On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:18:39 +0100 Stefan Schmidt <s.schm...@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hello. > > On 06/20/2012 10:07 AM, David Seikel wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:41:40 +0900 Cedric BAIL<cedric.b...@free.fr> > > > > So make your blingy tab substitute, but those of us that like and > > use tabs are watching, and we will bitch loudly if what you make is > > a backwards step for the functionality we want. Then one of us > > will make tabs anyway. :-P > > As you already found out you are not going to change each others > minds. How about just writing your tabs support if you want it that > much or just stay with your current tabs-enabled terminal? As usual > nobody is forcing people to use it. :) Actually, I'm not arguing the case for unlimited scrollback precisely coz I've decided I'll just implement it myself. Some day. I have a never ending TODO with more important things on it at the moment though. > > Options are good, not everyone thinks the same. > > Fully agreed. And being respectful for other peoples opinions without > trying to force your own on it is part of that. :) Well, I'm not trying to force my opinions, just pointing out use cases that are important to me that so far this new way as described has not managed to cover. The bling side of the argument keep telling me that those use cases are just not important, when they are important to me, and ignoring the most important "it's harder to use dammit". I never said "don't do that new blingy thing", but "that new blingy thing wont do everything the old little bit of text does a great job of". There's room for both. In fact if the infrastructure is there, then both could use it, as there IS some amount of overlap in what they are trying to do. I just don't see how bling can replace certain use cases that a tiny bit of text does a great job of. The people that are putting in the effort should consider that common infrastructure is a good thing, and that it SHOULD be able to cater for both. It's best to get this sort of thing done early at the design level. So far it's been "bling good, tabs bad", and I don't see how that attitude can result in both things being well supported. Might end up with "tabs bad" as a self fulfilling prophecy if the people doing the work now think that way. The way the others have been arguing sounds a LOT like "hate tabs, wont support them, we can do bling, let's only do bling" and completely ignoring that little bits of text are hard to replace for certain use cases. They even argue that tabs take up too much room, though the thumbnails they want would take up more room. And yes, that's exactly what happened in Elementary. It's hard to do traditional tabs there, when you try, they take up way more space. Or at least did when I was last looking at how to do that. I wonder if the same "bling good, tabs bad" attitude led to that design? -- A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
