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

Re: Debian packages and freedesktop.org (Gnome, KDE, etc) menu entries



On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 05:54, Cameron Patrick wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 04:07:56AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 
> | Only GNOME applications should be in the GNOME Applications menu.
> 
> Why?!
> 
Rationale (and a real-world example):

Both KDE and GNOME are attempting to make a completely self-integrated
desktop environment, each have their own (often totally different)
interface guidelines as well as different look and feels.

Now, take a local library who have 20 machines all running Linux, with
user accounts available to all who want them.

The administrators can currently install both KDE and GNOME and allow
users to choose which they prefer, perhaps leaving GNOME as the default
due to its easier to use[0] interface.

When using GNOME they see only GNOME applications in the GNOME menu,
which is as it should be.  In fact, the GNOME menu is fairly tightly
controlled upstream to improve the ease of use.

When using KDE they only see KDE applications, again as it should be.

To cross-pollute the environments just creates a mess that won't buy you
any friends with the administrator or their users.  The applications
don't look the same and don't work the same, welcome to interface hell.

The current situation with "everything else" available on the Debian
menu works perfectly, each environment has their own menu with
everything else available if someone really wants to go looking for it. 
This can even be disabled.

By all means choose a different format for the menu entries, but don't
start sticking KDE applications in the GNOME menu, they aren't part of
that Desktop Environment.


Or a technical reason: starting a simple KDE application under GNOME
requires around 60MB of memory, as many of the KDE services need to be
started as well.  The reverse is (I imagine) equally true.


Don't cross-pollute the two desktop environments, they're fine as they
are.

Scott

[0] in the administrator's view, anyway
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: