Re: Panel configuration

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 22:11, Chipzz wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Reinout van Schouwen wrote:
> 
> > From: Reinout van Schouwen <reinout cs vu nl>
> > Subject: Re: Panel configuration
> >
> > Hello Jan,
> >
> > > Are you suggesting introducing a dependency from gnome-panel on nautilus?
> > > I don't even _run_ nautilus on some of my boxes.
> > > Thanks but no, thanks.
> >
> > The fact that _you_ choose not to run nautilus is completely irrelevant to
> > the question of creating a sensible and integrated desktop environment,
> > for hackers and people who don't know or care what nautilus is alike.
> >
> > I think the proposed idea sounds sensible, and even if it would create a
> > dependency, you can still choose not to run nautilus (at least as long as
> > the two stay separate processes - there's a lot to say in favor of just
> > integrating the two.
> >
> > regards,
> 
> OK, let me get this very straight:
> Let's say I have my own file manager. This is really not that unprobable
> that someone WILL write an alternative to nautilus, since there are peo-
> ple who absolutely hate it. Actually, I have the intention to do so. This
> is about the choice not to run nautilus. Which you are taking away from
> me. You are taking away my freedom.

No. You have the source code and you can change it.

> For a feature that most people won't
> need anyway (like pointed out in another post, once your panels are set
> up you're very unlikely to change that setup).
> Gnome-panel and nautilus are two _seperate components_, which should be
> _interchangeable_.
> Having gnome-panel depend on nautilus is completely illogical from a
> technical standpoint anyway, since you're pulling in a lot of dependen-
> cies.

But this is a very good point. gnome-panel would need a _lot_ of things
installed on the system to run, for the sake of one menu item (the
usability of which is debateable anyway).

-- 
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>