LWN.net Logo

Traditional environments

Traditional environments

Posted Apr 3, 2003 21:31 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)
Parent article: A discussion with Keith Packard

> One obvious first step is for X developers to start using
> modern applications; many key X developers wear the badge
> of 'twm' or 'fvwm' with pride.

What's wrong with those? I also do not like these "modern"
applications. I use tvtwm because it works the way I work.
X is nice because it lets people choose different environments.
That's why we can have GNOME and KDE. Telling people to use a
specific desktop because it is modern is not compatible with
that model.

The real problem is that they aren't letting new developers
who prefer KDE or GNOME to participate. They should have
a say just as the users/developers of the "old" interfaces.


(Log in to post comments)

Traditional environments

Posted Apr 4, 2003 0:01 UTC (Fri) by melauer (guest, #2438) [Link]

>> One obvious first step is for X developers to start using
>> modern applications; many key X developers wear the badge
>> of 'twm' or 'fvwm' with pride.
>
>What's wrong with those? I also do not like these "modern"
>applications. I use tvtwm because it works the way I work.
[snip]
>The real problem is that they aren't letting new developers
>who prefer KDE or GNOME to participate. They should have
>a say just as the users/developers of the "old" interfaces.

I think the point is not so much that new developers aren't allowed as much input, but that there are too few developers who are familiar with modern Window Managers.

More generally, the claim here is that core XFree86 developers aren't familiar with the _applications_ which are running on XFree86 nowadays, the most important of which being the Window Manager. Even moreso for full fledged Windowing Environments like KDE/GNOME, which are supposed to be standards to which applications are coded. Knowing what users are trying to do with your software is a major clue as to where future development should lead. Perhaps too many XFree86 developers don't have that particular clue? Perhaps some XFree86 developers have no idea what other developers have had to add to their own code in order to achieve functionality which should probably exist in XFree86? I think that's what is being suggested here.

Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds