Re: Proposed: Rhythmbox

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 05Jan2004 06:01PM (-0500), Bryan W Clark wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 17:20, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > Don't these arguments apply equally to, say, gEdit or gnome-terminal?
> > Or Epiphany?  Would you propose removing them from the release? 
> 
> No.
> 
> Actually Epiphany centralizes where our Bookmarks and Browser History
> are located; no longer do GNOME apps have to try to detect what browser
> is being used (although that is still a decent idea). Applications like
> Dashboard and others can *now* integrate bookmark and history
> information to provide a better user experience.

OK, you have convinced me Epiphany exports a data model to other apps,
and thus provides a point of integration. But I doubt this is the
primary reason it was included. I would guess the main reason went
more like "we have to have a web browser to be a desktop solution". In
fact, I remember the original discussion when it was proposed for
inclusion, and the only real point of controversy was whether to
include Galeon instead (or in addition, or include neither for now and
let them duke it out until there was a clear winner).
 
> I believe Gnome-Terminal is supposed to provide better font and 
> internationalization support than xterm did, along with profiles and a
> host of other features.  And Unix systems have always required a
> terminal app, so this is a ridiculous argument.

All the features of gnome-terminal that you mentioned are great, but
have nothing to do with other apps integrating with it. Remember, we
are not discussing whether apps should exist, but whether they should
be in the Gnome Desktop release, and what the criteria for inclusion
are.
 
> gEdit is just a great text editor written by people with usability in
> mind.

That sounds like the same reason folks are asking for RhythmBox to be
included (s/text editor/music player and organizer/). You did not
explain how it's different.

> I'm not arguing that RB not be included in a future release, like 2.8 or
> something.  However right now I don't believe that it's ready or
> provides a significantly better experience.  Plus it's good to hash out
> exactly why something should be included.

Now that is a reasonable argument, and I have no personal opinion on
whether RhythmBox is a good program. But let's not conflate "I don't
like this program" with "this category of program should not be
considered for inclusion".

Regards,
Maciej