Eric Jorgensen wrote: > Well, it goes deeper than that. Much of what X allows should not be > allowed on a set top box. The same can be said of any display mechanism. If I wanted to be a smartass, I could point out that if you have a frame buffer, it allows you to code something like X for it, and by your assertion, much of what a frame buffer allows should not be allowed on a set top box, therefore frame buffers are a bad idea. > First and foremost, the desktop paridigm is right out. I agree, but X doesn't provide a desktop. X is a display mechanism, which abstracts the display hardware so you don't have to worry about how many bitplanes you have, for instance. > There simply > isn't the realestate. Maybe on HDTV there's the realestate, but you have > to realize that if consumers wanted something with all the features of a > computer, they'd use a computer. They want an appliance. Something > hopefully less intimidating than their microwave oven. You, me, we're > geeks. We want X on a telephone ;-) I agree. Hey, I want X on my toothbrush... > Icons are a bad idea on a setop. So are menu bars. So are "start" bars > and wharfs and docks. Get rid of it. Look at a TiVo for a good example. Amen. > But, it goes further than that. the entire concept of a "window" is a > bad idea on a set top. Even if it fills the whole screen. A window in X is just a rectangular area you can draw into. What's so bad about that? If you write to a dumb frame buffer, you end up coding your own, limited, windowing system anyway, if you know what you're doing. Some settop OS's provide their own windowing system, and their apps look nothing like desktop apps. There's still value for the developer in having a robust, proven and standard windowing system driving the display. > I actually saw one settop demonstration where it was possible to > accidentally grab the edge of the window slightly off-screen and resize > or move it, which revealed window manager controlls, which allowed the > user to close the settop application, leaving the box in need of a > reboot. Are you sure it wasn't running on a PC? A lot of "settop" demos actually have a beefy PC under the desk. Always check the cables coming out of the back of the box, if you can. If you see ethernet, be suspicious. > You could probably write a window manager for X that would behave the > way a settop ought, but it would be an exercise in restricting the > functionality of the windowing system instead of one in utilizing the > functionality of the windowing system. Why bother? Just don't run a window manager, and open one application window. I dare you to resize this sucker ;-) Ori
