[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Fwd: KDE (KWin) and Extended Window Manager spec
From:       Matthias Elter <elter () trolltech ! com>
Date:       2001-03-11 16:19:48
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 11 March 2001 14:12, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
>   The extended window manager specification is a "standard" for only one
> reason: It's the way KDE2 wants with window managers. There are no other
> X11 toolkits outside using this "standard". Window mangers supporting the
> specification do support it 'cause they want to be compliant to KDE2.

Yes, the extended window manager specification reflects the needs of modern 
desktop environments like GNOME and KDE. Yes it is a de facto standard. If 
you don't want IceWM to be compliant, you are free to do that.

>   The specification itself is written pretty well. But the specification
> itself mostly is nonsense -- in my opinion. I prefer to take the rare
> support of the specification as a prove for it.

The specification is young, version 1.0 was released on December the 9th. 
That might be the reason why only sawfish and kwin support all of it 
currently.

> > And they do not flame KDE in their answers, like you and Mathias
> > Hasselmann.
>
>   Can you imagine that there are people outside who like KDE and people
> who dislike KDE? Do I have to justify for disliking KDE?

There is quite a difference between disliking and flaming.

> > |   acknowledge, documentation needs to be absolutely transparent to be
> > |   effective and we shouldn't be afraid to revise it in light of
> > |   experience.
> >
> > Where you have seen "absolutely transparent documentation" in Linux?!
>
>   There are this files with the .c, .cc, .pl, ... extensions -- called
> source code. ;)

There is a sample implementation of the spec which is toolkit independant. So 
what are you complaining about?

> > One of the major things Linux lacks is documentation.
> > And KDE and QT have one of the best documentation sets in Open Source
> > community. // read it once more before writing: *one* of the best
>
>   Did someone ever mention KDE/Qt's documentation in this discussion? Yes,
> they are documented well. But a good documentation doesn't make a good
> library. <rant mud="ironical,funny">Maybe the KDE/Qt developers should
> spend more time in designing good interfaces than in writing
> documentation</rant>

This is about free software. Who are you to blame people for the work they do 
for free?

>   What are your contributions to the open source movement besides
> flamebaits? Maybe should head for another playground?

Seems like your rules don't apply to yourself.

Ciao,
Matthias

 
>> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]