On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Sottek, Matthew J wrote: >>Absolutely nothing says that both can't co-exist. If the default >>tools try to allow configuration of everything, even some >>hardware specific things, they can try where possible and >>feasible to generalize these things, or in cases where that isn't >>possible, they can provide hardware specific customization. > >Your example is exactly as I was suggesting, I just worded it >badly. Try to put things in a generalized GUI but don't be too >concerned about odd features that don't fit. Feature Foo that >only applies to an odd usage case doesn't need to clutter the >generalized GUI. As long as there is ability for someone to >extend it in a device specific manner all will be well in the >world.
That would be fine. >>It depends on who writes the tool, what their objectives are, and >>what they're willing to accept into their project, be it hardware >>generic or hardware specific. > >Anyone can re-implement the whole thing in a different manner as >you stated, but wouldn't it be nice if the de-facto one provided >by XFree was the most flexible. In my opinion, no not really. That might be useful for Joe user who downloads XFree86 sources and compiles them himself, however if it comes with XFree86, then it will almost certainly use a 300 year old hideous widget set like Xaw or Xt, and thus look disgusting on today's modern desktops. A visually attractive tool which integrates visually into the user's desktop is IMHO much more perferred by the masses, which would mean using GTK+ or Qt for the majority of desktops out there, however that means it's very unlikely to be included in XFree86. Mostly a moot point however since distributions will ship software which works well, and integrates with the desktop they're shipping, so it doesn't much matter if XFree86 itself comes with the ubertool IMHO. >I know I'd like a "make install" to have all the updated drivers >and configuration tools without having to look for updated >config tools from other sources. I disable/delete the config tools that come with XFree86, as they're too archaic. >>That sounds perfectly fine. And "vendor" in this sense could >>mean anything from "open source project (including XFree86)" to >>"OS vendor" to "video hardware vendor". > >Yes exactly. Vendor is a misleading word. Whoever is producing the >driver or config tools is the vendor. Fair enough. What would be nice IMHO for the future, is a unified tool which can use either GTK+ or Qt, and is distribution neutral. That would allow every distro to contribute to one tool, rather that the current mess of everyone shipping their own custom made GTK/Qt tool. -- Mike A. Harris _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
