Re: GNOME Window Manager

On Wednesday 30 May 2001 21:44, you wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:32:38PM +0200, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > +++ Tue, May 29, 2001 at 06:54:30PM -0700 +++
> > Lion Kimbro e-mails me. Film at 11. Reply right now, after the break.
> >
> > >   Mawarkus,
> > >
> > >   Well, here's more evidence that people get pretty emotional about
> > > their window managers..!
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > >   When I say that it should be invisible, I mean that the user should
> > > almost never see any reference or evidence of something called a Window
> > > Manager even existing.
> >
> > What would be the benefit?
> You really don't have much experience with the average user, do you?
> Most people that use computers don't care a crap about how they work, why
> they work, only that they *do* work.  Workplaces have training seminars on
> the basics of Microsoft Word for crying out loud.
> If a user has to, for any reason, mess with any internal workings of the
> desktop environment, they're usually screwed.  People are often intelligent
> and resourceful when it comes to their jobs, but most of them are frigging
> useless morons when it comes to computers.
> I'll admit, my original post may have been slightly off kilter complaining
> about WMs in particular when the *real* problem is the configuration.  Yes,
> defaults need to be made.  Some people say it is the packagers' problem. 
> Alright, so now Linux RedHat, Solaris, Debian, and FreeBSD all end up with
> differing configs and setups.  In comparison to the Windows world, where
> everything works the way it does on the other computers (for the most part
> anyways, yes, some configuration is possible).
> But, seriously, let's go back to the key bindings, one my biggest
> annoyances about GNOME.  The WM *does* need to handle things like closing
> Windows, etc.  GNOME (panel, whatever) needs to handle menu-open requests. 
> The desktop-manager needs to handle the selecting/manipulating of desktop
> icons.  So we have, what, 3 programs to configure key bindings for?  Well,
> GNOME+Nautilus handles two of them, hopefully a common configuration system
> can be thought up for that.  But what about the WM?  How in the Nine Hells
> are you supposed to merge the configuration controls for GNOME and
> WindowMaker, or AfterStep, or even Sawfish?  Well, you **aren't** supposed
> to merge them.  And the average user shouldn't be using any of those WM's
> with GNOME.  They are self window managers, and while they may work with
> GNOME, and may offer additional functionality for the technically inclines
> such as ourselves, the morons forced to use these systems don't want to
> deal with it.
> Besides, a true GNOME-only WM would offer a lot of benefits besides
> configuration.  Common look and feel, for example.  Every WM I've seen,
> Sawfish included, doesn't fit in with GNOME so far as its dialogs (which a
> basic WM shouldn't be using that often, but still) are concerned.  And
> every WM offers functionality that duplicates some of the GNOME desktops,
> in even slight ways.  A smaller, lighter, faster WM would always be a
> benefit.  It's like including libfreetype in console only apps - it's
> functiona ity, memory, and extra room for bugs that you *don't* need.

Sawfish can only be used with GNOME. It is a GNOME only window manager! It 
will not work as a standalone.   See
> No one (well, at least I'm) is requesting that the interface between GNOME
> and WM's change.  Sawfish shouls definitely always work with GNOME, because
> Sawfish is what I use.  AfterStep, Windowaker, IceWM, Enlightenment, etc.
> should still work as they do.  But GNOME should be able to function without
> another of these mini-desktop environments.  And that's *exactly* what they
> are.  GNOME is comprised of lots of useful programming libraries and such
> that makes programmers' lives easier, but the users, the o es that actually
> need a DE over the command-line, don't give a damn about that - they want
> something sharp and easy to use.  That's why most of them stick with
> Windows, which isn't know for innovation or power, just a pretty interface.
>  And that's why those that do use Linux/UNIX, most of them (and this has to
> admitted, no matter how much I honestly *hate* to admit it) prefer KDE. 
> KDE has a sharper, more well integrated desktop.
> We do *not* want to mimic Windows, or KDE, or any other desktop
> environment.  But we need to be as easy to use as those other popular DE's.
>  Step 1 is at least some easy to use configuration and setup tools, for
> those who need to tweak their desktops (visually impared, left handed,
> theme-obsessed users).  Step 2 are some basic components, on the outside
> layer, that actually work together, not just share a set of common
> libraries.  And step 3 is actually having a desktop that Just Works in an
> efficient ma ner for the average user.  Users don't need 80 billion
> processes, window managers with 90% of the functionality disabled by GNOME,
> or 'graphical shells' that do everything under the Sun (I won't jump in on
> the Nautilus topic, because it does seem to be moving along rather well in
> the intelligent usability area).  Sure, we, the advanced users, love all
> the extra functionality and toys.
> But the users working down the hall on preparing the tax forms, or writing
> the supervisor's speeches, or handling purchasing, need a desktop that
> makes their work easier and more efficient.  Not kludge it down with stuff
> they don't understand, don't want to understand, and (no matter how much
> some people think everyone should learn the internals of an operating
> system) don't in any way *nee* to understand.
> ... My Gods, that was a long rant.  ^,^
> Seriously, there is *nothing* wrong with any of the WM's out there.  They
> just shouldn't be an integral part of GNOME.  GNOME needs to be a desktop
> that works for the user, not an environment that forces the user to work on
> it.  Simple, easy, and clean.  Leave the rest for the users that actually
> want to mess with it.
> </rant>
> Sean Etc.
> > mawa
> > --
> > Gr?ndels-Trinker!
> > Festnetztelefonierer!
> > Bergaufbremser!
> > Vorw?rtseinparker!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnome-list mailing list
> > gnome-list gnome org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-list mailing list
> gnome-list gnome org

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