From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from r-finger.com (r-finger.com [178.79.160.5]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9E6E006C7 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (host86-170-69-161.range86-170.btcentralplus.com [86.170.69.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by r-finger.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD44F9ADB for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 18:08:40 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4FC7A593.4080900@r-finger.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:08:35 +0100 From: Tomas Frydrych User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120329 Icedove/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yocto@yoctoproject.org References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:08:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On 31/05/12 17:55, Barros Pena, Belen wrote: > I would like to know what the Yocto Project community thinks about these 2 > approaches. Vanilla please, 'branded' applications are so 1990s. I think very few users care whether an application looks different on a different OS then their own, but we all get very frustrated when an application brakes the normal paradigms of our OS. Tomas