Andreas Beck wrote: > > Mich w�rde sehr interessieren, was ihr dar�ber denkt! Who does 'ihr' refer to? Was this letter sent to you as represeting the GGI developers? > > Grade die "alten" Hassen unter euch! > > oder ist die Liebe zur Shell so gro�? > > Und wie. Der "Fortschritt" zum Klick-Schieb-Zieh war ein Rueckschritt. Eine > Shell ist wesentlich maechtiger. > > Man kann den IO ein bisserl optimieren, und es gibt Applikationen, wo andere > Eingabegeraete sinnig sind, aber fuer "normale" Arbeiten ... That's not true. E.g. moving files about is done much nicer with a good graphical filemanager than the shell (unfortunately I haven't seen any on unix that even comes close to win 3.1's file manager (and that's by no means perfect, I designed a much much better FM but never completed it (this was in the time when there was no gtk yet for example, so I got stuck in the GUI develop/choose bit and in the end never got around to completing it)); if only those blasted Sun guys had released the source for their filemanager with xview, things would have been much nicer last few years :( The real issue is using the tool that's right for the job. The problem with monkeytoys windoze is that you can't easily do what you really want to do. In fact, to me, the biggest problem (resulting from the aformentioned lack of proper mechanisms to do what one wants to do) is the feeling of not being in control. W.r.t. the doom process killing, this is not a good idea as such, but what would be useful is a graphical process manager that shows which processes are related to which others (childs/AF_LOCAL sockets etc), how much mem/cpu each and the total is using etc so hogging processes could be identified accurately and killed/reniced if necessary. Wouter
