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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: "John Summerfield"
From:       Rik Hemsley <rik () rikkus ! demon ! co ! uk>
Date:       1999-09-17 23:50:37
[Download RAW message or body]

#if John Summerfield
> OS/2 has a "program object." A clumsy name perhaps. It's similar to the 
> KDE Launcher, but more configurable. For example, I can create a program 
> object for EPM (my faviourine programmers' editor), specify that it's to 
> start in a particular directory (where I store my C source code perhaps), 
> that it's to open files who's names end in any of .C ,cpp, .h, .hpp, .rc 
> etc. If I subsequently renmame or move epm (and I specified its full path 
> name in the program object) the program object is updated automatically to 
> reflect that name; I got caught once when I renamed something.exe to 
> something.oxe and I created a new something.exe - the program's behaviour 
> didn't change.

Sounds similar to .kdelnk files in KDE.

> A programmer can subclass (in almost any compiled language) a program 
> object, a datafile, a folder and add custom behaviour. Contemplate a mail 
> folder; drop a text file into it and it becomes a letter. Open its 
> settings (properties) notebook and add address info and send it. Drop an 
> empty text file and it opens your composer.

This kind of thing is certainly interesting, but I'm not sure if it's entirely
obvious to the user. Users still haven't learnt that they can work in a logical
way - dragging and dropping a file from a kfm window opened on an ftp site
to one on the local drive just seems to escape them. They'll learn - and
this kind of behaviour should become more accepted in future, though it
needs to be logical - everything should work the same way unless there's
an obvious distinction between it and the rest of the system. For example,
you can drop a file on the trashcan, and you're not asked whether you want
to copy/move/link. The user understands that it's the trashcan and that
the behaviour is 'special'.

What I'd like to see in KDE 2 is more integration with standard components
such as mail handling with KDE. I'm currently working on Empath, which is
supposed to address this need. If you have any suggestions then please
let me know. I'd be interested to learn more about OS/2 does things.

I'm not sure about the dropping-on-mail-folder idea, but I am interested
to find better ways of composing a message than opening a mail client app
and clicking 'compose'. There should, IMO, be such things as a button for
the panel to do this, which you can drop files on - giving a composer with
an attachment. Actually, this behaviour is already nearly possible in KDE 1.

> OS/2 and KDE already share similarities. KDE has a pager; similar to 
> OS/2's Launchpad. Both have single-button program launching. OS/2's has 
> drawers (like gnome's pager). I happen NOT to like the windows-style 
> unfolding menus; they are relatively slow to navigate and you always have 
> to start again from the Start button or whatever. on OS/2 I  can have 
> several launchpads; I can close any or all of them at will. A double-click 
> on the desktop opens the master.

Ok, well kpanel is going to be replaced with kicker, which supports multiple
instances and can be dragged around the screen.

Note that KDE already does something like 'drawers' - just add a folder to
the panel, e.g. games, and it's done.

> There's a lot to like in both gnome and KDE; I  find both improvements on 
> Windows (I and haven't yet decided which I prefer). However, I think that 
> OS/2 can shed light on the way forward to both teams. If the developers 
> know what OS/2 offers, they can more easily imagine ways to improve KDE>

So tell us !

A list of important features from OS/2 would be good.

Cheers,
Rik

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