Re: [Evolution-hackers] PIM application suite

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

Why don't I just give up hacking on Evolution and let you do it all,
since you seem to know so goddamn much then?

Jeff

On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 15:43, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Die , 2004-04-18 at 11:42 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > doesn't seem to bother the average user, if it did... there wouldn't be
> > Outlook or GroupWise or Lotus Notes or... a zillion other groupware
> > suites.
> 
> There aren't a zillion other groupware suites. There are the few you
> listed, and maybe
> a couple other ones that are less-known. And yes, they would use them.
> They end up
> living with it, because that is what IT gives them. Home users don't
> typically use
> groupware suites. They use Outlook Express or something simple and
> direct. If an IT
> department deploys Exchange, then their users are most likely going to
> get Outlook.
> Similarly with Groupwise and Notes.
> 
> > in fact, you seem to be the only one (or, at best, one of a handful)
> > bothered by this.
> 
> And you seem to be only one of a handful that are bothered with the idea
> of actually
> splitting up the components into completely separate applications. :)
> 
> > how hard is it, really, to say "I want to make an appointment. I need to
> > switch to calendar because obviously mail doesn't do that"
> 
> It's not. But that isn't the point.
> 
> > you're saying the average user can't handle that, yet you want to split
> > the applications which forces these users to have to know which
> > application does what? it's the same bloody decision.
> 
> There's no reason to get angry dude. The same decision made through a different
> UI mechanism can often be easier to understand. 
> 
> > >  it makes interfaces scary and bloated.
> > 
> > ah, bloated. the most overused and least understood word used when
> > describing software.
> 
> So what does it mean to you? Requiring full feature address book and
> calendar
> applications to be running, in order to press "Send/Recv" in your mail
> app, sounds
> like a good definition of bloat to me.
> 
> > >   i'm
> > > not sure why you can't understand this.
> > 
> > I'm not sure why *you* can't understand this.
> 
> I know you are, but what am I? Really. This is just ridiculous to do.
> 
> > >   the key to a
> > > good application is focus.
> > 
> > there is focus. where is there not focus? how is there not focus?
> 
> There is focus. But the focus is more spread out than concentrated.
> Which is, I
> believe, what he was trying to say.
> 
> > >   there's something to be
> > > said about an app that does ONE thing well, and
> > > strives only to do that one thing.
> > 
> > ah, the good ol' "do one thing, and do it well" argument. the most
> > widely used and yet least understood statement used by non software
> > developers when trying to argue something.
> 
> How can bloated and "do one thing, do it well" both be the most widely
> used and least
> understood of arguments in the software community? I am a software
> developer, and it's
> a damn good argument to use. :) 
> 
> > for a loose definition of "ONE", everything does ONE thing well and
> > strives to only do one thing.
> 
> We try to do many things well. For loose definitions of one, one is
> equal to five.
> That's not a very good argument against doing one thing well. One is
> pretty well
> defined to be a single entity.
> 
> > if we split out the mailer, for example, would it really only be doing
> > "ONE" thing? depends on how you define "ONE", obviously. It replies to
> > mail, it composes mail, it forwards mail, it filters mail, it fetches
> > mail, it sends mail, it displays mail, as well as numerous other things.
> > That's not one thing... so I guess by your definition each of these
> > functions should be a separate application too? :-)
> 
> One thing is mail. Composer might be 0.01 of 1. So by definition, one
> can be comprised
> of a very large subset of smaller values. Since all of these things are
> "do something
> with/to mail", then "one" is "mail". So, 1 can be infinitely large for
> values of
> infinite that are in the range of 0 <= x <= 1. I say 0 can be equal to
> 1, since the
> binaries "true" and "false" succeed and fail and doing nothing. :)
> 
> > >   this doesn't mean
> > > this independent app can't fully integrate with other
> > > related applications (like a calendar or contacts
> > > program integrating with a mail app).
> > 
> > if you completely split them, then yes, it would mean that.
> 
> No it doesn't. Seriously. Stop that. The fact that GNOME works at all,
> directly
> disproves your argument that we can't integrate by having things in
> separate apps.
> The entire point of evolution-data-server is to allow some integration
> like this.
> Of course, it doesn't allow the full spectrum of possibilities, since it
> is not
> entirely separate yet, and doesn't do anything GUI-related. 
> 
> > > , and there should be
> > > several evolution-pim scripts installed by default as
> > > evolution-contacts, evolution-calendar, and
> > > evolution-mail.
> > 
> > no, if a distributor wanted this, then they could make separate menu
> > entries - one to launch each of the components. that would be the proper
> > way to do it, not writing shell scripts. average users don't use the
> > command-line.
> 
> If a distributor wants this, they can install evolution, because it will
> have separate
> menu entries to start the different components. There's no need to make
> them do extra
> things to get this very simple functionality that we practically already
> provide. We
> already do this in XD2 anyway.
> 
> -- dobey
>