Re: [desktop] Draft proposal for a new debian menu system
* Enrico Zini <firstname.lastname@example.org> [030416 15:38]:
> > > With all the new anvances in Linux Desktop tecnologies, it seems like
> > > the current menu system needs some redesign to keep up and integrate
> > > with the other existing systems.
> > Please explain this phrase. Ecspecially the "other existing systems".
> > Debian menu-system has many disadvantages, though I've not heared of
> > any other system at all.
> We have at least three parallel menu systems around: the Debian Menu,
> the Gnome Foot Menu and the KDE menu.
We have one menu system: the Debian menu.
And we have several programs with menus, like Gnome, KDE, fvwm, icewm,
What makes KDE different from fvwm in that regard. (Other that they
did not implement a working debian-menu-imput for KDE, so that I
had only the possibilities to removing KDE, disabling menus in it
at all, or keep my users beeing confused.
> > > open Desktop Menu Specification found here:
> > > http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/menu/draft/menu-spec/menu-spec.html
> > Seems to be both for the "desktop" and the "menus". I do not see what
> > they have in common.
> Menus are things that are also used in the desktop. Or didn't I
> understand your question?
The desktop also uses a dynamic linker to work. Linkers are also
somewhat compliated over architectures. Shouldn't there be a good
specification for usage of linkers placed in there, too. (And in a
way, too, that one can not seperate them easily from the rest?)
> > It seems to miss some things, most important in my eyes a possibility to
> > switch window managers. (I doubt it is usable for anything than KDE or
> > Gnome)
> We now acheive the possibility to switch window managers by generating,
> from a single metadata source, the menu data for the various window
> managers or menu-using applications we package.
I do not meant "switch" in the sense of making them more similar.
I meant in the meaning of "making another run where one in running quite
> We could keep doing the same, but using the freedesktop format for our
> metadata source instead of the one we're using now.
So instead of using a system that works and can do what we need
(with the exception of generating KDE-menus, though I do not see
the fault in our system here), we should adopt another metadata
not even able to describe the things we already have and are used?
Bernhard R. Link
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.