Re: Detachable Menus

[Gaute Lindkvist <lindkvis stud ntnu no>]

> Luckily for me, I've already seen that.
> Same as edge flipping.
> Maybe it depends on the IQ of the novice user.

This somehow states that my friends,
coworkers, aquaintances etc. have less IQ than yours. While I have no way
of knowing wether that is true, I'll just assume you didn't mean it like
this, because if you did, it would be kind of rude.

> > horribly cluttered interface, like the dialogs for Sawfish at least used to be
> > (*shudder*).
>
> This is FUD, the Novice level of sawfish had just about the same number
> of settings as it has now. Novice level was not the default
> (intermediate was, IIRC).

FUD?? I stated something that was my opinion. the "at least" part was
thrown in because I currently don't use Sawfish, and don't know the state
of it now. If it still has the same number of settings it is STILL
horribly cluttered imo. Way, way, way too many options. Metacity is
excellent. It doesn't need configuration-tweaking at all to do the job,
and there are very few options. It just works.

I always set it to Expert to have all settings
> so I could find what I wanted (kind of an oxymoron taking in regard the
> current arguments against many settings, heh?).

Many settings make a cluttered interface and makes bugtracing much harder.

Most people don't understand that adding an option has to be carefully
thought through, otherwise you'll end up with emacs (which I generally
like, but hate the configuration system). Adding an option is not a "free
way of making everybody happy", because it does have costs.

This means that the current strategy of GNOME 2.0 is the way I see
it (I had nothing to do with this):
1. The options that are sane and non-destructive go into the interface.
2. The options that some experienced users can't live without, but
generally just clutters up the interface and are largely unnecessary, gets
a manually tweakable gconf-key.
3. The options that are basically just broken are left out totally.

Gaute