While I'm around here wishing Jorge a happy birthday, now seeing this
flurry of controversy...
David Seikel wrote:
> We have a fundamental disagreement about the need for changing
> something that works quite well. Does not sound like any of us are
> gonna change the minds of the others.
>
> Gustavo and I are gonna be a tough audience, but trust me, people
> outside the EFL project are gonna be even tougher. Gustavo and I at
> least WANT to use it, if it measures up to our standards, coz it's EFL
> and looks great in other respects. A lot of people are gonna react
> with "WTF is this shit bling, where the hell are the tabs. Useless
> piece of crap.". And some will say that even if you DO have ALL the
> functionality, but you should at least have all the functionality.
>
> We don't HAVE to create something new, certainly we don't HAVE to be
> shiny. Doing things just coz it's shiny is not gonna go down well for
> something as utilitarian, plain, and boring as a terminal program.
> Bling for the sake of bling just wont go down well among the users of
> these things. You can add all the bling you want, just make sure that
> if you are using bling instead of previously working functionality,
> that you think through all the uses of that functionality, and don't
> leave anything out. Don't leave out functionality just coz you don't
> like it, when it should be obvious by now that other people are
> passionate about it.
>
> You wont convince us with argument, we wont convince you. Show us the
> code if you think it can be "better". Then we can review what you
> actually make, and decide if you have satisfied our use cases.
>
> 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
>
> Options are good, not everyone thinks the same.
>
>
Those who've been around here long enough know that I'm not one to
go around defending Carsten a whole lot, but in this case I have to say that
it seems to me that you and Gustavo are probably over-reacting somewhat.
The man has an idea of a way that he thinks might be nice, maybe
'better', etc...
Well, let him give it a shot. You may even end up liking the new way
once he's
done with it... Or not, but at least give the man a chance to try it to
his satisfaction
without killing him for daring to think differently.
If it's not to your liking at all, then it's conceivable that one
could also have your more
classic notion of tabs within the same terminology app by maybe adding a
'multiple-views'
configuration mode, one mode being Carsten's idea and another mode your
more classic
tabs idea (maybe you or Gustavo could implement it). So long as a given
theme would support
both modes, one could conceivably change between them as suits your taste.
If it's feasible to implement, then it would give the 'options are
good' you want...
I doubt Carsten would object to that kind of flexibility for this
terminological app.
Don't forget the cup of coffee,
Jose.
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4fe1b255e7a1a88013st02duc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
