Re: The relationship between Desktop and Panel

On Mon, Jul 27, 1998 at 05:18:55PM -0700, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> >Isn't that a little presumptuous, that every rip on Microsoft's
> >software is in reality a shallow attack on the company's
> >character?  Microsoft has _earned_ its reputations.  Persistently
> >and continuously.
> The number of people who bash Microsoft for doing the same things they do
> are incredible.
> For crying out loud, people complain about Microsoft bundling software while
> Debian comes with FIFTEEN HUNDRED packages.

last I heard debian was not a monopoly and wasn't using the bundling as a
means to control the market in a certain product (in fact they usually
supply all competing packages as long as they  are open source)

> NT4 runs 15 year old applications.

so does linux ... I can even run older ZX spectrum games from 1982

and it will compile a lot of the unix programs that were written

as for linux binary compatibility .. it's there ... all you need
is some dynamic loader magic and you can load up any old app ...

however since it's usually just a recompile away, it's better to link
against new libs ... (if only for lower memory consuption)

for example if you really really want to you can still run older
aout bins ....

> I've never seen one that doesn't.  Every time I install, it's "what folder
> do you want to instlal in?"  then it shows me a list of the folders inside
> of my programs menu.

the menu in gnome ONLY contains executables ... docs and other stuff like
that install in /usr/doc usually so if one wants to read em, they should
point gmc to that directory

> >[George, does GNOME have these flaws?]
> If it does, it's less of a big deal than the small icon controversy.

hmmm I can't remember what you mentioned .. anyway ...

the menu is not completely customizable, and doesn't really have to be

but the menu ONLY contains the executables, which makes it far less
cluttered then windows start menu ...

it's not supposed to be a way to get into folders etc ... it's a way of
starting the main executable ... other things should be done with gmc

order and content is editable, though users have the option of not displaying
the system menus and only using the menus they themselves created

> >> What about giving the selected gnomeprint menu item an "enpanel/depanel"
> >> button, or a checkmark, and then italicizing/underlining any entry that's
> >> existing on the panel?  Would that self-document sufficiently while
> >> preventing the admittedly high level of repetitive ugliness you refer to?
> >
> >I think you're trying too hard.  The foot menu should be as clean
> >and straightforward as we can make it.  I agree that the
> >checkboxes or text formatting, or whatever, would be helpful (if
> >done tastefully), but not in the lime light.  The users shouldn't
> >have to fish through it every time they open up an application.
> >I like the idea of putting it in the menu editor, out of the way.
> Do you agree with me that icons on the desktop aren't exactly the most
> efficient way to do things?  If so, how do YOU suggest we make it
> self-documenting that there are easier things to do than put the icon on the
> desktop?

it's already there (what I'm working on right now) .... since in gtk you
can put any widget into the menuitem, I put in an add button, it's
a little bit more clutter, but it doesn't make menus any deeper so it
should be ok

I'll post a screenshot on the panel page soon ...


George Lebl <>
  The following implements RSA in perl and is illegal to export from the US:

          #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
          $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]