If I wanted unused and unneccessary code sitting on my PC, I'd use a
binary distribution. Why do I bother with disabling USE flags to not
compile code that is unnecessary for me, if I didn't care about such
things? On the rare occasions that I compile Mozilla (becoming less and
less necessary, thank goodness), I compile it +moznomail, +mozcompose,
+moznoirc, and -mozcalendar because I don't use those features in
Mozilla, so why should I wait for them to be compiled? But I can't trim
Konq down to be just a file manager (or browser, depending on which
function I hypothetically like Konq to perform and which I prefer to use
another application to perform).
Ok, good point.
And of course, maybe I don't have so much HDD space that I want some
portion of it to be used by applications that have extra functions that
are unused, when that space could be used by applications that do things
I *do* want.
Good point #2.
That's not the point, which is where we have a failure to communicate.
Openbox and FVWM-crystal (and ICEwm, for that matter) are lighter,
faster desktops than KDE partially because they do not contain the code
to put icons on the desktop (whether I enable it in KDE or not). If I
suddenly change my mind and want icons on my desktop, I have to install
idesk or something. That's the way (unh-huh, unh-huh) I *like* it. If I
want an application to perform a function that I want or need, then I
install it. If I don't want or need the functionality, it *is not present*.
Ok, so -let me know if I understand- you strive for an approach of full
modularity, where each little component can be added or removed at will.
That's actually interesting. I don't know if KDE for example already
allows this (emerging kdebase only gives you almost no functionality
AFAIK) or if it's going forward this.
2)GTK apps look different from KDE apps. So what? gmplayer or xpdf
aren't similar to both. What's so bad in them being different?
A lot of people care about this, both users and developers; It's a
little issue known as User Interface Consistency, which people seem to
find very important for new and/or inexperienced users (for experienced
users it's more of an ongoing annoyance than a show-stopper, I think).
Certainly programs exist to resolve that, both KDE and GNOME developers
spend time migrating to the freedesktop.org standard to resolve that and
users ask questions on this and other forums asking how to resolve at
least the presenting visual issues.
Yes,I know. I know a consistent desktop experience would (perhaps) be
better, I just don't find it annoying.
It interrupts the seamless flow of your task,
and people object to that to a greater or lesser degree, depending on
how much interruption they can support before the task becomes
unperformable, or more difficult to perform than the task is worth.
Hmmm. Not for me. I just know how to use the GTK/Gnome file save dialog,
and the KDE save dialog. I seamlessly use both (although I much prefer
the latter). I don't feel my tasks to be interrupted by this. Perhaps
that's just my luck :).
m.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
