On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:37:12 -0400 Jose Gonzalez <jose_...@juno.com> said:
> > 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, indeed jose :) let this idea come out and be polished off a bit with some hammering into shape and real usage and THEN complain that it's so impossible to use and so much worse than "old tabs". i am not doing old tabs FIRST. i'm dismissing them until i've tried this new idea first. :) -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
