Re: Open to discussion

[Derek Simkowiak <dereks kd-dev com>]

> Personally, I believe that in regards to the wharf/dock/slit issue, that
> the particular WM's in question have found very good ways of dealing with
> those.

	Can you provide some more examples of how the WMs have handled
this problem?  I haven't seen any solutions.

> I've been using GnomeICU since I got Mandrake 6.0 up and running,
> and I'd prefer to have it in a slit/dock/wharf rather than on the panel
> which I will end up customizing with easily accessible applications. Even
> in 1280x1204, there is only so much space.

	In this example, why is using the WM's wharf a better idea than
simply creating a second Gnome Panel (i.e., one that resides on the side
or top of the screen, and that would be dedicated to launching
applications)?  It seems like using another Gnome Panel would give you a
better integrated, more consistent desktop.

	Please note that I am truly asking questions here, not trying to
make a point.

> I agree that there should be _a_ GNOME Window Manager. I don't agree that
> this should preclude other window managers from being able to benefit from
> a close interaction with GNOME (or KDE) for that matter.

	I really like the idea of having a default, fully-integrated Gnome
Window Manager, and then also offering hints (or whatever else) so that
non-Gnome window managers can still interact with Gnome.

	But, for the latter, we're still faced with all the issues I
emailed to the list: how do you handle all the conflicting and duplicated
behaviour?

> In the end, I see the interaction between the WM and the UI being the same
> scenario with GNOME as with KDE. They have their own WM, but other WM's
> (like BlackBox, for one) will work fine with it.

	I have almost no experience with KDE--how does KDE address the
problems that I described in the last email?  Or do non-KDE window
managers suffer from the same problems that Gnome currently suffers?


Thank You,
Derek Simkowiak
dereks@kd-dev.com