Re: Panel configuration

[Chipzz <chipzz ULYSSIS Org>]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Reinout van Schouwen wrote:

> From: Reinout van Schouwen <reinout cs vu nl>
> Subject: Re: Panel configuration
>
> Hello Jan,
>
> > Are you suggesting introducing a dependency from gnome-panel on nautilus?
> > I don't even _run_ nautilus on some of my boxes.
> > Thanks but no, thanks.
>
> The fact that _you_ choose not to run nautilus is completely irrelevant to
> the question of creating a sensible and integrated desktop environment,
> for hackers and people who don't know or care what nautilus is alike.
>
> I think the proposed idea sounds sensible, and even if it would create a
> dependency, you can still choose not to run nautilus (at least as long as
> the two stay separate processes - there's a lot to say in favor of just
> integrating the two.
>
> regards,

OK, let me get this very straight:
Let's say I have my own file manager. This is really not that unprobable
that someone WILL write an alternative to nautilus, since there are peo-
ple who absolutely hate it. Actually, I have the intention to do so. This
is about the choice not to run nautilus. Which you are taking away from
me. You are taking away my freedom. For a feature that most people won't
need anyway (like pointed out in another post, once your panels are set
up you're very unlikely to change that setup).
Gnome-panel and nautilus are two _seperate components_, which should be
_interchangeable_.
Having gnome-panel depend on nautilus is completely illogical from a
technical standpoint anyway, since you're pulling in a lot of dependen-
cies.
If you want to put this stuff in nautilus, fine, I won't care of nauti-
lus depends on gnome-panel. But not the other way around.

Actually, the way I see it, is more like this: we should have a gnome-
desktop binary, a gnome-fm binary and a gnome-panel binary. gnome-desk-
top and gnome-fm could be a link to nautilus. All three of those should
then be started from gnome-session, where you can delete them from.

Maybe a good idea would be to implement adding a panel as an applet,
which does not actually show on the panel but creates a new panel and
then quits? This would eliminate the need for a special menu entry in
the panel anyway.

Maybe we should just give this some really good thought, maybe there
are other options than to introduce complex interdependencies.

Regards,

Chipzz AKA
Jan Van Buggenhout
-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny
                           Chipzz ULYSSIS Org
------------------------------------------------------------------------