On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:38:35PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> Sure -- but at least doing it that way means you yourself have defined
> how it is to operate, rather than relying on the existing operability
> of what's available.
And you have done any less? Unless you coded the WM you are only using
what the WM offers to you. No less, no more.
> What if I didn't like that? What if I wanted to do it some
> other way?
Such as? You're implying that there's something magical going on without
giving specifics upon which to discuss.
> With a WM I would have to define all of these things myself (to a lesser or
> greater extent, depending on the WM) -- but the advantage is that I took the
> time to do it myself, so I _know_ how it works, and what to expect.
No. You know how it can be configured. Again, unless you're digging in
the code, you don't know how it works. The point I am making is that the two
are not mutually exclusive. I like the 80% rule. IE, if something does 80%
of what is need well then the other 20% can be hard. That is especially true
if the 80% that is easy is what people are going to do 80% of the time anyway.
Text configuration of a WM is 20% well, 80% hard. Unacceptable. Simply
adding a launch button, which is a common application, should not be hard just
for a learning experience. Make it easy. If I need more than the basic
application I can RTFM. It is your mentality which is why vi is so rough for
people to learn up front even though IMHO a variant of vi(m) is one of the
best damn editors out there and I use it religiously. Want to know why?
*Because they made the easy things easy to find and learn.* The harder
concepts I learn when I need to.
> > Basic configuration should be provided in a simple manner. WMs don't do
> > that.
> Simple manner? That's subjective.
No. It's rather objective I think. Can I do it:
A: without 3 other tools.
B: opening another application unrelated to the application at hand.
C: in a manner which is understandable with minimal documentation in under 5m.
D: in a manner which fits about 80% of my needs?
That'd be easy because it's at hand, readily consumed and I'd be off doing
something else in a short amount of time.
> > > No, it's the exact, and proper definition.
> > And yet it performs hardly any of the fuctions attributed to DEs like
> > KDE/GNOME or Winders.
> It still provides inherent look and feel across those applications that XFCE
> supports.
So you're saying that TK is a DE? Or MOTIF? GTK? QT?
How about Windowmaker? I mean you toss in the panel/kicker that it has
along with the plugins designed for it they provide a consistant look and
feel.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature