Re: Icons of program

[robert havoc pennington <rhpennin midway uchicago edu>]

On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Sergey I. Panov wrote:
> I've been watching the "Icons" disuccion with a horror! There no
> better way of making the whole thing (GNOME) useless then implementing
> any of the proposals ( .directory,  .info files for each file or even
> SimpleVFS). Finally I hear the voice I'd like to add my to. 
>

How does it make it useless if the scheme is optional? You can always fall
back to the already-existing Unix fs, and gmc will always be happy to
browse that fs. You can use the scheme of your choice, or combine them in
several ways. No cause for horror.

As I said, that's what I would do. I don't want all this .desktop crap in
my source code trees. I do want it in my LaTeX documents folder.
A naive user might want it everywhere, but they don't care that it's
implemented as .desktop files.
 
>   There should be two collections .info ( what in KDE is *.kdelnk )
> files (just as two collections of icons) one e.g. in
> /usr/share/(desktop|(gnome|kde))/apps and another e.g in
> $HOME/(.desktop|(.gnome|.kde))/apps
> Desktop tree then will have links to those .info files, but also panel
> menu and wm menu will have oppotunity to use them.
> 

This is a crippled version of SimpleVFS, but it requires the same amount
of work to implement. This is what the Applications Menu folder in my
sample SimpleVFS hierarchy would be.  If you're going to do this you may
as well let people put data there too, and then you have SimpleVFS. 

Havoc Pennington
http://pobox.com/~hp