1

Topic: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

I have been looking around a bit, and was wondering if it would be possible to do a smartlaunch like interface with litestep.

Smartlaunch is a program used for cybercafe's, which is basically just a client menu, where you will have games populated from the server database, with a user logged in.

I dont want litestep to work with SL, but was wondering if it would be possible to get menu topics remotely from a mysql server.

And also if it would be possible to "lock" the interface, so it can only be used for certain things.


I am not asking for code, I just want to know if it would be possible, before i continue with this idea.

2

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

On the GUI side of things, LiteStep can be made to do almost anything if you are up to the task of scripting it.  Someone will have to chime in regarding pulling data an SQL server though, but I'm think on the yes side, if done through command lines.

3

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

another question,
Would it be possible to do some kind of login promt, whcih again match against a server?.

4

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

zeonos wrote:

another question,
Would it be possible to do some kind of login prompt, which again match against a server?.

You can certainly design a GUI that interfaces with a login script, which in turn interfaces with the server.

5

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

And yet another question.

I tried running litestep, and installed a theme.
It lasted for a total of a few minutes, before litestep crashed twice..

This was in a VMware win7 installation.

My question is.
Is Litestep stable?, for the thing i need it to do, i need a very stable solution, which can recover it self if it fails.

And finally, will themes work on both xp/win7?.

6

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

LiteStep is not very stable on win7, but when it crashes i use keeprun -> http://www.jpelectron.com/readme/keeprun.asp

7

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

DiamondXplosion wrote:

LiteStep is not very stable on win7, but when it crashes i use keeprun -> http://www.jpelectron.com/readme/keeprun.asp

I disagree. LiteStep is no less stable on Win7 than it is on WinXP. I have Win7 x64 and I successfully run it fine, with no problems. To be quite honest, the stability of LiteStep really depends on what modules you run -- and sometimes even the which particular version of a module is important.

8

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

I agree with you-the golem. But if LiteStep had its own standard modules (such as SharpEnviro), we would have a better experience. Or if someone had time to correct the faults of modules that make LiteStep crash, or create a new module. Too bad I'm not a programmer. At least there should be a list of "harmful LiteStep Modules". But honestly, I used LiteStep in winxp and not broke, it started now with win7 (x86). I feel that it will be the same or more in win8.

9

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

the-golem is right in that LiteStep stability is directly related to the modules used.  Since it is a completely open source environment that uses it's community for module development what you are talking about DiamondXplosion isn't really possible.  The Devs did maintain core modules in the past; however, the time required to maintain and improve the module pulled them away from core development.  On the flip side...as a Win7x64 user...there are overall stability differences between XP and Win7x64.  Themes I wrote back in the day that were rock solid on XP last maybe a day on Win7x64.  This is probably because modules were written prior to 64 bit interfaces and compiled under C libraries that are older then some of the current users.  Unfortunately when the community died support for those modules went with it.  Hopefully once I get the modules site written we can start to right that ship...

10

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

I agree with the-golem, just believe
that LiteStep can be better. I can only
hope that someone with sufficient
knowledge to contribute updating
xmodules, without which LiteStep does
not have much functionality

11 (edited by zeonos 2012-03-27 22:14:20 pm)

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

And here i am again, with yet another question.

Would it be allowed to use litestep as part of a package for a program, which we would sell?.

We would use our own themes, and only the core of litestep, both to make it stable, but also because the functions we need doesn't exist yet.

12

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

zeonos wrote:

And here i am again, with yet another question.

Would it be allowed to use litestep as part of a package for a program, which we would sell?.

We would use our own themes, and only the core of litestep, both to make it stable, but also because the functions we need doesn't exist yet.


Technically, as I understand it, the GPL doesn't bar people from selling open source softwares for money, but it stipulates that all open source material used should be made available in some fashion. From the Preamble of the GPLv2:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html wrote:

"If you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. "

There's a bunch of other stuff regarding derivative works, etc. URL is above.

13

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

Would we be covered if we kept litestep opensource, but all extra modules used and developed by our self, as closed?. it would still be bundled together, and it would not be possible to make it all opensource, both for business but also for security.

14

Re: Is it possible to do a smartlaunch style interface?.

Zenos - My understanding is that because a module has to rely on the core functionality that the LiteStep source must be made available...but not the module source.  Also...you can not close the source of your theme because it has to be stored in a plain text file so LiteStep can read it.  Now you could bury the theme inside a module...but then what would the point of using LS be?