* Jason Costomiris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 05:48:57PM +0000, Tom Gilbert wrote:
> : Ok. But it does :) It fixes a large number of bugs, an iconbox, adds
> : documentation, improves speed, and reduces memory usage. Is that wrong
> : somehow?
>
> An iconbox? Oh yeah, that thing that sits there chewing up memory.
Ok. This is getting very stupid now. Are you deliberately being a troll?
A wm needs somewhere for it's windows to go when they're iconified. For
E, that is the iconbox. If you don't want it, close it, and it won't
consume any memory.
Enlightenment *has to have* an iconbox, so that people using without the
GNOME panel, and a GNOME pager applet can see and manipulate iconfied
windows. Otherwise they'd just disappear!
Are we *not allowed* to have one, because GNOME also provides one? What
madness is this?
If you don't want it, turn it off.
> : > The whole finger-pointing thing when he left RHAT, and now GNOME is
> : > phasing out using Imlib in favor of GdkPixbuf, in order to overcome
> : > shortcomings of Imlib that Raster doesn't seem willing to fix.
> :
> : Not fixing? Are you aware of the nearly complete imlib2? Clearly not.
>
> If imlib2 is the holy grail, why is GNOME dumping imlib in favor of
> GdkPixmap?
Holy grail? Don't remember mentioning that =)
And it's GdkPixbuf, not Pixmap. You obviously don't know the first thing
about it, so I will explain.
Imlib was never what GNOME needed. Never. The GNOME guys knew that, and
Raster knew that. They needed something quickly to load and process
their images however, and there was nothing else around. Raster did *a
lot of work* to modify imlib to be more suitable for them, and they used
it. It saved them a *hell of a lot* of time, to be able to pick
something up and use it. They and Raster always knew it wasn't ideal.
Now they have something they wrote themselves, and they are using it.
That is great for all concerned. Raster can freely turn imlib2 into
something he needs it to be for E17, and the GNOME guys get exactly what
they want. It took *time* to write GdkPixbuf, and it still isn't quite
done, but they now have a more suitable alternative, designed for them
from the ground up.
That is how it is, there is no "dumping", and there are no conclusions
to be drawn from the move. They have something more suitable now, and
that is that. It's what they wanted all along, and they've finally had
the time and resources to write it. If they'd had to write it first,
before writing the GNOME libraries that use it, you'd still be using
GNOME 0.3 now =)
On another note, imlib2 and GdkPixbuf are very different animals, and it
is unfair to compare them. Imlib2 supports full RGBA, antialiasing and
dithering in a wide variety of colour spaces, fast modular loading,
and built in truetype font support. GdkPixbuf is a simpler, more
lightweight library for loading and displaying images. That's all GNOME
needs.
> : I don't care what you want personally. The important thing is that
> : it's in the distro for you to *choose*.
>
> If you're so bent about this, which you certainly appear to be, then feel
> free to do what Mandrake did. That is, take the RedHat installation CD
> and change a few things here & there, add/subtract a few packages
> and call it Tomix.
What? How would that help users? Not at all. It's a crap name too =P
You do know that Mandrake the distribution and Mandrake the E developer
are in no way connected don't you? I just want to check, as you seem
confused.
Also, the current Mandrake is a long, long way from being "few things
here & there, add/subtract a few packages". It is a very different
distribution, with its own strengths and weaknesses.
How this is relavent to the thread I'm not sure...
> : I don't use apache, maybe RHAT should drop it? Of course not. That wood
> : be bloody stupid =)
>
> One's a piece of software that runs half of the websites on the net. The
> other piece of software is something that draws borders on windows. How
> about apples and apples?
I was questioning your "I don't use it so it shouldn't be in there"
perspective, and showing how foolish and shortsighted it is. I could
have chosen any other of the thousands of packages in RH to mention
instead.
> : Ok. Well one of my co-workers summed it up best when he said
> : "A window manager should do what *I* *WANT*. It should be what *I* *WANT*,
> : and it should look, act and feel like *I* *WANT*. No other window
> : manager gives me that power."
>
> Sawmill does. Much smaller memory footprint too. IceWM has a tiny
> footprint and is just as configurable as E.
Sawmill, IceWM and E all have their strengths and weaknesses, and are
very different in design and philosophy.
I have already shown you memory footprints for comparison so your point
is unfair. I can run E at 1.5Mb, I've never seen Sawmill at less than
2Mb, if you want to start picking hairs. That's not the point however.
The point is you try a number of alternative wms and choose which is
best for you. Use the one that suits you. There is no need to say "xyz
sucks, abc rules!". Use whatever meets your needs and don't be childish
about it.
I personally would not sacrifice the immense power and configurability E
offers me, or the pager, or the iconbox, or the epplets, to run a
significantly less configurable wm and save 1Mb of RAM :-) I have plenty
to spare :-) If you *need* that 1Mb of RAM, or do not *need* or *want*
those features, then you are of course entitiled to choose an
alternative, it is not fair however to then accuse the hing that
doesn't meet your needs of sucking, being crap, or whatever else.
Now grow up some please and stop making a fool of yourself :)
Tom.
--
.------------------------------------------------------.
.^. | Tom Gilbert, England | www.linuxbrit.co.uk |
/V\ |----------------------| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
// \\ | Sites I recommend: `-------------------------------|
/( )\ | www.freshmeat.net www.enlightenment.org slashdot.org |
^^-^^ `---------------------ICQ 65348629---------------------'
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
