Re: Coming proposal (was: Window Manager compliance)

[Stephen Rust <steve tp org>]

Hi Derek,

	I believe in a lot of what you were saying, and it hit home with a
lot of points.  But there are some things that after thinking about some
might not be right (in my opinion) afterall.  I'll comment as we go.

> 	I believe a Window Manager should have cool features, but if it's
> being used under Gnome it should be required to turn them off.

Again, I think the "requiring" to turn off, is where the problem lies.
Lots of people like those cool features to be running regardless of
whether they're in Gnome or not.  And maybe especially when they're in
Gnome, like docks, different panels, etc.  It should still be allowable if
the people really want it. 

> 1) Background images  (the catalyst to this whole discussion)

For sure.

> 2) Screensavers and screensaver configuration (and screen locking)

Definitely.

> 3) Minimized window icons (or *any* icons appearing on the desktop)

Sounds fine.

> 4) Program Launcher applets (Panels, Wharfs, Start Bars, whatever would
> duplicate or conflict with the Gnome panel)

I think the Window Maker dock applets for example, or similar features in
other window managers are nice features, that a lot of people like, and
would continue to like even though they're running gnome.  Granted, if you
have a start panel like fvwm2rc95 where all the gnome panel functionality
is duplicated, that should probably not work for Gnome, but things in
addition to the panel like docks could be used in conjunction or in
replacement of Gnome corner panels.  Really, what it seems like you're
suggesting is an all or nothing type of deal.  Where we have lots of cool
features in the window manager without Gnome, or none of the features and
only relying on Gnome for all the neat enhancements.  This type of window
manager is certainly a good option to have, and one I would personally
probably use myself (a bare bones wm, like the gtkwm or gnowm), but for
others I think having the option to use some of their favorite wm options
is still a bonus.

So what I'm saying is a for a bare bones gnome system, the wm should have
a very minimal presence.  But for people who want more out of their wm,
the options that they want to have should still be possible, and
configurable, to turn on or off.  If people want to use Gnome and have
their current wm hints of today, and still have their own wm's
backgrounds/themes/panels interspersed with the gnome stuff, that should
still be an option.

> 
> 5) Root window clicks (this is already there, right?)

Yep.

> 6) Task-list  (showing what apps are running)

I think an app list is different than a right/middle click showing the
available windows the wm is controlling.  I can see this still being
wanted in wm control (or in cooperation with Gnome)

The others you listed seem alright, I think.

> 	...does anyone have other requirement suggestions?

You said in Gnome, window managers should manage windows and nothing more.
I think for a bare, perfectly clean, 100% Gnome environment, that should
indeed be the case.  And again, that is how I would probably use my
Gnome environment.  But I still think the option should be there for
those who want to have half Gnome, half wm control of things, and not take
it away from those who want to use the Gnome hints of their wm, and the
rest of their wm functionality as well.


Sorry this has been so long.  The bottom line to what I'm saying is, have
the option for 100% Gnome-only config, but also make it possible via a
configuration of some sort, to allow differing amounts of non-Gnome
control over things.  Not just 100% or 0%.

Thanks for listening,
Steve