Re: [Nautilus-list] Nautilus Goals

[Ben Ford <ben kalifornia com>]

Gaute Lindkvist wrote:

> I'm not a developer of Nautilus, but having almost all versions from the
> early preview releases to the latest CVS, I think I can take som burden
> off the developers by answering this.
> The benchmarks you show to, are no longer relevant. The speed-increases in
> what will be Nautilus 1.0.4, is so extreme, that these have to be retaken,
> and I actually think it yield the opposite results. I'm not saying there
> isn't still room for speed-increases (and they are being done), but it
> really is much faster now.

So compare an as yet unreleased Nautilus against a months old Konqueror? 
That seems fair . . .


> > Sorry for the HTML, but I tire of pandering to the "I can't take HTML
> > even tho it makes life so much easier" crowd.
>
> This one, I take offense to.. REALLY. You are risking that people don't
> bother to reply at all. My email-client does not show HTML that well, and
> your mail is mostly cruft because of this. Please stay off HTML when
> replying to mailing-lists. I read this list in digest-mode, and it looked
> terrible.
> Please remember that while it makes _your_ life easier, it makes _lots_ of
> peoples lives more difficult.

I will stick to making tables with HTML when tables are appropriate. 
There isn't really another good way.  Fixed font ascii art tables may 
be fine for you, but they don't render worth beans for the rest of the 
world who uses variable width fonts.  You'd bitch more if I attached an 
image and I'm not about to create a LaTeX file just to do a table.

HTML isn't rocket science.  There is no reason that pine/mutt/elm 
couldn't use links to display simple HTML.

Sorry, I understand where you come from, but the world is moving on.  I 
also design my web pages with CSS and don't give a shit that netscape 4 
can't handle it.  Matter of fact, I often just redirect them to the 
download pages of a real browser.

-b

--
:    __o
:   -\<,
:   0/ 0
-----------