L.D. Best wrote: > > If that is true, then it was released to the "public" in error. .. Its for the programmer public. Not the general public. > The secret of GUI is the INTERFACE ... If a "desktop" does not have a > way to INTERFACE with existing software, then it isn't a GUI ... it is > nothing except a bad screen saver. What interface? I cant see any useable interface in it right now. Its nothing but an engine with some demos included inside to show "what it can do". And the "lousy, simple GUI" is a demo as well. The real beef here is the engine. And thats it. I wouldnt download a graphical interface control library from a site with programming utilites and expect it to work right away. > You might understand better what I'm saying if you had ever used > DESQview. DESQview would allow you to run all sorts of programs, time > slicing among them, on a 386!!! And it was faster than some dozerware > stuff today. I ran and used DesQView. I cant see any connection. Qube is an engine. Not a software suite or a useable GUI. Its like comparing the engine of a car to a fully built Honda. "The engine has no doors or A/C! So its worthless!" Right. Whatever. > No program claiming to be an INTERFACE should be released to the public > if it does not have the BUILT-IN capacity to install the users' > software. No GUI control engine should ever have the "built in capacity" to run programs. That would be simply ridicules. Running programs is the job of the program launcher. Not of the software that move around windows and control clickable graphical buttons. > It has NO potential at present, if no one can show me or anyone else > what can or cannot be interfaced with as the program exists. The potential is based on what you can do with it - programming wise. Forget about end-user ability. Its useless from that point right now. And i've been saying this from the start. Why FreeDOS needs it? Because it sure do cut down the job needed to do on the graphical engine part. > Programmers, maybe. But the end users? NOPE! Without a default > installation interface, the program is worthless. Who said anything about end users? > Are you truly expecting programmers to just GUESS at what will or will > not work with Qube?? If so, you have a pretty low opinion of > programmers in general -- for only fools would try to work independently > to figure out what crap they have to add to their software to get it to > somehow work with Qube. You're not expected to add anything to your existing software unless you want to. Not that there is anything to add at the moment. The thing doesnt even have a program launcher, as far as I can tell. It needs to be written. So stop shouting about "lousy APIs" when there are not even any present.
