18 Mar
2017
18 Mar
'17
4:50 a.m.
On Mar 17, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Dan Cross
<crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While they tend not to use the bitmapped graphical icons of other systems, I argue that
limiting the definition of desktops to being characterized by icons representing objects
such as files and applications while being present on the screen seems like an
implementation detail and unnecessarily limiting.
But I didn't say a desktop requires iconic representations of objects. I don't
think the early Oberon implementations had them (but there are >20 years of memory loss
between then and now).
Was Oberon a desktop? Not to my mind. It was a bitmapped interface vs a text-cell-based
interface to a cooperating group of programs. Conceptually I don't see any
difference between Oberon and screen(1) in that regard. Would you consider screen a
'desktop'? And likewise, Oberon? I'm not asking this rhetorically. These
concepts have fuzzy definitions for a lot of people, and I'm curious to see how they
map out.
--lyndon