the core lib, since less would be bound in the final executable.
  Additionally, very nifty programs would be entirely scriptable, again,
  *from any language*, since bindings could be made for any of 'em--even
  Java (via NMI).  For the advanced user, this could be an incredible

>I just don't see a detached UI like that cathcing on.  Perhaps if there 
>were some
>library to link to that could have like a Pass-thru API to another 
>configurable (which could be an interface to a toolkit lib, et c.), 
>that becomes
>more pheasable, but I think one of the major aspects that drives the 
>Free Software
>Community is that element of choice.

I'm not denying anyone any choice.  Indeed, I'm enhancing the choices
  available, since it lets GUI users choose what frontend they want
  to deal with, and CLI users choose front end or script.

>I definitely don't see command-line scripting and exported cores like 
>that catching
>on.  I mean, using interpreted languages is slow enough, let alone 
>exporting the
>core to the calling process in order to run it.

Modern processors are fast enough for the difference not to make much
  difference for most cases, and the functionality is, in my opinion,
  extremely useful.  I'd personally like to see it.

>I can see this tying in a lot with your "Secondly".  You'd definitely 
>need a
>heap of security on your connection for that kind of remote execution.  
>isn't too hard to acheive already, too (ssh tunnelling, et c. SSH in 
>has a good keys-based system).

Indeed.  Security needs to be a concern throughout the process.

There are lots of ramifications to extensive, pervasive security thoughts.
  The more paranoid, the better, IMHO.  It should be worked on, I think,
  by an open group instead of "industry leaders" to ensure the freedom
  of all instead of the freedom of the privileged (*cough*TCPA*cough*).

"I use Linux and it makes me feel safer knowing exactly what security
 problems my boxen are facing. If I wanted filtered information or a public
 relations a** kissing, I'd use Microsoft products." --dattaway, on /.

Reply to: