Re: swallowed apps

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>  Hey, Okay, who uses the swallowed app feature in the panel? What's the
> use case ? Personally I think its just confusing an useless (but a nice
> proof of concept)

On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:51:59PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> He is right.  Gnome is becoming stupidified.

I must admit I'm extremely disappointed at the removal of swallowed apps in
Gnome 2's panels. You seem to have axed a very useful feature (granted one
which badly needed repair) for the heck of it. I'm sure it wasn't intended
but this reeks of the "We know what the users really want" attitude of
certain unnamed monopolies. I don't know about you but choice was one of the
things that first attracted me to Linux, X, Gnome etc.

If you insist on simplifying things to the point where they are
dysfunctional for intelligent users in order to keep things "simple" feel
free to do so BUT only do so in a novice/beginners mode. Don't totally
remove the functionality and make things useless for those of us who are not
Docking/Swallowed apps are a standard interface for many environments
(including KDE) and now instead of simply waiting for someone to fix Gnome's
panels I'm forced to investigate alternatives to the Gnome environment.

Afterstep 1.0 ( has had wharfs and swallowed apps
working properly for many years. Perhaps if you want to fix things someone
could investigate how Afterstep did it (I can't comment on versions of 
Afterstep after 1.0.)

John Fleck <jfleck inkstain net> wrote:
>In the middle is a lot of hard work and thought about each and every
>preference and option - should it be there or not? 

It is a heck of a lot more work to rewrite all the good applications which
could have been swallowed than simply fixing gnome panel's ability to
swallow existing applications!

John Fleck <jfleck inkstain net> wrote:
>What's the corresponding benefit?

What is available as gnome applets is a small subset (one that has
seemingly shrunk in Redhat 8.0/Gnome 2) of the tools which might want to be
run in a wharf/panel. I want to swallow licq, better network monitoring,
better inbox monitoring, the list goes on... Those tools were just thrown
out for the heck of it.

John Fleck paraphrases Havoc saying:
> "The only useful question to ask is: how will you choose which options to
> include?"
> "There is a range of possibilities for preferences and configurability
> that spans zero and zillions. Zero is obviously bad. We want
> configurability. But zillions also is bad,

Zillions of options are only bad: 
1. if they are poorly presented
2. if they significantly affect performance to the point of unusability
3. if they confuse the user

1 & 2 are generally fixable with good programming and common sense.
3 is repairable by customizing what you display to the experience
level of the user.

The discussion about the "Metaphysics" of "options good" vs "options bad"
seems to have missed some important points. The number of current options is
finite and IMHO small. One of those choices is whether or not to use Gnome!
Linux is all about choice and empowering users. If the Gnome environment
hopes to be the desktop of choice for the burgeoning horde of disgruntled
Windoze users who are sick of being told how to use their computers Gnome
must be attractive to an intelligent user.


---------------------"Happiness is understanding."----------------------
Robert Hardy                                          C.E.O. Webcon Inc.
rhardy webcon net      GPG Key available by request       (613) 276-6206

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]