On 2007-12-18, John Robson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes I feel that floating windows are rather counter to the concept of ion
However useful in some cases... > Seriously - I agree with you, but as the whole thing doesn't support > abstractions of context from presentation we have to work with what we > have (unless you want to fork/reimplement the whole shooting match) That's > one of the problems with any long project. Abstraction is easy in short > term tightly defined projects. > Or with hindsight. > But by then it's expensive. That's the FOSS herd's cherished worse-is-better fallacy for you. Once the shoddy quick&dirty solution is popular, it is difficult/expensive to fix it. If people only would stop to think and ask for input before embarking on writing crap. Don't get me wrong, worse-is-better is quite ok for some projects, mostly marginal ones, and to which it is feasible write many alternatives to. Ion development pretty much follows that approach, and Ion is not particular beautiful code, although there are some aspects I like. But essential core software, of which There Can Be Only One (in practise), demands different standards -- far higher standards. > Yep - if the last "stable" release you made was over three years ago. Sorry I don't have infinite amounts of time for working on Ion, unlike the paid developers of the more popular projects that are turning Linux/FOSS into a steamping shitpile. > I've not gone back, because ion3 is actually pretty stable - for > everything I do. There are some pretty bad bugs/omissions even in the latest release. Comes from working on the code very intermittently. >>> Except vacuum cleaners I presume. >> They have the unfortunate tendency to blow. > See - you do have a sense of humour :) I knew it was there somewhere! :-D I thought I only had bad humour. Well, one does occasionally make mistakes. -- Tuomo
