Html user interface

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

React_dude
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:12 am
Contact:

Html user interface

Post by React_dude » Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:24 am

I was windering if it was possible to have an html user interface in ReactOS. It don't have to be all of it but maybe front ends for user accounts and stuff like XP....
If at all posible...
We need a react OS Update. How would we get by wih out it.

SirTalon
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm

Post by SirTalon » Mon Jan 31, 2005 6:11 am

Similar to WebMin/UserMin? If not could you elaborate please?

i386DX
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:53 pm

Post by i386DX » Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:30 pm

I think he's talking about this

Image

nothin2g
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:42 pm
Location: Zeil in Bayern

Post by nothin2g » Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:23 pm

i don't like the point that it is html, but a similar (FAST) interface, coded in pure C would be nice for normal users.
Wir sind die Borg. Widerstand ist Spannung durch Stromstärke.
www.wakka.de

Phalanx
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Phalanx » Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:05 pm

I believe the aim is trying to make a windows replacement, not what you think would be nice. Some things can be stretched, but not broken.

But there are also things like active desktop to work on.

Lucio Diaz
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: España (perdido en el atlantico)

Post by Lucio Diaz » Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:14 pm

nothin2g wrote:i don't like the point that it is html, but a similar (FAST) interface, coded in pure C would be nice for normal users.
Could you explain me why you dont want html and prefer C?

I see HTML better for the following reasons:

1) HTML is easy to code.

2) It is as standard (even more) as C

3) It is very easy to mantain.

4) Not being "executable" code (only links to executable code) and interpreted by an engine (browser) it is less prone to bugs and exploits, you only have to worry of the browser and the executable code not being faulty, and not all the thousands of posible HTML files.

4) You will still use HTML files for many things, help files, information files to the user... so, why two ways?, one to handle the FAST interface and the other the html files if 1 can make both.

5) Using only one you can concentrate your eforts in that alone.

6) It has to be that way for windows compatibility.

Well those are my points for suporting HTML.

Best regards,

Lucio Diaz.

frik85
Developer
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Austria, Europe
Contact:

Post by frik85 » Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:31 pm

I think all dialogs in ReactOS should use the Win2k design. The screenshot is from WinXP (with luna theme).
So no html pages with activex functions, etc ...

Phalanx
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Phalanx » Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:05 am

In XP you can select if you like it the new way (which is not Luna, just a new UI) or the old way (and it can still have the luna theme). I think ReactOS should be no differnet in the end.

SomeGuy
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 9:48 am
Location: Marietta, GA

Post by SomeGuy » Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:36 am

Lucio Diaz wrote: Could you explain me why you dont want html and prefer C?

I see HTML better for the following reasons:

1) HTML is easy to code.
But it isn't easy to code an HTML engine.
2) It is as standard (even more) as C
Have you ever heard the term "tag soup?"
3) It is very easy to mantain.
HTML standards are still evolving. Much maintenence would be needed of the HTML and whatever HTML engine.
4) Not being "executable" code (only links to executable code) and interpreted by an engine (browser) it is less prone to bugs and exploits, you only have to worry of the browser and the executable code not being faulty, and not all the thousands of posible HTML files.
The dialog resources in Windows/ReactOS are also not "executable" and are not prone to exploits. And dialog resource processing only has to worry about processing well behaved dialogs designed for the OS and can be kept simple. A web browser has to worry about every single web page on the Internet and browsers can be extended almost infinatly and to the point where they are unmanageable.
4) You will still use HTML files for many things, help files, information files to the user... so, why two ways?, one to handle the FAST interface and the other the html files if 1 can make both.
Help files should use a dedicated, minimal hypertext (not necessarily HTML) renderer that is separate from the users web browser (and should not be networkable to avoid exploits). That way when the browser is upgraded you don't have to worry about breaking help files.
5) Using only one you can concentrate your efforts in that alone.
HTML and a rendering engine is a very large effort.
6) It has to be that way for windows compatibility.
Not for software compatibility. Window can use other shells besides Microsoft's explorer and software still run properly. User compatibility might be another issue, (imagine a windows user trying to verbally guide a ReactOS user over the phone telling them what to click). *BUT* Microsoft has already made a mess of all that because all of that web stuff can be turned off. I use Windows XP at work and I don't see ANY web stuff, not in the control panel, not in the file windows, not in the start menu, not anywhere. It is easy enough for people to turn off these options that it is hard to walk them through anything without knowing what options they turned on or off.
Well those are my points for supporting HTML.
Best regards,
Lucio Diaz.
[/quote]
Well, those are my points for not supporting an HTML UI :)

Phalanx
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Phalanx » Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:36 pm

SomeGuy wrote:But it isn't easy to code an HTML engine.
Sorry, but ReactOS is going to need one no matter what to be a windows replacement. There is already Gekko anyway.

nothin2g
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:42 pm
Location: Zeil in Bayern

Post by nothin2g » Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:30 pm

imagine a settings dialog with the gecko first start loading time :)
Wir sind die Borg. Widerstand ist Spannung durch Stromstärke.
www.wakka.de

Phalanx
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Phalanx » Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:43 pm

Gekko is quick to load, and would only have to be loaded once at startup. But the XP control pannel, is that even HTML? I though it was just a custom engine.

BrandonTurner
Developer
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:42 am

Post by BrandonTurner » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:44 pm

integrating an html render into the OS was one of the dowfalls of windows.

e7
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:32 pm
Location: In Bayern ganz oben

Post by e7 » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:46 pm

If you see at the picture, you'll see why html-dialogs are not useful: They are to big! 700x500px are to big!

Phalanx
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Phalanx » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:43 pm

BrandonTurner wrote:integrating an html render into the OS was one of the dowfalls of windows.
Please explain your reasoning. For your normal user, it may have been better.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 0 guests