Re: Random thought...

["Dan \"Effugas\" Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: JR Tipton <nails@maybe.net>
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>; effugas@best.com
<effugas@best.com>
Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Random thought...


>On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Dan "Effugas" Kaminsky wrote:
>> Whatever ships with Redhat 6 is going to be the standard.
>
>Is it?
>
>Or is it just going to be the default installation with Red Hat 6?


No.  RH6 will probably be the first Linux releases touted by major press as
"the first real alternative to Microsoft Windows".  Think
psychologically--watch the trends--look where the media is moving.

RH6 is damn important to the Linux phenom.  It has no choice in the matter.

>> That being said, other WMs must be able to, in a simple manner, take
>> advantage of the functionality that GNOME provides and provide the
>> functionality that GNOME requests.  This is what "hints" are about.
>
>But the Manifesto says that if it doesn't take hints, all is well.  "Hint"
>does not mean, "follow this or die," but rather, "follow this if you
>want."


If a WM doesn't want to support hints, fine.  We don't have to certify it as
supporting hints.  See what I mean?

JR, either we make an interface or we don't.

>> A further explanation, probably better:  GNOME is going to specify a
style
>> for applications to install themselves.  GNOME Compliant WM's should be
able
>> to read the "installed applications" menus and import them into
themselves,
>> instead of requiring constant resynchronization.  If you think about it,
>> this is far better way of encouraging diversity of window managers--every
>> time you change WMs, the common segments follow you.  Yet another
separation
>> of content and presentation!
>
>GNOME "compliant" window managers or window mangers targeted at GNOME will
>work fine with this.  But others should do as they normally would, no?

They just won't be GNOME compliant.


>> I do not want GNOME to be a bad thing for WMs, but we have three choices.

>> Either GNOME becomes a standard but extensible windowing system(what I
>> want), or a standard and inextensible windowing system(KDE), or it fails.
>> It's That Simple.
>
>I guess I must be That Stupid because it's not making sense to me.  I
>don't see why GNOME would fail if it didn't enforce anything upon the
>window managers.


Oh!  My apologies.  I misunderstood you.  (Note--I didn't call you That
Stupid.)

GNOME either is an interface or it's not.  KDE is a complete interface.
MacOS is a complete interface.  Win95 is a complete interface.  Windows 3.1
is a complete interface.  Interfaces are judged as a whole, not as the sum
of their parts.  The problem with the previously listed interfaces is they
don't really allow that much extensibility.  This is a flaw.  However, it's
an equally vicious flaw to *depend* on extensibility to provide necessary
functionality.

Provide a starting point.  If other software comes along to extend the
original functionality, great!  Wonderful!  Since it's extending, it won't
be so much work to switch.

>> >See, I'm confused here.  Why do you say the wm "needs" to do anything?
It
>> >says in the GNOME Manifesto that it doesn't.  Again, I hope you can
afford
>> >the time to elaborate a bit :)
>> OK, we're poking at the WMs a little.  They really really ought to accept
>> the hints that say "you have an application here that wants to sit in
your
>> dock, please manage it".  Fine, GC2 instead of GC1, but really...
>
>So are you talking about GNOME compliant window managers?  Okay, that
>makes sense.  If you're talking about all window managers that work with
>GNOME, that's where you lose me.  The other parts of your argument
>indicate that you're saying all window managers that work with GNOME, not
>those that are compliant.
>
>...just trying to clear this up for myself:)


If an author doesn't want to make his or her WM GNOME compliant, NO PROBLEM!
I'm a GNOME person.  I'm saying WM's SHOULD interface with GNOME.  I'm
writing parts of the style guide, I think I'm allowed to advocate the
interface ;-)

But no, if the coder doesn't want to go with GNOME, we're not gonna hate
him, we're just not gonna certify his code.


>william r. tipton
>
>