Re: Random thought...

[Tom Vogt <tom lemuria org>]

Dan Effugas Kaminsky <effugas@best.com> wrote:
> GNOME needs to be consistent with itself.  It also needs to be different
> when it will provide a tangible benefit to users.
bravissimo. this is  so close to sun's original argument as I understand it,
that you could have written it yourself. :)


> >the day gnome ships with a standard wm will be the day it has to do without
> >my support. period.
> 
> You have a problem, Tom.  Guess who works for Redhat.

I know. where's the problem? it's not like redhat would drop everything else
and ship only E in the future, is it?


> >> 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.
> 
> 
> damnit, respond to what I was arguing...I say "WMs need to extend, not
> replace", you say "icewm is gnome compliant".   Excuse me if I see this as a
> non sequitor?

the thread was still standard windowmanagers. then came your quote above. I
understand this as one standard wm being the "starting point" that other wms
can take and use for themselves. and that's where my argument comes in:
there's no reason for providing one starting point, because multiple ones
already exist.


> Anyway, Tom, whatever's called GNOME Compliant now is totally different from
> whereever we're gonna be when the style guide is done.

I sincerely hope it won't be too different.


> >> 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.
> 
> Thank you for ignoring everything but the last sentence.
not quite. you conclude that the whole thing is a null issue. it's not.

> Anyway, didn't
> SUSE say it was going to standardize on GNOME?  I may be off.
quite to the contrary. suse supports kde at the moment.



> >> 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?
> 
> Now I'm real confused.  We agree it's real dumb to throw random choices at
> the user.  Great.  Wonderful.

can we agree that it's NOT bad to give the user choices? it's a matter of
HOW you give them. do you agree that IF your install would have explained
what a shell is and where the differences are, it would have been better to
offer you the choice than just hand you some default thing that maye you'll
get totally frustrated with?
yes, I know, you didn't want to read a page of what a shell is. it's all in
the presentation. a few screenshots can show you the differences quickly.


> Underlying basics--I'm saying that other WMs need to be growths from the
> original, taking as much as is relevant from the original code.  Tom, does
> it make sense to have each WM handle wharfs/docks/panels in a different
> manner?  Doesn't it make it MUCH MUCH MUCH harder for new WMs to come on the
> scene without a standard method of, say, keeping the file launch sets
> synchronized between each manager?  Don't argue about standards, just give
> me a yes or no:  Shouldn't the data that is consistent between window
> manager setups be consisistently accessed by window managers?  Wouldn't this
> make the user fear switching WMs *less*?

two no's.
consistency is a nice thing. however, it carries a payload of danger. if you
REQUIRE that data be consistently accessed, you in a way say that you have
the patented best way to do so and anything that finds a better way will be
broken according to your definition. you won't hear a yes from me on
anything that has a tendency to stiffle innovation (that's micro$oft's job,
anyway:) ).
and the second no because when I switch my wm I do so precisely BECAUSE it
has other - considered better by me - ways to do things.


> >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.
[...]
> 
> Tom, this would confuse the living hell out of new users, and would make
> tech support for these new users an expensive nightmare.

eh? four screenshots side-by-side and a question "how do you want your
desktop to look like? (you can switch between these options anytime)" would
be a tech support nightmare? you really lost me here.



> Someone called me a fearmongerer.  I'm just a realist, with maybe the
> smallest touch of idealism that says "maybe I can help make things better,
> but if I can't, at least I tried."

you're trying too hard. too hard to press YOUR vision. sometimes it's time
to sit down and realize that if almost everyone disagrees, there's likely
some merrit to that. that's the time you stop pushing your "Prog" proposal,
or your vision of the all-enclosing interface.


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