Re: The relationship between Desktop and Panel

Dan Kaminsky <> wrote:
> > [Motorcycle analogy]
> Lets nip this flame war in the bud.

that's why I said I like bikes before making the point. :)

the point still is true. even broken things, once established, are there to

> >  [If it looks like the start menu, companies will port apps with the same
> start menu bugs]
> I disagree.  Provided the large majority of GNOME apps do it *right*, i.e.
> entered into a set of predefined categories, the first porting effort that
> does it wrong will give a *wrong* amount of negative feedback to the
> manufacturer of the Windows mis-port.  This will be such a traumatic and
> well publicized mistake that nobody will make the same mistake again.

let us hope. I wouldn't bet on this, though.

> Hell, maybe we'll see apps default install into Windows using the Gnome
> style :-)

"could not find your gnome/games folder. do you want this program to be
installed in gnome/start/programs instead?" :)))))

> >maybe the CONCEPT of the start menu isn't that broken (though imho it still
> >is a very bad concept), but with 90% of the computer-using peoples' minds
> >infested, you won't get a working implementation anywhere.
> What's wrong with the concept?  As has been said here, we think according to
> heirarchy, so shouldn't we load apps according to heirarchy?

because hierarchies are slow by concept and because we do NOT think
according to hierarchy. say, which natural hierarchy sorts netscape, gimp,
xterm and xterm -e su - ?

The universe does not have laws -- it has habits, and habits can be broken.

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