UI freedom (was: UI: Being Pollitically Correct)

Chris Harris chharris@u.washington.edu
Tue, 3 Jan 1995 16:13:03 -0800 (PST)

Okay, I'm definitely sold on your ideas.  Guess I've been thinking about 
the different levels seperately, rather than as a whole unit.  (Seems to 
be the same problem folks are having with the LLL debate the kernel vs 
compatible objects view.)  If this could be successfully implimented, 
this OS would be (one of) the easiest to develop for in the world, hence 
making people want to write lots of apps.  =)  Could even port the 
standard libs to some evil OS (like NT/DOS/Chicago) or some decent, but 
not perfect, OS (like Linux), to try and get more apps.

Guess my job for now (other than learning about video programming and 
pondering the standard objects) is to look at what devices we want to 
initially consider, and what different operations a 
decent/good/incredible UI would be able to do on these devices.  (All this 
on my first day back to school too.  =)  If you've already done some of 
this pondering, please let me know.

Anyone have any problems with my blankly accepting Fare's work on this?  
Mike, this looks like a good time to inject a "but this can't be done 
efficiently" comment.  =)

Hope you're not having too much trouble recovering from all yer New Years 
parties....  =)


"If patterns of 1s and 0s were 'like' patterns of human lives and death,
if everything about an individual could be represented in a computer by a
long string of 1s and 0s, then what kind of creature would be represented
by a long string of lives and deaths?"  --Thomas Pynchon