Stijn Hoop wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote: > >>On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote: >> >>>On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:47:26PM +0930, Tim Riley wrote: >>> >>>>Imho, for this sort of bog standard window behaviour, a sane default >>>>should be picked, and kept. Otherwise (that is, after feature freeze), we >>>>might get config item creep! >>> >>>I, for one, see no problem with this config item creep. :) They add enormous >>>amounts of flexibility, at really, no cost. I think the more options (to >>>a point:) the better. >> >>It just seems that some of the proposed config options are so obtuse and >>subtle that the average man on the free unix might not understand it. For >>such things, I believe a sensible default is more appropriate. For >>example, a concept like "focus window on workspace change" is a behaviour >>far too complex to convey adequatley in a configuration option, and the >>change in behaviour this option toggles is so subtle that, imo, not many >>would notice it if it were absent from the config menu. > > > Bah. That leads to the 'well, we can't explain to Joe R. User what this does > so we don't include it' MS Windows mentality. I like options. FWIW, I agree > with x0r - this kind of option only leads to happier users, not code bloat.
The whole linux philosophy is to give configurability, even at the cost of being a bit cryptic at times. :-)
