Torsten Rahn wrote:
> and useless Options lead to Bloatware(TM), confusion, ... .

I agree.. but docking is NOT a "useless option".

> > 1) Docking is more intuitive for Windows users.  There is no real equivalent
> >    to applets in Windows but there *are* docked apps.
> 
> O.k., why don't we copy everything from Windows98 to make sure they feel
> at home? I would also suggest to copy all nifty OS/2, Mac and Beos-features
> to make everybody feel at home.

Let's not get silly, here.  Debating the merits of a dockable application
hardly suggests "copy[ing] everything from Windows98".

I was showing that your "it's not intuitive to most users" argument to be
false.  MOST users are coming from a Windows world and to THEM, docking is
intuitive -- applets are not.

> Comeon -- if we don't want KDE to become obvious bloatware we have to drop
> features that are superfluous and have no real advantage over superior
> implemented features!

I totally agree.


> > 2) Docking takes up much less space.  I generally have 3 KBiffs, 1 Kscd..
> 
> NOT TRUE, the smallest GNOME APPLET is only about five or six pixels wide:
> It shows a vertical floppy disk to mount such a device.

And is bug-ugly.

> > 3) Docking is more intuitive for indicators from a human-machine interface
> >    point of view.
> 
> Who said that? You can do the same things with applets as with docking
> (it can even look the same) -- but applets can do more ...So why should
> this be more intuitive?

Let's not confuse the issue.  I am TOTALLY okay with implementing dockable
applications as applets... as long as they behave like current docked apps
(i.e., are in a "dock" in the panel)

I am also not against applets at all.  I think they are cool and very useful.
I just think that both applets and docked apps both have their place and both
must be supported.
-- 
Kurt Granroth            | granroth@kde.org
KDE Developer/Evangelist | http://www.pobox.com/~kurt_granroth
         KDE -- Putting a Friendly Face on Linux