On Thu, Jun06,02 08:07, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > > > I think I have to agree with Tim on this, at least to a > > certain extent. As a semi-geek, I rely on my hubbie to get > > me through complex installs and I'm convinced that he would > > be less than appreciative if I could not even install my own > > window manager without help. =) Personally, I'd rather move > > on to a program that's easier to use than spend my days > > RTFM'ing and asking Jamin question after endless question. > > > > At the same time, I could see the need for a few > > configurable options. For example, I don't think I could > > live without sloppy focus... If I couldn't reasonably read > > about in a few quick pages, though, and I'm afraid my > > wandering mind would lose interest. > > > > Which unfortunately leads us to stagnation as half the group (choose which > half) complains about most any change we want to make.
Yeah... further to this, to whom to we cater? The users, or the power users? The featureists, or the minimalists? For me... configurability is key (just last night, I switched from row placement to column placement, and I'm much happier!), and it helps when the developers choose sane defaults, as if I don't understand an option (and don't feel like RTFM) then I'll leave the defaults. Other times, I'll toggle it, and see what changes. Speaking of which... where is the window manager standard thingy... I'm curious to see what it says about full maximization and some other things. DC -- Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Human beings act intelligently only after they have exhausted the alternatives" -- Abba Eban Registered Linux User Number 195825
