Message: previous - next
Month: July 2012

Re: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux

From: Dexter Filmore <Dexter.Filmore@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:27:01 +0200
Am Saturday 28 July 2012 19:41:28 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
> Dexter Filmore wrote:
> > Well, I've been telling for years now that we were better off with one
> > desktop that has the flexibility to adapt to everyone's needs.
> I can't imagine when it was that "we were better off with one desktop". Was
> it perhaps in the days of the Windows 95 desktop? Or the Apple Mac System 6
> Finder?
> > Be lightweight without graphical mumbo jumbo if desired, be all the
> > visual monster with tons of effects, be as simple as a task bar and
> > systray, be a full blown cornucopia of gadgets if somebody prefer that.
> So what you are actually saying is that this one desktop should actually
> be... a hundred different desktops, only all in one code base.
> I'm guessing that you're not a programmer or an engineer, are you?
> Configuration choices increase the complexity of a program exponentially.
> One desktop capable of being all things to all people, as you suggest,
> would be a thousand times more complicated than 100 desktops which each
> focus on one small segment of the users. That means a thousand times
> bigger, a thousand times more development time, and a thousand times more
> bugs.

OSS people tend to brag how OSS is superior due to the massive number of 
developers at the bazar. Yet the all are spread over a million projects.
Some form and become stronger, evolve, most don't. If I had a buck for every 
interesting approach that never got beyond 0.0.5 I'd need a bag to carry 

> Desktops of the complexity of KDE or Gnome are, in my opinion, already at
> the edge of being too complex to be maintained successfully. With so many
> combinations of configuration options, there is no possible way that every
> combination has been fully tested and is bug free. The best we can hope for
> is that the most commonly used combinations are bug free, and that any bugs
> are buried in combinations that nobody uses.
> > Make it configurable from simply to rocket science, from 486 to i7 but
> > have ONE API. Offer developers a safe base.
> While you're wishing, don't forget to ask for a flying pony that craps
> rainbows.

Yeah, one of my wiches being that people do not take every single fscking word 
100% literally and think in the idea, not in absolutes. If you resign at 
striving for an utopia you resign at "new ideas" already.

> [...]
> > Desktop Environment developers reinvent the wheel over and over again.
> > My favorite picture viewer is GThumb. It's GTK so it looks a wee bit
> > different from qt/kde no matter how much I adapt themes and engines.
> > It's gui bahviour is gtk and I can't do much about it.
> > I do *not* have a choice if I want to stick with that program. (Unless I
> > port it to qt myself. Some choice.)
> But it *is* a choice, and the only reasonable choice. Why should the GThumb
> programmer spend hundreds of hours, perhaps thousands of hours, trying to
> adapt his program to every imaginable toolkit?
> If *you* want to turn GThumb into a qt app, then *you* can do the work, or
> pay somebody to do it for you.

There goes the "free" train, as all the years before, been there.

> [...]
> > What we don't need is NOT a more powerful desktop, what we need are more
> > powerful *programs*.
> The desktop is a program. Many programs. Are you saying that they *don't*
> need to be more powerful? Who decides which programs are allowed to be more
> powerful and which are not?

Don't know what you're on about here.

> I think the KDE 4 developers made an incredible boneheaded mistake in the
> way they abandoned KDE 3 and started a new project from scratch. I think
> that the new functionality they created is mostly unnecessary and mostly
> unusable. (If I thought the opposite, I would be using KDE 4.) But it was
> their right to make that mistake, and who knows, next time they might
> actually get it right.

Yeah well next time we might all be dead. 

> [...]
> > What we need is not a better desktop, that's like saying we need a better
> > hammer.
> > There is nothing to improve about hammers. The one I get in a hardware
> > shop has been perfected to its purpose.
> And which hammer would that be?
> Tack hammer.
> Ball-peen hammer.
> Cross-peen hammer.
> Sledgehammer.
> Drilling hammer.
> Bush hammer.
> Claw hammer.
> Framing hammer.
> Geologist's hammer.
> Lump or mash hammer.
> Rubber mallet.
> Copper or lead mallet.
> Wooden mallet.
> Dead blow hammer.
> Soft-faced hammer.
> Stonemason's hammer.
> Tinner's hammer.
> Dog-head hammer.
> It never ceases to amuse me when people use the hammer as an analogy for
> why we only need one tool for some purpose.

It never ceases to puzzle me how people take analogies into real life and 
expect the crowd to cheer about them being smug. 
Have fun driving in nails with a bush hammer.

> > Leave the desktops alone. All we need to organize our programs is a
> > taskbar, launchers and a systray. If at all.
> Maybe that's all *you* need.

See above.

Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@ 
b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y?