[TUHS] X, Suntools, and the like

Dan Cross crossd at gmail.com
Sat Mar 18 08:58:12 AEST 2017

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon at orthanc.ca> wrote:

> > On Mar 17, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Dan Cross <crossd at 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).

Sorry; I thought that's what you were saying but I was wrong. But I confess
confusion. For instance, you mention Oberon here as not having graphical
icons but then in the next sentence two sentences it didn't meet your
definition of what a desktop is. So that sort of seems like a non sequitur.
What, then, is you definition? (And I'm not asking that to be combative;
I'm truly interested.)

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.

I would definitely call Oberon's graphical interface a desktop (btw, the
graphical sorting demo was *cool*).

But I'm clearly using a different definition than you are.

        - Dan C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170317/1f5c0672/attachment.html>

More information about the TUHS mailing list