Re: Bug#172436: followup on browser proposal
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 17:09, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:55:45PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > This, I have a big issue with. Let's say I have a multiuser system
> > where I install GNOME and KDE. Now, suppose konqueror registers itself
> > at a higher priority for this alternative for whatever random reason.
> > Then whenver I'm in GNOME and click on a website, by default konqueror
> > will be launched, which is broken. Likewise, if I'm in KDE, epiphany
> > shouldn't be launched, at least by default. I hope I don't have to
> > elaborate on the reasons why this is broken; it has been discussed in
> > the past.
>
> No, this is not broken, this is just not what you would prefer.
It is broken. The whole point of an integrated environment is that it's
integrated. When I choose a theme, it's used by every application.
When I pick an application to handle a certain file type, it's handled
by all of them. I can drag and drop files. I could go on here.
But even more importantly than all of this, certain environments like
GNOME put very high priority on qualities such as accessibility. In
particular, GNOME strives to be usable by low-vision and blind users.
So following the theme (including an increased font size) isn't just
cosmetic, it's absolutely critical for their ability to use the
application. Also, because GNOME has an accessibility technology, a
growing number of GNOME applications are usable even by people with no
vision at all.
If they're using say Evolution, and click on a link in an email, but the
web page pops up in say Konqueror because that had the highest
x-www-browser priority, it's totally useless.
I'm not saying this to pimp GNOME; my fundamental point here is that
integrated environments have a lot of benefits, and should be explicitly
allowed by policy. I do think that converting apps and window managers
to use things like sensible-browser directly is great for those people
who don't need or want an integrated environment for whatever reason.
Reply to: