Hi, This is kind of the point. GTK+ probably should have better menu handling, but when you install a lot of packages, those packages are going to have .desktop files. And those .desktop files are going to be in the menus. Therefore, you're definitely going to have a menu that's 100 items long, simply because you installed all those games. The goal of the redhat-menus package and of the maintainers of that package is to make the _default_ install (but NOT the everything install) be sane and have nice menus. If you install everything, there has to be some place to put it, and you cannot expect users to go to the command line to launch things. Therefore, they go into the menus whether we like it or not :( Which, because some packages install huge numbers of duplicate functionality programs, means you have cluttered menus. Using "More" menus is not really the way to go, the way to go is to have sane programs that do what you want, and not to have 5 programs that each do 75% of what you want but all have non-overlapping features too. Dan On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 20:45 -0600, Ivan Gyurdiev wrote: > Ok, I'll read the guidelines and file the bugs. > The menus really look quite funny on my system, because I have just > about every package there is installed. Therefore I get the GNOME, the > KDE, and everything in-between. I get Kaffeine, KPlayer, Movie Player > (mplayer), Totem Movie Player, xine, ogle, audio player (xmms), and CD > player (gnome-cd) all in the same place - see how the names don't quite > fit together? ... > Well that's not what's happening here. My games menu for example has > hundreds of games there. My Entertainment menu has about 10 apps that do > the same thing (as described above). Furthermore, I'm not sure this is > desirable. I would like to see all my alternatives regarding a > particular function next to each other so I can compare. It would be > nice, for example if all the movie players were close to each other in > the very same menu. However if all of them were called "Movie Player" I > don't think that would work very well - hmmm. (Note: xpdf and gpdf are > in fact both called PDF Viewer and I can't tell them apart).
