On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 03:16:33PM +0100, Bastien Nocera scribbled: [snip] > > > The only person I heard on this list complaining has a 486. The class of > > > computers we are (loosely) targetting for Gnome is a 300 Mhz machine > > It's not a matter of Mhz in your CPU, it's a matter of what your video > > hardware can do. If you have a Trident or S3 that's 4 years (or even more) > > old, you will have bad performance even on Athlon 2000+. > > Just a side note to Athlon 2000+ users that have a Trident video card: > you have your priorities wrong ;) Probably so :) - anyhow, that was a comparison, nothing else :) > > > Thinking of running a modern desktop on a 486 is just a dream. > > The people I talked to are from a school around here that has only K6 > > machines with 1MB S3 Trio cards. I'm happy they run Linux and GNOME - should I tell them to use > > Win3.1 just because they cannot switch a stupid option on or off? I don't > > think so. > > Well, add a compile-time option. I know that Havoc won't accept the Yep, probably the best solution. > patch because it would make more sense to get the opaque resizing > working well than making it optional. That I cannot agree with, but it's not my call. [snip] > > > > > We're definitely aiming for tight integration (why wouldn't we?) but there's > > > > That's ok as long as the integration isn't too tight - as to the point where > > > > one cannot switch to a different window manager. > > > > > > Why is the focal point of this community on "window managers" ? I don't > > It's on _choice_. The beauty of GNOME has always been in the possibility to > > make choices - unlike with KDE or Windows where you have virtually no > > choice. > > For gnome2, the choice is very much limited: metacity, sawfish or kwin. Sure, but that doesn't mean the choice should be taken away from the users. If people use a distribution such as Debian they will likely have a choice of window managers - I see no reason at all not to allow them to use any window manager they want. > You can switch to use metacity under KDE if you want, just edit kdestart > and change the window manager there (IIRC). I don't know, haven't use KDE in the past 2 or 3 years. > > > see any KDE people whinging about the fact that they can only run kwin > > And you think it's an argument? That the KDE people don't whine? Besides I > > don't _whine_ - I see no reason for you to be hostile. If I can't run GNOME > > with a window manager of my choice, I will run crippled GNOME - that's it. I > > was just asking, out of curiosity - there's no need for you to jump the gun. > > I said whinge. > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=whinge > > Which is very different from whining. I'm sorry - I misread what you wrote. My fault :) and my apologies. [snip] > > > Just like there's only one file-manager supported in Gnome, there could > > > well be only one window manager supported. Sounds cool to me. > > Sounds awful to me. I don't use neither GMC nor Nautilus, for example. If I > > weren't allowed to switch them off and to choose NOT to use them, I would > > never use GNOME (or any other desktop software that forbids me to do so) - I > > hope you're not advocating a monolithic desktop? > > Yes I am, because an integrated desktop is a monolithic desktop. If you Not at all. Integrated desktop is one that offers good and well defined interfaces where any component can be plugged in - whether native or 3rd party. Monolithic desktop is like Windows desktop - you cannot use any other "shell" than the windows explorer (yah, I know, you can use the progman.exe ;>) or the folder viewer. That makes a huge difference. > want to turn off that software or that one, well, good for you. But I > really don't think that "supporting" a desktop that would allow you to > change which file-manager you're running is a very clever move. Huh? Are you saying that the users should be given The One And Only file manager and be forced to use it? Does the same apply to the web browser, help viewer, editor, IDE? In a world I'd like to see on the open source desktops everyone has a choice. And it is perfectly possible with a well integrated desktop. > > > > > Most of your questions would be best answered on GNOME's desktop-devel-list, > > > > > rather than the Debian package maintainer's list. > > > > I guess you're right ;) - it's just that something inside me is against > > > > subscribing to yet another voluminous mailing list, haha :)). But I suppose > > > > that would be the right way :) > > > > > > *shrug* Talk to your dog rather than to your doctor, when you feel sick, > > > the doctor lives too far, right ? > > What is your problem? I am subscribed to all the GNOME lists I need already. > > My problem is "why on earth do you post OT comments on this list if > you're already subscribed to Gnome mailing-lists, huh ?" I don't think it's _that_ off topic. What I write treats about usability and users using the Debian operating system with the Debian GNOME packages. They had these problems with the Debian software - do you still think it's a wrong list? I can cross-post, sure, but that would be even worse. > > Haven't you noticed the smileys? Calm down, please. > > Calm "down" ? I couldn't be more calm than I am now. If you can't take > discussions, don't try to discuss. I thought developers had a thick > skin. Yah, I don't care - but I'm fed up with flamewars and hostile discussions on the Debian mailing lists (not saying that his is a flamewar, hell no, but I'd rather prevent it before it even has a chance to start ;-)) friendly, marek
Attachment:
pgp6jfdxegQz_.pgp
Description: PGP signature