Re: Why 'the logout problem' is a GNOME problem, not a WM problem

[James Ramsey <jjramsey_6x9eq42 yahoo com>]

--- Adam Powell <hazelsct@mit.edu> wrote:
James Ramsey wrote:

>> I've harped on this before, but it seems to need repeating. If
GNOME's
>> design allows GNOME to become accidentally bereft of a window
manager
>> because a user does something natural, such as click on "Logout" on
the
>> root menu and expect to be logged out, then GNOME's design is at
fault.
>>
>> It has been said that the reason GNOME allows this to happen is that
>> the window manager should exit via the session manager, not by
simply
>> terminating. This sounds reasonable, except for one thing. Simply
>> terminating rather than using the session manager is typical
behavior
>> for window managers. Why should GNOME be designed to expect the
window
>> manager to behave in a non-typical fashion? That the window manager
>> exits by simply terminating should have been accepted as an
engineering
>> constraint to be worked with.

> Hmm.  It sounds like you're saying that there should be two > paths
to
> log
> out, via the GNOME panel and when the window manager > terminates. 
 
Not necessarily. Mainly what I really want is for the user to not end
up bereft of a window manger by accident. 

> The only workaround I can think of is that when gnome-session detects
> window manager termination, it throws up a dialog saying something
> like,
> "Your window manager has quit.  This is very dangerous.  You should
log
> out
> from the GNOME panel instead.  Restart, or proceed to log out with no
>window manager?"  This is inelegant at best.

Inelegant indeed. However, as a temporary measure until something
better can be done, it is actually a good idea. It at least helps
prevent the user from accidentally losing his/her window manager.
Better this than the nasty surprise of finding one's window frames
gone. 

>> The current behavior of GNOME is not appropriate, especially for
>> something that calls itself "1.0". Some suggestions:
>>
>> 1) If the GNOME developers really think that the window manager is
the
>> problem, then perhaps they should provide code that points to a
>> solution, such as maybe patches for some common window managers. I
>> don't expect the GNOME developers to become window manager
>> distributors, but if they can jumpstart the developers of the window
>> managers to 'do it right', maybe they can solve the problem for good
>> and benefit everybody. (I am presuming that GNOME expects the window
>> manager to work with xsm, X's session manager, not gnome-session. If
>> GNOME does expect the window manager to work directly with
>> gnome-session, then it is being awfully presumptive indeed.)

> There is a (still small) handful of GNOME-compliant window managers,
> with
> varying capabilities and resource requirements.  Furthermore, there
is
> thorough documentation on how to make any wm compliant- see
> http://www.gnome.org/devel/gnomewm/book1.html (which is linked
directly
> from "Development Info" in the links on top of the GNOME home page). 
> This
> may mean having to give up your old window manager, and possibly
> replacing
> that window manager with another one that accomplishes the same
> objective.
> Tough.

Except that this problem isn't solved by using a GNOME-compliant window
manager. This problem happens even with Enlightenment.

The GNOME developer who had replied back to me, saying that the window
manager should use the session manager to exit rather than simply
terminate, didn't even address GNOME-compliance.

>> 2) Find a way to deal with window managers as they are. This may
mean
>> having to give up some functionality, and possibly replacing that
>> functionality with something else that accomplishes the same
objective.
>> Tough.

> To say, "This may mean giving up some functionality- like session
> management" is really not helpful.  Intelligent logout (as in, "Oh
> crap, I
> logged out without saving the last 10 hours worth of work!") is one
of
> the
> more important features of systems like MacOS and Windoze- and GNOME
> too-
> and sacrificing it would be a Very Bad Thing.

Session management in GNOME cannot be relied upon unless all apps being
used are session-aware anyway. The GNOME developers have said as much.
The user is still likely going to have to save his/her work before
exiting anyway. Mostly what session management ends up doing is
restarting the apps that were left running when the X session ended. I
think most users can live without that.

>> I can put up with bugs in GNOME because I know the developers don't
>> like them any more than I do. I find it pretty disappointing,
however,
>> to find that the response to a nasty flaw in GNOME is passing the
buck
>> rather than trying to find a solution.

> Um, how about suggesting a solution other than, "Redo all existing
> window
> managers" or "Forget about the most important features of session
> management".

I said neither of those things. I quote myself again:

>>>If the GNOME developers really think that the window manager is
the
>>> problem, then perhaps they should provide code that points to a
>>>solution, such as maybe patches for some common window managers. I
>>> don't expect the GNOME developers to become window manager
>>> distributors, but if they can jumpstart the developers of the
window
>>> managers to 'do it right', maybe they can solve the problem for
good
>>> and benefit everybody.

What I was trying to say is that if the GNOME developers truly believe
that the window managers are in error, then they should show by
example, namely code, the measures needed to genuinely fix the problem.
Hopefully, the window manager developers will take the solution the
GNOME developers provided and run with it. That was what I was trying
to convey.

As for session management, I honestly think you overblew its
importance, since it can't be relied upon to save data anyway. Besides,
whether or not it has to be scrapped really depends on how badly it
affects the problem I described.

Let me end with this. There is a good reason that I harp on this issue.
Not only can a user accidentally lose his/her window manager, but the
move it takes to cause the problem to happen may make the problem hard
to trace. If two different buttons say "Logout", the user should
reasonably expect that they should do the same thing. The user may not
even connect the problem with one of the "Logout" buttons being on the
root menu. All the user may see is GNOME suddenly going haywire for no
reason. This affects GNOME's usability, period. That's why I feel this
problem must be dealt with and fixed.


===


----I am a fool for Christ. Mostly I am a fool.----

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com