Re: Some general facts about panel and gnome

[Hassan Aurag <aurag crm umontreal ca>]

I agree completely. 

 Next thing, add Sawmill or another fully compliant that wants to be 
fully compliant to gnome CVS, and make it/them the official gnome 
window managers.

 Write the compliance rules, and post them (already done I know).

 Then distribute those window managers with gnome releases starting 
with the next major release.

 I think Gnome based distribution should do the same (winking at 
RedHat).
 You could add E on the CD for those who want it, just like you have 
other stuff!

 Really, what differs E from Sawmill for example are just special 
effects.
 Add them and I will erase E from my disk.

 Btw, anyone has looked at recent E's pager. It is a nice idea that 
could be implemented in the panel. Or is it too hard?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 1/14/00, 6:37:52 PM, "David B. Lounsberry \(Dave\)" 
<dlounsberry@kc.rr.com> wrote regarding Re: Some general facts about 
panel and gnome:


> Hassan Aurag wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > On 1/14/00, 3:05:19 PM, Chris Jones <chris@black-sun.co.uk> wrote
> > regarding Re: Some general facts about panel and gnome:
> >
> > > Hi
> >
> > > Hassan Aurag <aurag@crm.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  Then ditch Enlightenment!
> > > >  That has always been my position.
> >
> > > Why can't the GNOME project take a windowmanager-agnostic position?
> > Give
> > > people a list of the ones that work and are compliant and then let
> > them
> > > choose rather than specifically recommending one.
> >
> >  This is not even an issue afaik. But we need to make sure one window
> > manager will always be compliant. E (my favorite wm btw) is not fully!
> >
> >  So the thing is not to impose a window manager but rather to have one
> > for sure! Of course, any other window managers can comply if they
> > wish!
> >
> >  Say, what if all window managers started not to comply with gnome? So
> > we have a nice panel but no WM????
> >
> >  No we need one fully-compliant wm and make sure it stays that way!
> >
> > > >  Even though I still prefer Enlightenment over Sawmill (for Fx
> > reasons),
> > > > I say ditch them if they are not going to be 100% gnome compatible!
> >
> > > I don't think that either Raster or Mandrake have said that they don't
> > > intend to remain compliant with the GNOME WM spec - they put quite a 
bit of
> > > effort into 0.16 to make it KDE compliant too.
> >
> > Good then, but they are not compliant. I can see it on my desktop.
> > But maybe it's Gnome and not E. I don't know or care. I just want to
> > have for sure a fully-compliant window manager for gnome that I can
> > use! I want to use Gnome as desktop!

> Everyone here, I am sure, wants a fully GNOME compliant window 
manager.
> But that is not the whole issue as far as I am concerned.

> How does Enlightenment and other window managers intergrate with GTK 
and
> it's themes? The only ones that integrate GTK widgets and themes are
> sawmill and wmg. The others require their own themes. If you find a 
good
> E theme you either have to find a matching GTK theme or live with the
> mismatch. If we want a consistent look and feel to the desktop, GTK
> integration is a must IMHO.

> It's kind of odd that so much work went into making E work well with
> KDE, bugs included, but when someone asks if they could stop E from
> overlaying the GNOME panel, that person is told that E code will 
*never*
> treat a panel any different than another window. I think we have a
> conflict of directions like someone previously mentioned. Thats just
> fine with me.

> > > Personally, I have no desire to use anything other than Enlightenment 
unless
> >
> > Neither do I! So these little compliance problems should disappear!
> > I will personnally start submitting bug reports to E and Gnome about
> > all those little weird things!

> I did the same thing a while back to the E folks and got a rude
> awakening. Hopefully you will have better luck. :-)
> Not much GNOME can do about a non compliant windowmanager playing by
> their own rules.

> > > the others get a lot better, so I would be fairly annoyed if GNOME 2
> > > demanded sawmill as a dependancy. I would be similarly annoyed if E
> > > wasn't compliant though.
> >
> >  That isn't even an issue for me. I don't another KDE, I want Gnome!
> > But I want to make sure we have ONE FULLY COMPLIANT WINDOW MANAGER
> > AVAILABLE!
> >
> Agreed. I think we can still keep the door open for other window
> managers but I think the default GNOME distribution should have only
> GNOME/GTK compliant window mangers.

> Just my 2 cents.

> ---
> Dave Lounsberry

> EMAIL: dlounsberry@kc.rr.com
> HomePage: http://home.kc.rr.com/dlounsberry