Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure
Ben Finney wrote:
>> Yes, but they are only shown if you run a VM they belong to. Being a
>> user of a VM that uses modules, you can be expected to know what
>> they are.
>
> I don't believe that's true; you seem to be conflating "user" with
> "person who installs the software". Most users of a computer have no
> idea what a "window manager" is, let alone that they have "modules";
> yet they may well desire to use some of these.
I am not conflating anything. If a "person who installs the software"
decides to install a WM that uses modules and give it to a "user", what
can I do about it? The modules are part of the WM, so a "user" can be
expected to know what they are as much as he/she can be expected to know
what the other parts of the WM are.
> To repeat part of my message you didn't address:
I did not address it, because I thought it was self explanatory after I
explained how modules are handled inside menu system.
> Another flawed assumption is that the current user is the one who
> understands what window manager they are using (or even understands
> what a "window manager" is anyway). For users of computers where some
> other user installs software that causes menu items to appear under
> this section, they cannot be expected to know the meaning of a menu
> section named "Modules".
Again, what can I do about it? They might as well not know what a
terminal emulator is.
> I believe the menu sections should be named so that a user who *never*
> installs software, nor understands what a window manager is, can still
> navigate and understand the menu items provided by that software.
I do agree with this, but I fail to understand how naming modules as
"modules" is against this idea? I also fail to understand what exactly
you are opposing? The move of modules from /WindowManagers/Modules to
/Modules? I explained the reasons behind this.
Are you a user of a WM that uses modules? If so, do you really prefer to
dig trough all truly unrelated entries in /WindowManagers to locate a
module you need?
I do understand the possible pitfalls that Eduard Bloch questioned. We
might indeed need a top level section named "Modules" for something else
in the future. But this has not been the case for years now, and nothing
indicates that it will, so this is not the case of "solve a problem and
create another one", but rather "solve a problem that might need to be
solved again at some point in the future, although unlikely".
None of the changes were made for no reason. If you disagree with any of
them, you are free to suggest a better solution. So far I have not seen
any suggestions from you.
Reply to: