Re: Woody Gnome is not stable
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> From: Jeff Waugh <jdub@perkypants.org>
> Subject: Re: Woody Gnome is not stable
>
> <quote who="Chipzz">
>
> > [chipzz@box_a]$ export DISPLAY=:0
> > [chipzz@box_a]$ metacity &
> > [chipzz@box_a]$ ssh -X box_b
> > [chipzz@box_b]$ gnome-session
>
> Are you serious? I'm not being sarcastic here, I genuinely want to know.
I was mostly pointing out that strictly speaking it's technically in-
correct to depend on a window manager.
There is one use case though - remember my xterm? ;) It has a built-in
window manager (which can be turned off, but it makes more sense to use
the built-in wm than the one from gnome)
> This sounds to me, on initial exposure, to be thoughtless optimisation for
> an inordinately rare and strange use case. Indeed, there's really no loss
> having metacity installed on the second machine even if you only run the
> gnome-session binary.
>
> I really don't think this is sufficient rationalisation for a bad default.
You're probably right, but from a strict technological point of view
there is no dependency. I think that's what the meta-packages are for,
really.
But a suggest or recommends is probably in place I think.
> - Jeff
kr,
Chipzz AKA
Jan Van Buggenhout
PS: If you're wondering why I know all this stuff, this is because I
have been using linux for over 5 years, I started with gnome 1.2 on a
486, used enlightenment as a stand-alone wm, etc, and it was not uncom-
mon for me to run apps remotely on a faster PC from someone in the same
dorm.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny
Chipzz@ULYSSIS.Org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Baldric, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself pur-
ple and danced naked on a harpsicord singing 'subtle plans are here a-
gain'."
Reply to: