From marcusb@wspice.com
Received: (qmail 18388 invoked from network); 12 Feb 1998 22:42:22 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (206.30.216.2)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 1998 22:42:22 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (wsp1.wspice.com [206.30.216.2])
by wsp1.wspice.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA17906
for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:42:20 -0600
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:42:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com>
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: I think we should have a Gnome Window Manager
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980212162729.17619A-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I really think the Gnome Project should provide a Gnome Window Manager
(gwm?) if we hope to be accepted as a real desktop project. One of the
most important aspects of a desktop IMO is a consistent, coherent
interface. That is really not possible if a Gnome system could be running
any of a dozen or so window-managers. Each one of them has a particular
set of rules and styles that people would have to learn. I don't think
Enlightenment is the answer here - it is really too big, and some of its
components are a little bit annoying (the track lights, for example.)
Enlightenment is certainly attractive, but IMHO it isn't too useable -
which is more important to me. I work for an ISP, and sometimes I have to
take support calls. The one thing people don't complain about is how
bland their desktops are. It just isn't important to them. Also, some
people still run 8bpp displays, I don't know how well Enlightenment
handles those. I think we need something like the K Window Manager - it
is both attractive and useable.
Marcus
From rosalia@cygnus.com
Received: (qmail 2107 invoked from network); 12 Feb 1998 23:18:15 -0000
Received: from runyon.cygnus.com (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 1998 23:18:15 -0000
Received: from papageno.lanl.gov (rosalia@papageno.lanl.gov [128.165.7.28])
by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA22157
for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rosalia@localhost)
by papageno.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA08118;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:16:46 -0700
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:16:46 -0700
Message-Id: <199802122316.QAA08118@papageno.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Mark Galassi <rosalia@cygnus.com>
To: Chris Knight <cknite@net66.com>
Cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: I think we should have a Gnome Window Manager
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980212164722.006adc48@net66.com>
References: <3.0.32.19980212164722.006adc48@net66.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.39 under Emacs 20.2.1
Guys, it's already been discussed enough, and I think that Marcus
would not object to what our consensus is:
We will provide patches to make two or three popular WMs work well
with GNOME, thus adding some heightened awareness for those who can
handle those two or three WMs. But we will not require any given
window manager.
Marcus should be satisfied with this because it means that one or two
WMs will play the role he just proposed (of being a small,
configurable, tightly integrated WM).
The typical UNIX "live free or die" types will be satisfied because
they can choose any WM.
(PS: I hope I'm remembering the consensus well.)
Todd, could you put this consensus in the FAQ?
From raster@redhat.com
Received: (qmail 8434 invoked from network); 12 Feb 1998 23:25:16 -0000
Received: from lacrosse.redhat.com (root@207.175.42.154)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 1998 23:25:16 -0000
Received: from implant.labs.redhat.com (root@implant.labs.redhat.com [207.175.45.2])
by lacrosse.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA18934;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:25:16 -0500
Received: from redhat.com (raster@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by implant.labs.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA27862;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:24:39 -0500
From: raster@redhat.com
Message-Id: <199802122324.SAA27862@implant.labs.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:24:36 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: raster@redhat.com
Subject: Re: I think we should have a Gnome Window Manager
To: marcusb@wspice.com
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980212162729.17619A-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On 12 Feb, Marcus Butler shouted:
->
-> I really think the Gnome Project should provide a Gnome Window Manager
-> (gwm?) if we hope to be accepted as a real desktop project. One of the
-> most important aspects of a desktop IMO is a consistent, coherent
-> interface. That is really not possible if a Gnome system could be running
-> any of a dozen or so window-managers. Each one of them has a particular
-> set of rules and styles that people would have to learn. I don't think
-> Enlightenment is the answer here - it is really too big, and some of its
-> components are a little bit annoying (the track lights, for example.)
I would just like to clear this up - you can change them to be
anything you want it to be - that is merely a sample provided - just
like if you think the default fvwm2 setup is "beautiful" or "perfect"
you're in the minority aswell.
-> Enlightenment is certainly attractive, but IMHO it isn't too useable -
-> which is more important to me. I work for an ISP, and sometimes I have to
-> take support calls. The one thing people don't complain about is how
-> bland their desktops are. It just isn't important to them. Also, some
-> people still run 8bpp displays, I don't know how well Enlightenment
-> handles those. I think we need something like the K Window Manager - it
-> is both attractive and useable.
It handles them better than any other WM. I wrote Imlib originally for
enlightenment - and thus it has one of the best color management
systems for any wm. Seeing ti manages botht eh roto window
backgroud and everything else - it conservers colormaps very well,
irrespective of that graphics you use, irresepctive of screendepth.
-> Marcus
->
->
--
--------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------
raster@rasterman.com /\___ /\ ___/||\___ ____/|/\___ raster@redhat.com
Carsten Haitzler | _ //__\\ __||_ __\\ ___|| _ / Red Hat Advanced
218/21 Conner Drive || // __ \\_ \ | | \ _/_|| / Development Labs
Chapel Hill NC 27514 USA ||\\\/ \//__/ |_| /___/||\\ 919 547 0012 ext 282
+1 (919) 929 9443, 801 4392 For pure Enlightenmenthttp://www.rasterman.com/
From sopwith@cuc.edu
Received: (qmail 9446 invoked from network); 12 Feb 1998 23:27:47 -0000
Received: from helix.cs.cuc.edu (HELO cuc.edu) (sopwith@207.222.40.128)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 1998 23:27:47 -0000
Received: from localhost (sopwith@localhost)
by cuc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA06813;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:24:24 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:24:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Elliot Lee <sopwith@cuc.edu>
X-Sender: sopwith@helix.cs.cuc.edu
Reply-To: Elliot Lee <sopwith@cuc.edu>
To: Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: I think we should have a Gnome Window Manager
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980212162729.17619A-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980212175116.3892C-100000@helix.cs.cuc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Marcus Butler wrote:
> I really think the Gnome Project should provide a Gnome Window Manager
> (gwm?) if we hope to be accepted as a real desktop project.
Hmm, that sounds like a rather doubtful statement. I seem to remember
various threads on USENET in a similar vein:
- Linux needs streams to be successful.
- Linux needs raw devices if it hopes to
be accepted.
- Linux needs Java in the kernel.
- Linux needs to be rewritten in Java.
- Linux needs to be a microkernel.
- Linux needs to be rewritten in C++.
- Linux needs an HTTP filesystem in the kernel.
- Linux needs 3D capabilities in the kernel (Free3D).
It brings tears to my eyes to remember those good old days... ;-)
None of these things has happened, and yet Linux is still doing quite
well, I'd say.
> One of the most important aspects of a desktop IMO is a consistent,
> coherent interface.
Partially true. I'd say there are a lot of other things more important for
reaching the end goal of easily storing and manipulating information.
> That is really not possible if a Gnome system could be running any of a
> dozen or so window-managers.
I don't agree. Do you really believe that because a window close box is
red instead of blue, or has a bomb icon instead of an X, people will not
be able to interact with the applications? Window managers implement
roughly the same features (window decorations, window manipulation
functions, and virtual desktops) across the board, varying the look,
system key bindings, etc. We will also be making patches to all popular
WM's to make them work nicely with gnome.
Remember that the applications will all look the same.
I happen to be porting wmx to Gtk (yes, it's the umpteenth project on my
plate, but I'm not making it a priority). It's going to be small (the
original wmx source code is around 5kloc) and have some cool features that
*I* want and no other WM is going to have. I'm also probably use it as a
second testbed for implementing Gnome WM extensions, along with E (I can
almost hear raster laughing in the background :-)
Other platforms say "you must conform" - Linux+X gives you a choice.
Nobody's going to write the code for you, but at the same time
no one is stopping you from writing your own window manager - if you want
it, write it ;-)
-- Elliot http://www.redhat.com/
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way
to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates from "The Road Ahead," p. 265.
From marcusb@wspice.com
Received: (qmail 25260 invoked from network); 12 Feb 1998 23:40:16 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (206.30.216.2)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 1998 23:40:16 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (wsp1.wspice.com [206.30.216.2])
by wsp1.wspice.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA19405;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:40:12 -0600
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:40:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com>
To: Elliot Lee <sopwith@cuc.edu>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: I think we should have a Gnome Window Manager
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980212175116.3892C-100000@helix.cs.cuc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980212173056.19055B-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Elliot Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Marcus Butler wrote:
>
> > I really think the Gnome Project should provide a Gnome Window Manager
> > (gwm?) if we hope to be accepted as a real desktop project.
>
> Hmm, that sounds like a rather doubtful statement. I seem to remember
> various threads on USENET in a similar vein:
I don't think my suggestion is on par with "Linux needs Java in the
kernel." Java has nothing to do with the Linux kernel; a window manager
has quite a bit to do with a desktop.
> - Linux needs streams to be successful.
> - Linux needs raw devices if it hopes to
> be accepted.
> - Linux needs Java in the kernel.
> - Linux needs to be rewritten in Java.
> - Linux needs to be a microkernel.
> - Linux needs to be rewritten in C++.
> - Linux needs an HTTP filesystem in the kernel.
> - Linux needs 3D capabilities in the kernel (Free3D).
>
> It brings tears to my eyes to remember those good old days... ;-)
>
> None of these things has happened, and yet Linux is still doing quite
> well, I'd say.
Linux is great, but Microsoft still has the majority of the business.
> > That is really not possible if a Gnome system could be running any of a
> > dozen or so window-managers.
>
> I don't agree. Do you really believe that because a window close box is
> red instead of blue, or has a bomb icon instead of an X, people will not
> be able to interact with the applications? Window managers implement
> roughly the same features (window decorations, window manipulation
> functions, and virtual desktops) across the board, varying the look,
> system key bindings, etc. We will also be making patches to all popular
> WM's to make them work nicely with gnome.
Yes, I do believe it, because I have had to deal with people that have
serious problems when their resize buttons change.
> Remember that the applications will all look the same.
Applications will look *mostly* the same.
> Nobody's going to write the code for you, but at the same time
> no one is stopping you from writing your own window manager - if you want
> it, write it ;-)
Writing another Window Manager not endorsed as "The Gnome Window
Manager," would only add to the problem. I have neither the time nor the
experience available to write a *great* window manager and writing a
mediocre WM would be foolish.
I think this thread has run its course. We should probably move on to
more productive topics.
From redline@pdq.net.delete.this
Received: (qmail 10146 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 01:55:58 -0000
Received: from mail.direcpc.com (HELO postoffice2.direcpc.com) (198.77.116.30)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 01:55:58 -0000
Received: from hh1119122.direcpc.com ([206.71.119.122])
by postoffice2.direcpc.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2
release (PO203-101c) ID# 0-45425U50000L50000S0) with SMTP
id AAA1532 for <gnome-list@gnome.org>;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:55:38 -0500
X-Sender: X-Mailer:
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:51:47 -0600
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
From: Max Watson <redline@pdq.net.delete.this>
Subject: Fix for tear-off toolbars
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_887356307==_"
--=====================_887356307==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello GNOMErs -
Here is a patch to gtkhandlebox to use motif wm hints to cause no
decoration on tear-off toolbars and menubars. This means that any wm that
supports motif wm hints like mwm (duh), fvwm2 (and derivatives?), and icewm
will now show no decorations. I thought it better to use some existing
standard than make a new one and have to patch whatever window manager one
chooses.
Just un-tgz this file in the gtk+/gtk directory and "patch -s < wmhints.patch"
This file also contains MwmUtil.h from the lesstif package. Mucho thanks to
the lesstif people.
One the subject of window managers, I feel like although GNOME "has no
official wm," everything points to E. I do not like that. The theme support
for gtk, the fact that raster is the only wm maintainer on the GNOME dev
team, etc. It is like saying "use whatever wm you want, but only E is cozy
with GNOME."
So I have been patching up icewm to work nicely with the GNOME panel and
improving the mwm hints support. I have removed the start menu and fixed
the icewm toolbar to just do a window-list sort of thing in conjunction
with the panel. I have also made it look more gtk-ish. It looks really
nice. What I would like to know is what exactly does GNOME need a wm to do?
Lots of people seem to think we need One True wm, but I feel I can (and
will, I promise) patch icewm to do anything that any other wm can do. It
even has theme support very similar to E. And with a port of wmx on the way
from Elliot Lee, that gives GNOME users a choice from at least three window
managers to use. That seems to me to be very good. Now all we need is for
someone to patch (if necessary) fvwm. Then EVERYONE can be happy. Except
maybe those pie menu people. BTW, Is fvwm2 still maintained? It has been at
2.0.46 beta forever.
Sorry for the ramble, long day.
M.Watson redline at pdq dot net
From arouse@austin.ibm.com
Received: (qmail 21387 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 02:13:45 -0000
Received: from ausmail.austin.ibm.com (192.35.232.19)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 02:13:45 -0000
Received: from netmail1.austin.ibm.com (netmail1.austin.ibm.com [9.53.250.96])
by ausmail.austin.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAB61252
for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:13:39 -0600
Received: from sox1.austin.ibm.com (sox1.austin.ibm.com [9.3.199.13])
by netmail1.austin.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA70474
for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:13:38 -0600
Received: from localhost.austin.ibm.com by sox1.austin.ibm.com
(AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-client-2.6)
for gnome-list@gnome.org at austin.ibm.com; id AA128218;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:13:37 -0600
Sender: arouse@austin.ibm.com
Message-Id: <34E3AC50.CC7C058C@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:13:36 -0600
From: allen rouse <arouse@austin.ibm.com>
Organization: none. let's keep it that way.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; AIX 4.2)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Menus, menu bars, buttons, panels, sliders, all gui, the whole gui enchilada!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello all,
Here are my two cents worth on a completely tangential subject yet
relevant if you think crookedly.
I have not had to mess with gui's much but when I've had to I always
found it very difficult to get right and time consuming. The issues of
what goes where and how to handle this and that and what if the user
can't understand the menu options and what kind of help system to have
are arguments in the same league as discussions of the origin of
language or religious matters.
This has resulted in my having developed EXTREME AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR on
this matter. But, I have to work and I have deal with it.
Lately though, I've been moving my user interfaces (when I've had to
have one) to the web. Yes, I know, why spend that much in resources to
have a gui, etc. The reason is ease of modification, ease of creation,
ease of maintenance, and cross platform availability.
I found out that I am NOT the first to have this idea. I saw a paper
once (reference lost sorry) about using SGML to describe a program's
gui. I think it's a brilliant idea (if I say so myself).
Here's the proposal:
Instead of having every program build its own gui out of
widgets/gadgets/xlib calls/whatever coded in
C/C++/python/perl/tcl/guile/whatever, why not have it have an XML file
associated with it or built in to it (whatever) that defines the look,
the menus, the cute little graphics, the buttons, the fonts to use, the
BEHAVIOR of the entire gui? The app would pass this information to a
second program (or make use of a library) to create, register, and
render the gui.
Pluses:
-easier (?) to develop a gui maker/manipulator
which would make
-it easy for a user (perhaps) the change the app's gui to taste
-ummm ... just plain easier.
-it can be made to use the underlying tool kit (gtk,qt,lesstif,
whatever M$ uses)
in other words, VERY portable.
-new unique behaviors, widgets, layouts can be defined by each
application simply and without having to code in anything low
level
-could make it easy to handle overall policies as to the
behavior/features of menus, etc.
-(????) could make it easier to "render" on a text only display
-greater reliability because there is less low level code AND there
exist validators for XML (?)
Minus:
-nothing like it exists to my knowledge (ActiveDesktop?)
-most will not like it for gui design reasons
-a LOT I'm sure ...
What do you think? From my point of view, looking at the stuff on my
display, there is NOTHING that could not be done just as well by
something like XML. NOTHING.
PS: I think this would also free us from a strict dependence on X yet
still enjoy remote display capabilities (using CORBA) even to where
there is no X server.
Allen "what have you been smoking, dude?" Rouse
-------------------------------------------------------
These are personal opinions. They do not represent IBM nor are they
endorsed by IBM.
From nelson@crynwr.com
Received: (qmail 2700 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 03:52:57 -0000
Received: from ns.crynwr.com (192.203.178.14)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 03:52:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 17851 invoked by uid 0); 13 Feb 1998 03:53:21 -0000
Received: from desk.crynwr.com (128.153.44.67)
by ns.crynwr.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 03:53:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 28510 invoked by uid 501); 13 Feb 1998 03:53:19 -0000
Date: 13 Feb 1998 03:53:18 -0000
Message-ID: <19980213035318.28509.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Max Watson <redline@pdq.net.delete.this>
Cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Fix for tear-off toolbars
In-Reply-To: <"F8E6I3.0.zV2.mWwuq"@mail2.redhat.com>
References: <"F8E6I3.0.zV2.mWwuq"@mail2.redhat.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 20.3 "Vatican City" XEmacs Lucid
X-Face: $K'YURj"g6ImvqTS_=]8)gqh!5;ElY<[.Rao%j8r+]iUfE{%|v%F<=mcq<6l{K=~mf&#:?"
nslS]U~|x{2V=Eex_I#"9K~9)>?m7Lm={(j_&)SX~fzg&ST~P%QUhc{1p]c3@Zn1u*PZlkHM**X^vV
l>GkB5y^Kz%w5p~^uDue]hL&ke,N;+Q<ImMCdCr~Kz--?|SS?DbZiaE;xPW/7k9u_cc(It%mvMNVk;
qVk~
Um, Max? It's really rude to use a munged address on a mailing list.
Like, basically, why are you so wonderful that I should have to take
special steps to fix your broken email address? I suggest that you
just deal with spam like the rest of us.
Max Watson writes:
> Just un-tgz this file in the gtk+/gtk directory and "patch -s < wmhints.patch"
>
> This file also contains MwmUtil.h from the lesstif package. Mucho thanks to
> the lesstif people.
The MwmUtil.h was somehow a compressed tar file of wmhints.patch.
The right file is at http://www.crynwr.com/MwmUtil.h
> And with a port of wmx on the way from Elliot Lee, that gives GNOME
> users a choice from at least three window managers to use. That
> seems to me to be very good.
No reason why Gnome shouldn't come with > 1 wm. I think most
complainers (myself included) have been saying that it shouldn't come
with < 1 wm.
> Now all we need is for someone to patch (if necessary) fvwm. Then
> EVERYONE can be happy. Except maybe those pie menu people.
:)
--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Freedom is the primary
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | cause of Peace, Love,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Truth and Justice.
From jim@jimpick.com
Received: (qmail 8154 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 06:47:52 -0000
Received: from fleming.jimpick.com (jim@204.209.212.123)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 06:47:52 -0000
Received: (from jim@localhost)
by fleming.jimpick.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) id WAA31793;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:47:42 -0800
To: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: "Official" gnome window manager
References: <19980213035318.28509.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
X-Url: http://www.jimpick.com/
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_Feb_12_22:47:22_1998-1"; micalg=pgp-md5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>
Date: 12 Feb 1998 22:47:41 -0800
In-Reply-To: Russell Nelson's message of "13 Feb 1998 03:53:18 -0000"
Message-ID: <8767mk9f1u.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
Lines: 73
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/XEmacs 20.2
X-Face: Hz"C77\53<,u1}C~=DFwS#Ddj161XLl6W!3g7xjxh*P'`FF^-IYQXX$a*WC~=^8rvy"~<3z
UeQqGo&KZe[}lJg`\+SDMGRVIUJ~P,#(=w~yYv{g9i%"k|\J|jYVvv^Bzfwo=@AddrDMO<xV_IAl`(
TW7;|vH6Kik(,iljluXex0vrnM:SedI@lbAeNvM
--pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_Feb_12_22:47:22_1998-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> writes:
> No reason why Gnome shouldn't come with > 1 wm. I think most
> complainers (myself included) have been saying that it shouldn't come
> with < 1 wm.
Gnome will usually come with a Linux (or *BSD) distribution. In those
cases, it will come with many window managers. Debian has 14 --
olvwm, kwm, fvwm, fvwm2, fvwm95, scwm, gwm, icewm, 9wm, afterstep,
ctwm, wm2, wmaker, and olvwm (someone was doing enlightenment, I
wonder what happened to it). Several of these will integrate nicely
with Gnome, I assume. There are also many, many window managers
Debian doesn't have (ie. piewm).
Looking at it from that perspective (my vantage point), arguing over
what window manager should be bundled with Gnome is counter-productive
and basically a waste of bandwidth.
Before anybody says Gnome should ship with a window manager, I would
first appreciate it if they would describe the reasons why they
themselves can't pick and bundle a window manager alongside Gnome in
the product they are producing.
My suspicion is that this commonly held position (Gnome should ship a
window manager) is just a variant of the widely voiced opinion that
"all these different window managers is too confusing to new users, so
there should be a standard one".
I feel the choice of a default window manager should (and will) be
decided by the people putting together the final distribution
(ie. Debian, Red Hat, Caldera, SuSe, etc.) Tools such as dpkg and
rpm, which don't know about Gnome, let the user select which window
manager packages are available. Debian and Red Hat already let the
user choose a window manager.
Mainly, my argument is that shipping window managers with Gnome is
pure 'advocacy' -- there's no practical reason to do it.
IMHO, the Gnome project is fairly focused. It isn't meant to be an
entire OS distribution. So, it shouldn't be advocating a particular
window manager to go into the final OS product. Doing so is really
the realm of the final distribution builder (like Debian, Red Hat,
Corel) or do-it-yourself'er.
I don't agree with people who would use the Gnome project to advocate
'one true wm' for all users. We'll never get everybody to agree and
it will lead to endless bickering and politics.
Cheers,
- Jim
From nelson@crynwr.com
Received: (qmail 19733 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 14:01:18 -0000
Received: from ns.crynwr.com (192.203.178.14)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 14:01:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 63 invoked by uid 0); 13 Feb 1998 14:01:39 -0000
Received: from desk.crynwr.com (128.153.44.67)
by ns.crynwr.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 14:01:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 1741 invoked by uid 501); 13 Feb 1998 14:01:38 -0000
Date: 13 Feb 1998 14:01:38 -0000
Message-ID: <19980213140138.1740.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: "Official" gnome window manager
In-Reply-To: <8767mk9f1u.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
References: <19980213035318.28509.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
<8767mk9f1u.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 20.3 "Vatican City" XEmacs Lucid
X-Face: $K'YURj"g6ImvqTS_=]8)gqh!5;ElY<[.Rao%j8r+]iUfE{%|v%F<=mcq<6l{K=~mf&#:?"
nslS]U~|x{2V=Eex_I#"9K~9)>?m7Lm={(j_&)SX~fzg&ST~P%QUhc{1p]c3@Zn1u*PZlkHM**X^vV
l>GkB5y^Kz%w5p~^uDue]hL&ke,N;+Q<ImMCdCr~Kz--?|SS?DbZiaE;xPW/7k9u_cc(It%mvMNVk;
qVk~
Jim Pick writes:
> I don't agree with people who would use the Gnome project to advocate
> 'one true wm' for all users. We'll never get everybody to agree and
> it will lead to endless bickering and politics.
If we can't agree on a single wm to ship, then we can't agree on a
single look and feel. Arguably this is the point of themes, but then
a "Gnome-compatible" wm will implement themes; those that don't are
not Gnome-compatible.
The whole point behind Gnome is to have a set of applications which
operate in a similar manner, so that knowledge about how to run one
can be transferred to another. The wm is just another application
which should operate in a similar manner. If we can coerce one or
more wm's to work in that similar manner, fine. If not, then we
should modify one so it does.
Can people run non-Gnome applications with Gnome installed? Sure.
Will other wm's run with Gnome? Sure. That is not an argument for
not shipping a wm with Gnome.
--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Freedom is the primary
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | cause of Peace, Love,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Truth and Justice.
From jim@jimpick.com
Received: (qmail 30224 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 18:05:21 -0000
Received: from fleming.jimpick.com (jim@204.209.212.123)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 18:05:21 -0000
Received: (from jim@localhost)
by fleming.jimpick.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) id KAA17970;
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:05:01 -0800
To: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: "Official" gnome window manager
References: <19980213140138.1740.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
X-Url: http://www.jimpick.com/
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Feb_13_10:04:43_1998-1"; micalg=pgp-md5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>
Date: 13 Feb 1998 10:04:58 -0800
In-Reply-To: Russell Nelson's message of "13 Feb 1998 14:01:38 -0000"
Message-ID: <877m6z8jp1.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
Lines: 59
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/XEmacs 20.2
X-Face: Hz"C77\53<,u1}C~=DFwS#Ddj161XLl6W!3g7xjxh*P'`FF^-IYQXX$a*WC~=^8rvy"~<3z
UeQqGo&KZe[}lJg`\+SDMGRVIUJ~P,#(=w~yYv{g9i%"k|\J|jYVvv^Bzfwo=@AddrDMO<xV_IAl`(
TW7;|vH6Kik(,iljluXex0vrnM:SedI@lbAeNvM
--pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Feb_13_10:04:43_1998-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> writes:
> Jim Pick writes:
> > I don't agree with people who would use the Gnome project to advocate
> > 'one true wm' for all users. We'll never get everybody to agree and
> > it will lead to endless bickering and politics.
>
> If we can't agree on a single wm to ship, then we can't agree on a
> single look and feel.
My point exactly. We shouldn't be using Gnome to as a vehicle for
debating a 'single look and feel' (your words). That will be a very
noisy, counter-productive affair.
But you are free to take the Gnome code, and mandate a 'single look
and feel' in the product you are putting together by shipping only one
window manager with it (or setting one as the default).
I don't see the point in using the Gnome project for this purpose -
determining a 'single look and feel' - because Gnome is going to be
used in several products (Debian, Red Hat) which don't have any
control over which window manager the user is going to select.
The Gnome project could decide and dictate that a certain wm is
preferred (as KDE has done) - but all the inevitable fighting over
which window manager GUI behaviour to adopt will be pointless, since
the products with which Gnome is bundled will let the user switch the
window manager anyways.
A Gnome window manager would only be 1 out of 15 or so in Debian. The
battle to have a single window manager standard was lost when the X
consortium decided to allow multiple window managers. Personally, I
think that's a good thing.
Cheers,
- Jim
From marcusb@wspice.com
Received: (qmail 20066 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 19:11:45 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (206.30.216.2)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 19:11:45 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (wsp1.wspice.com [206.30.216.2])
by wsp1.wspice.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA03697;
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:11:27 -0600
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:11:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com>
To: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>
cc: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: "Official" gnome window manager
In-Reply-To: <877m6z8jp1.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980213130424.3389A-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On 13 Feb 1998, Jim Pick wrote:
> A Gnome window manager would only be 1 out of 15 or so in Debian. The
> battle to have a single window manager standard was lost when the X
> consortium decided to allow multiple window managers. Personally, I
> think that's a good thing.
That decision is one of the big reasons why people are implementing
desktops now. Mechanism v. Policy is dead. When we start supporting ten
(or even three) different window managers, there are going to be
differences in application behaviour. One WM might support MWM hints,
another might not. If one application takes advantage of MWM hints on a
system without a WM that understands MWM hints, window decorations might
be out of place. Part of a desktop system is a window manager. Another
part of a desktop system is a consistent look-and-feel. You can't have
the latter without the former.
Marcus
From nelson@crynwr.com
Received: (qmail 30947 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 19:23:03 -0000
Received: from ns.crynwr.com (192.203.178.14)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 19:23:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 10517 invoked by uid 0); 13 Feb 1998 19:23:18 -0000
Received: from desk.crynwr.com (128.153.44.67)
by ns.crynwr.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 19:23:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 6121 invoked by uid 501); 13 Feb 1998 19:23:17 -0000
Date: 13 Feb 1998 19:23:17 -0000
Message-ID: <19980213192317.6120.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Well then what is Gnome for?
In-Reply-To: <877m6z8jp1.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
References: <877m6z8jp1.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 20.3 "Vatican City" XEmacs Lucid
X-Face: $K'YURj"g6ImvqTS_=]8)gqh!5;ElY<[.Rao%j8r+]iUfE{%|v%F<=mcq<6l{K=~mf&#:?"
nslS]U~|x{2V=Eex_I#"9K~9)>?m7Lm={(j_&)SX~fzg&ST~P%QUhc{1p]c3@Zn1u*PZlkHM**X^vV
l>GkB5y^Kz%w5p~^uDue]hL&ke,N;+Q<ImMCdCr~Kz--?|SS?DbZiaE;xPW/7k9u_cc(It%mvMNVk;
qVk~
Jim Pick writes:
> I don't see the point in using the Gnome project for this purpose -
> determining a 'single look and feel' - because Gnome is going to be
> used in several products (Debian, Red Hat) which don't have any
> control over which window manager the user is going to select.
Then what is Gnome for, if not to create a set of tools which operate
in a similar manner?
> A Gnome window manager would only be 1 out of 15 or so in Debian.
I just DON'T understand this desire to have NO Gnome window manager.
You might just as reasonably argue that Gnome shouldn't have a clock,
or a terminal emulator, or text editor, just because people may have
used one before, and liked it. Yes, people are going to come to Gnome
with preferences. SO WHAT?? If they want the benefits that come from
a consistent UI, then they'll stick with the Gnome WM. If they don't,
they'll stick with what they know. Fine. Let them. But that's no
reason not to have a blessed "Gnome" wm.
> battle to have a single window manager standard was lost when the X
> consortium decided to allow multiple window managers. Personally, I
> think that's a good thing.
Right. People can choose KDE, or Gnome, or the command line, or a
hodgepodge of X applications. That doesn't mean that Gnome shouldn't
have a WM!
--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Freedom is the primary
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | cause of Peace, Love,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Truth and Justice.
From jim@jimpick.com
Received: (qmail 3233 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 19:31:28 -0000
Received: from fleming.jimpick.com (jim@204.209.212.123)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 19:31:28 -0000
Received: (from jim@localhost)
by fleming.jimpick.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) id LAA20520;
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:31:03 -0800
To: Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com>
Cc: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: "Official" gnome window manager
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980213130424.3389A-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
X-Url: http://www.jimpick.com/
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Feb_13_11:30:56_1998-1"; micalg=pgp-md5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>
Date: 13 Feb 1998 11:31:01 -0800
In-Reply-To: Marcus Butler's message of "Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:11:26 -0600 (CST)"
Message-ID: <873ehn8fpm.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
Lines: 52
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/XEmacs 20.2
X-Face: Hz"C77\53<,u1}C~=DFwS#Ddj161XLl6W!3g7xjxh*P'`FF^-IYQXX$a*WC~=^8rvy"~<3z
UeQqGo&KZe[}lJg`\+SDMGRVIUJ~P,#(=w~yYv{g9i%"k|\J|jYVvv^Bzfwo=@AddrDMO<xV_IAl`(
TW7;|vH6Kik(,iljluXex0vrnM:SedI@lbAeNvM
--pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Feb_13_11:30:56_1998-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com> writes:
> On 13 Feb 1998, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > A Gnome window manager would only be 1 out of 15 or so in Debian. The
> > battle to have a single window manager standard was lost when the X
> > consortium decided to allow multiple window managers. Personally, I
> > think that's a good thing.
>
> That decision is one of the big reasons why people are implementing
> desktops now. Mechanism v. Policy is dead. When we start supporting ten
> (or even three) different window managers, there are going to be
> differences in application behaviour. One WM might support MWM hints,
> another might not. If one application takes advantage of MWM hints on a
> system without a WM that understands MWM hints, window decorations might
> be out of place. Part of a desktop system is a window manager. Another
> part of a desktop system is a consistent look-and-feel. You can't have
> the latter without the former.
Who needs absolute consistency?
Some consistency is nice, sure. But that can be easily achieved by
publishing specs and patching the window manages to support any Gnome
extensions we come up with (ie. MWM hints).
Nobody is going to choose absolute consistency over choice.
Cheers,
- Jim
From marcusb@wspice.com
Received: (qmail 12300 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 19:40:13 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (206.30.216.2)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 19:40:13 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (wsp1.wspice.com [206.30.216.2])
by wsp1.wspice.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA04236;
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:39:58 -0600
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:39:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com>
To: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>
cc: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: "Official" gnome window manager
In-Reply-To: <873ehn8fpm.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980213133226.4036A-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> >
> > Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com> writes:
> >
> > That decision is one of the big reasons why people are implementing
> > desktops now. Mechanism v. Policy is dead. When we start supporting ten
> > (or even three) different window managers, there are going to be
> > differences in application behaviour. One WM might support MWM hints,
> > another might not. If one application takes advantage of MWM hints on a
> > system without a WM that understands MWM hints, window decorations might
> > be out of place. Part of a desktop system is a window manager. Another
> > part of a desktop system is a consistent look-and-feel. You can't have
> > the latter without the former.
>
> Who needs absolute consistency?
A desktop system needs it. That is part of what a desktop system is.
Desktop systems are supposed to make computers easier to use. New users
won't find it easier if one "Gnome" system they walk up to behaves one way
and another behaves and looks differently.
> Some consistency is nice, sure. But that can be easily achieved by
> publishing specs and patching the window manages to support any Gnome
> extensions we come up with (ie. MWM hints).
Extensions might not be supported by all window managers. Even if
certain gnome people each pick one window manager and implement all
extensions on it, development on one will most certainly lag behind the
others, and development time will be wasted. Also, having multiple
extensions will certainly make a window manager fat.
> Nobody is going to choose absolute consistency over choice.
That is an poorly-researched statement. New users will. Whether or not
you care to admit it, different window styles *do* confuse some novice
users. I have had to deal with several such people in the past. Some of
them, believe it or not, were running Linux.
Marcus
From nelson@crynwr.com
Received: (qmail 28329 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 20:02:30 -0000
Received: from ns.crynwr.com (192.203.178.14)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 20:02:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 12540 invoked by uid 0); 13 Feb 1998 20:02:49 -0000
Received: from desk.crynwr.com (128.153.44.67)
by ns.crynwr.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 20:02:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 7230 invoked by uid 501); 13 Feb 1998 20:02:47 -0000
Date: 13 Feb 1998 20:02:47 -0000
Message-ID: <19980213200247.7229.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: "Official" gnome window manager
In-Reply-To: <873ehn8fpm.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980213130424.3389A-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
<873ehn8fpm.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 20.3 "Vatican City" XEmacs Lucid
X-Face: $K'YURj"g6ImvqTS_=]8)gqh!5;ElY<[.Rao%j8r+]iUfE{%|v%F<=mcq<6l{K=~mf&#:?"
nslS]U~|x{2V=Eex_I#"9K~9)>?m7Lm={(j_&)SX~fzg&ST~P%QUhc{1p]c3@Zn1u*PZlkHM**X^vV
l>GkB5y^Kz%w5p~^uDue]hL&ke,N;+Q<ImMCdCr~Kz--?|SS?DbZiaE;xPW/7k9u_cc(It%mvMNVk;
qVk~
Jim Pick writes:
> Nobody is going to choose absolute consistency over choice.
People are doing exactly that, by choosing desktops over random X apps.
--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Freedom is the primary
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | cause of Peace, Love,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Truth and Justice.
From jim@jimpick.com
Received: (qmail 1973 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 20:11:17 -0000
Received: from fleming.jimpick.com (jim@204.209.212.123)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 20:11:17 -0000
Received: (from jim@localhost)
by fleming.jimpick.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) id MAA22471;
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:11:03 -0800
To: Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com>
Cc: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: "Official" gnome window manager
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980213133226.4036A-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
X-Url: http://www.jimpick.com/
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Feb_13_12:10:44_1998-1"; micalg=pgp-md5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>
Date: 13 Feb 1998 12:11:02 -0800
In-Reply-To: Marcus Butler's message of "Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:39:58 -0600 (CST)"
Message-ID: <87iuqj465l.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
Lines: 54
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/XEmacs 20.2
X-Face: Hz"C77\53<,u1}C~=DFwS#Ddj161XLl6W!3g7xjxh*P'`FF^-IYQXX$a*WC~=^8rvy"~<3z
UeQqGo&KZe[}lJg`\+SDMGRVIUJ~P,#(=w~yYv{g9i%"k|\J|jYVvv^Bzfwo=@AddrDMO<xV_IAl`(
TW7;|vH6Kik(,iljluXex0vrnM:SedI@lbAeNvM
--pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Feb_13_12:10:44_1998-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com> writes:
> > Who needs absolute consistency?
>
> A desktop system needs it. That is part of what a desktop system is.
> Desktop systems are supposed to make computers easier to use. New users
> won't find it easier if one "Gnome" system they walk up to behaves one way
> and another behaves and looks differently.
> > Nobody is going to choose absolute consistency over choice.
>
> That is an poorly-researched statement. New users will. Whether or not
> you care to admit it, different window styles *do* confuse some novice
> users. I have had to deal with several such people in the past. Some of
> them, believe it or not, were running Linux.
I have dealt with many novice users too. It is true that they want
absolute consistency.
Unfortunately, they want absolute consistency with what they already
know, which may be Win95, Win3.1 or the Mac.
Unless we do an interface and window manager that matches Win95
exactly, the average user will have to spend some time to acquaint
themselves with the new system.
That should kill the "absolute consistency" argument, I hope. :-)
Cheers,
- Jim
From tlewis@mindspring.net
Received: (qmail 7338 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 20:18:33 -0000
Received: from reflections.eng.mindspring.net (207.69.192.100)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 20:18:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 9327 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 20:17:52 -0000
Received: from localhost.mindspring.com (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost.mindspring.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 20:17:52 -0000
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:17:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net>
X-Sender: tlewis@reflections.eng.mindspring.net
To: Mark Galassi <rosalia@cygnus.com>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: I think we should have a Gnome Window Manager
In-Reply-To: <199802122316.QAA08118@papageno.lanl.gov>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980213151725.7670B-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
Return-Receipt-To: tlewis@mindspring.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Mark Galassi wrote:
> Todd, could you put this consensus in the FAQ?
Yep. Look for a new copy this evening.
--
Todd Graham Lewis Manager of Web Engineering (800) 719-4664, x2804
******Linux****** MindSpring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.net
From marcusb@wspice.com
Received: (qmail 8715 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 20:20:55 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (206.30.216.2)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 20:20:55 -0000
Received: from wsp1.wspice.com (wsp1.wspice.com [206.30.216.2])
by wsp1.wspice.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA05152;
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:20:39 -0600
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:20:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Marcus Butler <marcusb@wspice.com>
To: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>
cc: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: "Official" gnome window manager
In-Reply-To: <87iuqj465l.fsf@fleming.jimpick.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980213141504.5001A-100000@wsp1.wspice.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On 13 Feb 1998, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> I have dealt with many novice users too. It is true that they want
> absolute consistency.
>
> Unfortunately, they want absolute consistency with what they already
> know, which may be Win95, Win3.1 or the Mac.
>
> Unless we do an interface and window manager that matches Win95
> exactly, the average user will have to spend some time to acquaint
> themselves with the new system.
>
> That should kill the "absolute consistency" argument, I hope. :-)
Actually, no, it doesn't. Your argument reminds me of Pascal's Wager,
which only turns out to be correct if all of his various assumptions turn
out to be correct. You assume that everyone using Gnome will be coming
from Win32, Win16, or Macintosh. That might not be true. I think new
users will be perfectly willing to learn *one* new UI if they want to use
Gnome. However, they will not want to use Gnome if one Gmome system looks
or behaves differently that another. A very large part of a desktop is
consistency, that is the bottom line. Point out a successful desktop
system that support 3 different window managers. In spite of all the
MS-bashing here, in case you guys haven't noticed, MS is doing fine with
one WM.
Marcus
From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 15257 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 21:44:38 -0000
Received: from athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (132.248.29.9)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 21:44:38 -0000
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
by athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17964;
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:44:07 -0600
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:44:07 -0600
Message-Id: <199802132144.PAA17964@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: nelson@crynwr.com
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: <19980213192317.6120.qmail@desk.crynwr.com> (message from Russell
Nelson on 13 Feb 1998 19:23:17 -0000)
Subject: Re: Well then what is Gnome for?
X-Windows: Warn your friends about it.
> > A Gnome window manager would only be 1 out of 15 or so in Debian.
>
> I just DON'T understand this desire to have NO Gnome window manager.
If you (or someone else) want to code one, we will include it in
Gnome.
Feel free to send patches.
Miguel.
From nelson@crynwr.com
Received: (qmail 28420 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1998 21:58:27 -0000
Received: from ns.crynwr.com (192.203.178.14)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 21:58:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 15927 invoked by uid 0); 13 Feb 1998 21:58:42 -0000
Received: from desk.crynwr.com (128.153.44.67)
by ns.crynwr.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 1998 21:58:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 9349 invoked by uid 501); 13 Feb 1998 21:58:41 -0000
Date: 13 Feb 1998 21:58:40 -0000
Message-ID: <19980213215840.9348.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Well then what is Gnome for?
In-Reply-To: <199802132144.PAA17964@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
References: <19980213192317.6120.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
<199802132144.PAA17964@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 20.3 "Vatican City" XEmacs Lucid
X-Face: $K'YURj"g6ImvqTS_=]8)gqh!5;ElY<[.Rao%j8r+]iUfE{%|v%F<=mcq<6l{K=~mf&#:?"
nslS]U~|x{2V=Eex_I#"9K~9)>?m7Lm={(j_&)SX~fzg&ST~P%QUhc{1p]c3@Zn1u*PZlkHM**X^vV
l>GkB5y^Kz%w5p~^uDue]hL&ke,N;+Q<ImMCdCr~Kz--?|SS?DbZiaE;xPW/7k9u_cc(It%mvMNVk;
qVk~
Miguel de Icaza writes:
> If you (or someone else) want to code one, we will include it in
> Gnome.
Cool. I am happy. I will shut up. Long live Gnome.
--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Freedom is the primary
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | cause of Peace, Love,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Truth and Justice.
From jirka@5z.com
Received: (qmail 10695 invoked from network); 14 Feb 1998 01:40:22 -0000
Received: from dt063n08.san.rr.com (HELO 5z.com) (@204.210.38.8)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 1998 01:40:22 -0000
Received: (from jirka@localhost)
by 5z.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19709;
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:39:11 -0800
Message-ID: <19980213173911.58617@julia.5z.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:39:11 -0800
From: George <jirka@5z.com>
To: GNOME Malinglist <gnome-list@gnome.org>
Subject: Re: Well then what is Gnome for?
References: <19980213192317.6120.qmail@desk.crynwr.com>
<199802132144.PAA17964@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.85e
In-Reply-To: <199802132144.PAA17964@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>;
from Miguel de Icaza on Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 03:44:07PM -0600
> > > A Gnome window manager would only be 1 out of 15 or so in Debian.
> >
> > I just DON'T understand this desire to have NO Gnome window manager.
>
> If you (or someone else) want to code one, we will include it in
> Gnome.
allthough there isn't too much special stuff we need from a window manager,
so doing patches to existing window managers will be far far easier ..
I don't think writing YET ANOTHER window manager is worth the effort ...
George
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Lebl <jirka@5z.com> http://www.5z.com/jirka/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some may have the year 2000 | $ emacs
problem, my 64-bit alpha's got the | bash: emacs: command not found
year 292471208677 problem | YES!!
From redline@pdq.net
Received: (qmail 26669 invoked from network); 15 Feb 1998 20:03:30 -0000
Received: from mail.direcpc.com (HELO postoffice2.direcpc.com) (198.77.116.30)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 1998 20:03:30 -0000
Received: from hh1119122.direcpc.com ([206.71.119.122])
by postoffice2.direcpc.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2
release (PO203-101c) ID# 0-45425U50000L50000S0) with SMTP
id AAA23304; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:03:03 -0500
X-Sender: X-Mailer:
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:59:09 -0600
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org,gnome-list@gnome.org
From: Max Watson <redline@pdq.net>
Subject: Wm Hints Proposal - 2nd Draft
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Well, I cleaned up and detailed my proposal a little more. It is available
at http://freeweb.pdq.net/redline/wmhints
The reasoning behind this particular proposal is that it is lightweight an
similar to functionality present in most current window managers. Please
give it a look over and let me know what you folks think. Warning: it is a
little long.
M.Watson redline@pdq.net
From tromey@creche.cygnus.com
Received: (qmail 27111 invoked from network); 23 Feb 1998 07:04:57 -0000
Received: from creche.cygnus.com (192.203.188.26)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Feb 1998 07:04:57 -0000
Received: (from tromey@localhost) by creche.cygnus.com (8.7.6/8.7.3)
id AAA07450; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:02:04 -0700
To: Max Watson <redline@pdq.net>
Cc: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Wm Hints Proposal - 2nd Draft
References: <"omqfX2.0.JX6.Jeqvq"@mail2.redhat.com>
X-Attribution: Tom
BCC:
Reply-To: tromey@cygnus.com
From: Tom Tromey <tromey@creche.cygnus.com>
Date: 23 Feb 1998 00:02:01 -0700
In-Reply-To: Max Watson's message of Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:59:09 -0600
Message-ID: <m17m6mu7me.fsf@creche.cygnus.com>
Lines: 20
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.34/Emacs 19.34
Max> Well, I cleaned up and detailed my proposal a little more. It is
Max> available at http://freeweb.pdq.net/redline/wmhints
Max> The reasoning behind this particular proposal is that it is
Max> lightweight an similar to functionality present in most current
Max> window managers. Please give it a look over and let me know what
Max> you folks think. Warning: it is a little long.
I read through this last week.
A couple things I didn't understand:
- Are these hints different from the Motif hints? (I don't know
anything about Motif). Seems like we should just use the Motif hints
when appropriate.
- Would it be worthwhile for us to try to get these hints "officially
approved" by whoever controls X these days?
Tom
From tlewis@mindspring.net
Received: (qmail 9349 invoked from network); 25 Feb 1998 18:41:28 -0000
Received: from athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (132.248.29.9)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 1998 18:41:28 -0000
Received: from reflections.eng.mindspring.net (reflections.eng.mindspring.net
[207.69.192.100])
by athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA24180
for <gnome@nuclecu.unam.mx>; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:41:17 -0600
Received: (qmail 20147 invoked from network); 25 Feb 1998 18:40:42 -0000
Received: from localhost.mindspring.com (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost.mindspring.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 1998 18:40:42 -0000
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:40:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net>
X-Sender: tlewis@reflections.eng.mindspring.net
To: gnome@nuclecu.unam.mx
Subject: FAQv1 on verge of being done
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980225133629.14824F-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I want to go ahead and declare version 1 of the FAQ completed. There are
two main components to this:
1) Are there any questions which should be included but which are not?
I can not think of any, but I'd love to hear of candidates for inclusion.
2) The present, unanswered questions in the FAQ, specifically 2.8 and 3.4,
need to be answered. Federico, what's the deal with DPS? And can someone
send me a blurb on the libintl issue?
At that point, I'd like to upload the FAQ to www.gnome.org. I'll talk
to the admins there about taking care of that, I guess.
If anyone else has outstanding problems of other issues with the FAQ, then
please bring them to my attention.
--
Todd Graham Lewis Manager of Web Engineering (800) 719-4664, x2804
******Linux****** MindSpring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.net