Re: "Official" gnome window manager

[Marcus Butler <marcusb wspice com>]

> > 
> > Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com> writes:
> >
> >  That decision is one of the big reasons why people are implementing
> > desktops now.  Mechanism v. Policy is dead.  When we start supporting ten
> > (or even three) different window managers, there are going to be
> > differences in application behaviour.  One WM might support MWM hints,
> > another might not.  If one application takes advantage of MWM hints on a
> > system without a WM that understands MWM hints, window decorations might
> > be out of place.  Part of a desktop system is a window manager.  Another
> > part of a desktop system is a consistent look-and-feel.  You can't have
> > the latter without the former.
> 
> Who needs absolute consistency?

 A desktop system needs it.  That is part of what a desktop system is.
Desktop systems are supposed to make computers easier to use.  New users
won't find it easier if one "Gnome" system they walk up to behaves one way
and another behaves and looks differently.

> Some consistency is nice, sure. But that can be easily achieved by
> publishing specs and patching the window manages to support any Gnome
> extensions we come up with (ie. MWM hints).

 Extensions might not be supported by all window managers.  Even if
certain gnome people each pick one window manager and implement all
extensions on it, development on one will most certainly lag behind the
others, and development time will be wasted.  Also, having multiple
extensions will certainly make a window manager fat.

> Nobody is going to choose absolute consistency over choice.

 That is an poorly-researched statement.  New users will.  Whether or not
you care to admit it, different window styles *do* confuse some novice
users.  I have had to deal with several such people in the past.  Some of
them, believe it or not, were running Linux.

 Marcus