Why don't I just give up hacking on Evolution and let you do it all, since you seem to know so goddamn much then?
Jeff On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 15:43, Rodney Dawes wrote: > On Die , 2004-04-18 at 11:42 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > doesn't seem to bother the average user, if it did... there wouldn't be > > Outlook or GroupWise or Lotus Notes or... a zillion other groupware > > suites. > > There aren't a zillion other groupware suites. There are the few you > listed, and maybe > a couple other ones that are less-known. And yes, they would use them. > They end up > living with it, because that is what IT gives them. Home users don't > typically use > groupware suites. They use Outlook Express or something simple and > direct. If an IT > department deploys Exchange, then their users are most likely going to > get Outlook. > Similarly with Groupwise and Notes. > > > in fact, you seem to be the only one (or, at best, one of a handful) > > bothered by this. > > And you seem to be only one of a handful that are bothered with the idea > of actually > splitting up the components into completely separate applications. :) > > > how hard is it, really, to say "I want to make an appointment. I need to > > switch to calendar because obviously mail doesn't do that" > > It's not. But that isn't the point. > > > you're saying the average user can't handle that, yet you want to split > > the applications which forces these users to have to know which > > application does what? it's the same bloody decision. > > There's no reason to get angry dude. The same decision made through a different > UI mechanism can often be easier to understand. > > > > it makes interfaces scary and bloated. > > > > ah, bloated. the most overused and least understood word used when > > describing software. > > So what does it mean to you? Requiring full feature address book and > calendar > applications to be running, in order to press "Send/Recv" in your mail > app, sounds > like a good definition of bloat to me. > > > > i'm > > > not sure why you can't understand this. > > > > I'm not sure why *you* can't understand this. > > I know you are, but what am I? Really. This is just ridiculous to do. > > > > the key to a > > > good application is focus. > > > > there is focus. where is there not focus? how is there not focus? > > There is focus. But the focus is more spread out than concentrated. > Which is, I > believe, what he was trying to say. > > > > there's something to be > > > said about an app that does ONE thing well, and > > > strives only to do that one thing. > > > > ah, the good ol' "do one thing, and do it well" argument. the most > > widely used and yet least understood statement used by non software > > developers when trying to argue something. > > How can bloated and "do one thing, do it well" both be the most widely > used and least > understood of arguments in the software community? I am a software > developer, and it's > a damn good argument to use. :) > > > for a loose definition of "ONE", everything does ONE thing well and > > strives to only do one thing. > > We try to do many things well. For loose definitions of one, one is > equal to five. > That's not a very good argument against doing one thing well. One is > pretty well > defined to be a single entity. > > > if we split out the mailer, for example, would it really only be doing > > "ONE" thing? depends on how you define "ONE", obviously. It replies to > > mail, it composes mail, it forwards mail, it filters mail, it fetches > > mail, it sends mail, it displays mail, as well as numerous other things. > > That's not one thing... so I guess by your definition each of these > > functions should be a separate application too? :-) > > One thing is mail. Composer might be 0.01 of 1. So by definition, one > can be comprised > of a very large subset of smaller values. Since all of these things are > "do something > with/to mail", then "one" is "mail". So, 1 can be infinitely large for > values of > infinite that are in the range of 0 <= x <= 1. I say 0 can be equal to > 1, since the > binaries "true" and "false" succeed and fail and doing nothing. :) > > > > this doesn't mean > > > this independent app can't fully integrate with other > > > related applications (like a calendar or contacts > > > program integrating with a mail app). > > > > if you completely split them, then yes, it would mean that. > > No it doesn't. Seriously. Stop that. The fact that GNOME works at all, > directly > disproves your argument that we can't integrate by having things in > separate apps. > The entire point of evolution-data-server is to allow some integration > like this. > Of course, it doesn't allow the full spectrum of possibilities, since it > is not > entirely separate yet, and doesn't do anything GUI-related. > > > > , and there should be > > > several evolution-pim scripts installed by default as > > > evolution-contacts, evolution-calendar, and > > > evolution-mail. > > > > no, if a distributor wanted this, then they could make separate menu > > entries - one to launch each of the components. that would be the proper > > way to do it, not writing shell scripts. average users don't use the > > command-line. > > If a distributor wants this, they can install evolution, because it will > have separate > menu entries to start the different components. There's no need to make > them do extra > things to get this very simple functionality that we practically already > provide. We > already do this in XD2 anyway. > > -- dobey > _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
