Re: Open to discussion...

[Derek Simkowiak <dereks kd-dev com>]

> Isn't one principle of GNU to give users the freedom of choice, not
> forcing them to use one particular use model?

	Lest there be any confusion, I'm not trying to restrict anybody's
choice about anything.  I'm presenting an idea that (I believe) would
result in an easier-to-use interface.

> Yes, the world didn't wait for GNOME to appear before making the
> desktop usable ;-)

	Well put :).


> Hm, isn't the root window a window too? Why isn't the window manager allowed
> to manage it then?

	Because people are used to the Mac and Win9x, where you can drag a
folder or file onto the root menu (aka "Desktop").  Gnome wants to provide
that functionality.

	Do you want the window manager to be responsible for handling file
copies, file moves, file meta-information (associated programs and default
icons, etc.)?  It should be handled by the file manager, in this case,
gmc.

> Duh, show me the documents that says it's part of the DE's responsibility to
> handle icons. If the WM and the DE are fighting over icons we're doing
> something wrong.

	The conflict comes between minimized window icons and file/folder
icons.  Basically, I was trying to say that a window manager should not
have minimized window icons displayed on the desktop.

> E.g. if it wants a 'shotcut' placed somewhere on the desktop it
> should ask the WM to do so by sending an X event to the WM. That's the policy
> of X: don't make assumptions how things have to work. I think that's valid
> for desktop environmants too.

	I strongly disagree with this point, and I think most Gnome
developers would also disagree.  Do you *really* want the window manager
to be responsible for handling files or folders dragged onto the desktop
(and files moved, copied, or softlinked via a drag operation)?  

> I can't follow you. Are you saying that users will usually have screwed
> up configurations?

	Actually, yes, as it currently stands, they do.  For example,
install Gnome, then install AfterStep, and make note of all the features
which are duplicated or are inconsistent in its user interface.  The
default configuration of most WMs conflict with the Gnome environment.

	Some people take the attitude that the user should simply
configure their window manager to their liking.  While I agree that should
be possible, I disagree that an integrated environment should force
non-Unix people (I'm thinking Mac users as the target audience here) to
wade through page after page of documentation when they are used to
everything being intuitive.

	There should be a default that is fully integrated, intuitive,
and consistent with the Gnome desktop.


> Of cource this can happen. But how do you think you
> usually set backgrounds on a UNIX box? By calling xv/xloadimage/...
> manually (i.e. by putting them in some script). Why is this a WM problem.

	I don't understand what you're getting at.  Conflicting
backgrounds, as was the case with the shipped version of Redhat 6.0, is a
problem because it confuses the user to have two different places to
change the background, especially when only one of the two places is
accurated at any given time.

> What you suggest is the Windoze approach: "Users are idiots. So don't
> allow them to do something that is potentially harmful or confusing."

	Absolutely not, I fear you've misunderstood me completely.

> Again, this should be part of the spec. You can define an interface for
> online help pages. You can define a format for the help files. You can
> specify a unified coniguration interface.

	This is what I was suggesting--creating a spec for the items I
mentioned that would allow WM authors to write a WM which would not
conflict with the Gnome environment.

> I don't see the problem. BTW, why do you think managing menus is part
> of the DE? Even twm, the father of all window managers ;-) has menus.

	Click the big icon on the bottom left that has a foot on it, and
you'll see why menus are a part of the DE.

> Sorry, GNOME and KDE have one fundamental flaw if they want to be generic
> interfaces like X: they take away the user's choice of a particular
> look-and-feel.

	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure neither Gnome nor KDE
want to be generic interfaces like X.  In fact, just the opposite: they
are trying to provide consistent, intuitive user interfaces for Unix,
something that X has lacked in its 15-year history (sans CDE).


> A good DE shouldn't make assumptions of what things should look like
> or how they should work but provide and interface for applications.

	It sounds like your definition of a DE and Gnome/KDE's definitions
are quite different.

[...]
> I'm participating in this discussion to find the right way to do
> things, not to make your life easy.

	*Ahem*

> Oh, if users want a standard that is enforced upon them they can always
> use Windoze. I get the impression that GNOME doesn't fit well into the
> world of X applications (and it's nothing more than an application, you
> should never forget this). This sounds awfully like the 'easiest approach'.
> It's not that WMs have hijacked DE functionality, it's the other way
> round. GNOME tries to do more things than it should (I don't know how
> KDE does it, but I assume they do it in a mor WM friendly fashion since
> they do have their own WM).

	At this point, I think your idea what a desktop environment is and
what Gnome/KDE are trying to do is incompatibly different.  Of course I do
not speak for everyone working on Gnome, but I'm fairly certain that most
Gnome developers consider Gnome something more that "an application".


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