Re: Random thought...

[Tom Vogt <tom lemuria org>]

Dan Effugas Kaminsky <effugas@best.com> wrote:
> >> so you're arguing that we should keep quit in the file menu in order to
> >> be consistent with _other gui's_?
> >>
> >> i won't insult your intelligence by telling you what's wrong with that
> >> argument.
> >[...]
> >
> >lots of stuff snipped.
> >
> >ok, I - and I guess most people around - see that it's all a matter of
> >interpretation. to me, this is quite different from what you make out of
> it.
> 
> Huh?  I'm not sure of your position here.  I doubt it's as extreme as sun's,
> tho.

I doubt sun's position is extreme. come on, this is pretty straightforward.
it's a SPECIFIC criticism to a very specific point. and I do agree 100% with
sun that just because some other ui does something it's way, gnome is not
oblieged to copy that.

to me - and please, sun, correct me if I'm wrong - what he was saying is
that gnome needs to be consistent with ITSELF, not with other stuff.


> >so how about this proposal: gnome should ship with installable
> >configurations for all compliant window managers. it's the job of the wm
> >people to provide these settings. if possible, the settings should include
> >variables, because upon install gnome should test for those wms and if it
> >finds the user uses one of them, should ask him if he wants to update his
> wm
> >configuration.
> >this "update" should aim to keep as much of the user's settings as
> possible,
> >via said variables.
> >
> >or in other words: lots of users should be able to switch to gnome but keep
> >the interface they're used to. gnome should be an enhancement, not a
> >replace.
> 
> 
> No, no, no.
> 
> GNOME needs a *STANDARD WM*.  I assume this is going to be E.

I like E. just a safeguard so you don't assume I say this because of my wm
preferences:

the day gnome ships with a standard wm will be the day it has to do without
my support. period.



> There needs
> to be a starting point from which other WMs can grow.  I *want* other WMs to
> support GNOME, but they need to do it in a manner that extends, not
> replaces.

icewm is already gnome compliant and there are projects to make fvwm and
afterstep as well.

> Docks, wharfs, panels, these are the fruits of redundancy.  I
> don't want to see "only works with Gnomemaker" or "only supported by
> AfterGnome".  This is just more of the same from X.  We need a standard, in
> fact, it's a null issue--whatever ships with Redhat 6 *will* be standard.

this is simply not true. redhat has a huge audience, but e.g. over here in
europe, suse is equally strong.


> Or do you propose we do what happened to me on my first day of using
> unix--"What shell would you like to use?  csh or bash?"  Me:  "What are
> they?"

don't try to put dumbness in my mouth, please. of course it's gotta be easy
and highly visual and all - that's a problem of the presentation. can we
talk about presentation AFTER clearing the underlying basics?

just as a thought - just a proof of concept that it's possible - the install
could have a point where it asks "do you want to choose from various
desktops or do you want me to install a default (wm name) ?". afterwards it
would display a few screenshots and a few (about 3) lines of text showing
and explaining the different options.

I know a bunch of users who would go "wow! hey, wait - all this is possible?
geez, wow." and even before they did a single thing, Linux would already be
liked.


-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
		-- Henry Spencer