Re: window-in-window MDI

[Peter Hawkins <peterhawkins ozemail com au>]

Hi there...
Cody Russell wrote:

> Your argument works against itself, too.  The feature that may "convert"
> one user (which I find unlikely, but anyway) may discourage another from
> using GNOME; perhaps that person is unaware that it is a customizable
> thing.

Ok, I am hereby marking myself down as in need of "re-education", but I
actually like window-in-window MDI. The thing I like about it is a) your
application windows are grouped, you can kill, murder, maim, destroy,
edit,minimize, maximize, etc. them all together and b) you can see multiple
documents at once. Currently, none of gnome's MDI options offer both of these
at once (one or the other, but not both). Of course, people are welcome to come
up with a better idea... I vote it should stay but be off by default. It's one
thing I still miss from windows after using gnome since 0.30.

=)
Peter

>
>
> Either way, I think these arguments are irrelevant.  I don't understand
> why completeness is such a virtue in this case, if meeting that
> completeness requires introducing something that is almost universally
> recognized as being shit.  Microsoft knows it's shit, Apple certainly
> knows.  GNOME should know it too.  We should be aiming not for
> completeness (implementing every idea everyone has come up with, no matter
> how good or bad it is).  We should be striving for quality.  We have the
> advantage over things like Windows and MacOS in that we can learn from
> their mistakes.
>
> I vote that we let this beast rest in peace.
>
> Cody
>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Derek Simkowiak wrote:
>
> >       I agree.  It won't hurt, and if it helps "convert" a single person
> > (or application!) from the MS-Windows desktop to the Gnome desktop, it was
> > worth it.
> >
> >       If you don't like it, don't use it.  Some people like it, or it
> > makes them feel more comfortable/familiar with their desktop (for
> > whatever crazy historical reasons).
> >
> >       I think it should be in there.  (I haven't seen the code, but I
> > am assuming that it does not bloat the libraries or otherwise cause any
> > harm)
> >
> >