On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 07:58:01AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > > > Now this is something I really don't get. I took a look at the KDE patch > > since I use a lot of KDE apps. It's very small and doesn't need any KDE > > libraries. Afaics there's absolutely no bloat in the patch, only a feature > > that some people find nice. I simply can't see why a patch like this is not > > included. To say that "the lack of docked application support has always been > > one of its defining features" doesn't make sense to me. Had it cost > > performance or meant linking with kdelibs or something, then of course it > > shouldn't be allowed. But simply saying "we feel the users shouldn't do this" > > sounds stupid to me. > > > > If I can find the time, I'll update the patch with a compile time option and > > maybe a runtime option, and then send the patch to the list. > > > > Bo, the slit assumes all windows are similar in size. KDE apps are usually > quite tiny. This results in a very ugly Slit. That is why I said no. I do > intend to support the NET WM standard and will interoperate as much as possible > with any app that supports that spec.
You're then assuming that noone is running the slit with only tiny apps. Bbtool are/can be tiny also. Just because some people run big dockapps doesn't mean that a lot of people do not, and run only kde/smaller dock apps. Sorry, I just don't think that is a very good reason to reject the code. It may look ugly on your box, but you don't run any kde dock apps either, right? Other people don't run any large docks. xOr -- I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way.
msg05516/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
