--- Reinout van Schouwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello David, > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, David Walser wrote: > > > > Or redesigning them to be usable in 640x480. I'm > not > > > You're being totally unreasonable. If someone's > got a > > I'm sorry that you find me acting unreasonable, I > have no such intention.
Whoops, I should be more clear. I don't find your behavior unreasonable, just your expecatations. > > monitor so crappy that they can't even run at > 800x600, > > they use a different frontend to the draktools. > > At the risk of repeating myself, two points: > 1. Being able to run at 800x600 doesn't necessarily > mean someone actually > uses that resolution. Is it so difficult to see > that, as long as a user > can switch resolution to 640x480 using mcc, he > should be able to revert > back using that same tool?! True enough. The fact is though that they can. They can use a different frontend. > 2. Requiring different frontends makes things more > complicated than > needed, thus putting off users on the one hand, and > generating support > requests on the other. It's details like these why > reviewers keep saying > that Mandrake always has a little "unfinished" feel > about it. No, having more frontends has more machines, more people's needs, and more people's tastes and configurations that we can't think of beforehand able to be supported. It gives things a more finished feeling. > > are covered by at least one frontend, so nobody > can > > bitch about their machine not being supported. > > You are effectively saying that a user running at > 640x480 should use a > different frontend. Yes, just like someone with a P133 shouldn't run Gnome. > Then why doesn't launching mcc > in a low resolution > automatically switch to framebuffer (DrakX) mode to > enable the user to > change his settings instead of forcing him to find > out about the different > frontends himself? Valid question, that would be neat actually (all it'd really have to do is launch a terminal and run the non-X version of the tool). Neatness doesn't always equal importance though. The way it works now, detecting if you're in X and launching the X version if so, otherwise not, is really easy to program. Adding this neat idea would take a lot more work, and probably isn't worth all of the effort right now. > > Are you gonna whine and complain to us when you > find Gnome and Evolution > > unusable on a P133 with 16MB RAM??? I sure hope > not. Doesn't mean > > No, but that's totally besides the point. We're > discussing a > *configuration tool* here, which almost by > definition needs to support the > lowest common denominator. And the point of the different frontends is so that we can support the lowest common denominator. It's also part of the benefit to having things like IceWM and mutt in the distro (the other being even people with fast machines like those). __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
