Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172484
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates |
| Date | 2013-04-08 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CD884EF1.18B9D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <kjp2m0$475$1@dont-email.me> <CD85B902.1890B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <20130407011905.59@usenet.drumscum.be> <CD8616CA.18980%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <20130408184619.747@usenet.drumscum.be> |
On 4/8/13 9:56 AM, in article 20130408184619.747@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2013-04-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >> On 4/6/13 4:44 PM, in article 20130407011905.59@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB" >> <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote: > > 8< > >>>> I think you are misunderstanding my point. The fact that you have >>>> spinoffs such as the ones you list *back* my view - they do not >>>> contradict it. Programs made for Gnome work well in any of those >>>> environments. And let me define "work well": I do not mean they >>>> just run, or to run without crashing, I mean they "fit in" with >>>> each of the environments >>> >>> Not at all. While programs developed with Gnome 3 in mind will >>> generally look well under Cinnamon (which is a fork of Gnome 3), >>> they will look out of place under Mate, because Mate is a fork of >>> Gnome 2 and still is based on Gtk2 instead of Gtk3. Try it out if >>> you like. >>> >> I have worked with Cinnamon some and Mate even less. But if Gnome >> made it so that programs that are made for Gnome 2 do not work well >> under Gnome 3 they made a big mistake. Not that there might be >> *some* changes - after all, that is how progress happens - but they >> should work mostly (and from what I have seen they do). Do you have >> any examples? > > Any Gtk2 program on Cinnamon; any GTK3 program on Mate. See this > article to understand what I mean: > > http://www.kirsle.net/blog/kirsle/gnome-s-impact-on-everything Ah, get what you mean - and I had ran into this but did not know the reason (did not spend any time searching). This affects the window chrome - but as far as I know this does not affect the menu placements, names, hot keys, etc. Not that it should not be fixed... and not that it has not been recognized as a problem... you showed that it *has* been. Similar stuff happens even on OS X .... not with the chrome of the windows but with some features. Newer OS X programs have new options in the menu bar (and a removal of the black dot to show a file has been edited - that info is now more clear): <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/NewMenu.png>. Older programs do not get this without an update. Perhaps worse than that, there are significant differences in how files are saved - newer programs automatically save files on Quit (if you want... it is configurable). Older programs do not (except some databases and the like which always have). I mention this simply because I point to OS X as the "gold standard" in UI consistency... but *too* much of a focus on consistency can lead to stagnation. I would not want that on Gnome or OS X, even though transitions can lead to some inconsistencies and other problems. >>>> With KDE and Gnome: Just because they have not co-operated more >>>> fully than they already do >>> >>> Already do? Can you give some examples of the Gnome and KDE teams >>> actively working together? >> >> Below I quote the KDE team talking about it. But just a few seconds >> on their sites will show more examples. Here, just searching the KDE >> site for a few seconds (literally): >> >> <http://accessibility.kde.org/developer/atk.php> >> ----- >> GNOME Accessibility Architecture (ATK and AT-SPI) >> >> This description of the GNOME Accessibility Architecture was >> written by Gunnar Schmi Dt as part of our development efforts >> for interoperable accessibility solutions. >> ----- >> >> There is also the KDE and GNOME Desktop Summit and other areas where >> they work together. >> >> Seriously, look at each site and see how much they speak of the >> other: >> >> <http://bit.ly/14NBkyM> >> <http://bit.ly/16D1f8X> >> >> It is not as if each project is unaware of or hostile toward the >> other, nor as if they are not aware of how their actions affect the >> other. > > I actually meant actively working together toward integration of > applications in both environments. You know, the stuff you've been > taling about. > > As I noted in another posting I'm well aware of cooperation on IPC > stuff and the like, but that's not the stuff we're talking about here. > We're talking about menu lay-out, usage of icons, dialogs... I have seen discussions about this but do not know of any specific work on it. Yet. I have seen specific comments from the Firefox team (and others, including OpenOffice and, I believe, GIMP) about the challenges of having their software fit the different environments they run on. >>> But this doesn't mean at all that there's even the slightest bit of >>> cooperation between the Gnome and KDE teams to make both >>> environments integrate with each other. >> >> I do not think anyone is asking to have the environments themselves >> "integrate" with each other - the idea is to allow program to >> integrate well with either. > > That's what I meant. I could repeat your rather derogatory comments about clarity and accuracy that you used against me the other day but I am above that. :) -- "Actually, I would like to know from Snit exactly how watching movies of naked people having sex is harmful to children." - Mark S Bilk Proof: the Stallman cult is repulsive.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 06:08 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 00:24 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 14:01 +0200
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-06 08:33 -0400
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 13:53 +0100
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-06 08:57 -0400
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 14:05 +0100
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:53 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:52 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:50 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:35 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 23:44 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 18:15 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 16:56 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 10:39 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 20:12 +0200
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-09 16:19 -0400
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:56 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:01 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:18 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-10 20:58 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-10 14:42 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-11 18:29 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-11 12:50 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2013-04-11 15:09 -0500
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-11 13:44 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-12 10:40 +0100
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 15:31 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-07 08:49 +0200
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 09:06 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-07 17:02 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 10:43 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-08 07:36 -0500
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-10 21:30 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-10 14:45 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-11 07:28 -0500
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-11 06:36 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2013-04-08 11:28 -0500
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 09:44 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-06 14:49 -0400
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 12:04 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 20:16 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2013-04-06 22:56 +0100
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 15:09 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-08 07:45 -0500
chrisv proves his cult-like tendencies again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 06:57 -0700
Re: chrisv proves his cult-like tendencies again Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 07:03 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-06 07:00 -0400
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2013-04-06 12:52 +0100
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:48 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:46 -0700
csiph-web