From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tinyArch.localdomain (unknown [78.110.170.148]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC03BE006C7 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.113] (cpc2-cmbg15-2-0-cust171.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com [86.26.12.172]) by tinyArch.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF5DB608BE for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 18:54:33 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4FC7B0A5.2020008@communistcode.co.uk> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:55:49 +0100 From: Jack Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yocto@yoctoproject.org References: <4FC7A593.4080900@r-finger.com> In-Reply-To: <4FC7A593.4080900@r-finger.com> 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 17:55:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 31/05/2012 18:08, Tomas Frydrych wrote: > 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 +1