On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 18:43 -0500, Martin Cracauer wrote:> Michael R. Head wrote on Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:55:09PM -0500: > > On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 12:34 -0600, Benjamin Gramlich wrote:> > > Is anyone here following the discussion of Gnome on the desktop> > > architects mailing list?> > > > Yeah, I'm on both lists. Any particular comments?> > I think there are very few people who actually discuss the real point.> Linus found a case in the GNOME code where:> - something that should be configurable wasn't> - two other things of the same kind were configurable, both in an> ad-hoc manner> - even there they lacked a decent frontend to actually do the> configuration possible> - he sent patches to clean up the mess, treat everything the same and> make it configurable> > After a messy discussion he makes the point that certain groups of> developers in the OpenSource community are very quick shots to dismiss> complaints without even looking into them, then after en initial wrong> statement entrenching themselves in a bug-compatible manner throughout> a non-conversation. This appears to be more common with groups that> target a wider audience, and want an easy to get into system. I am> afraid I have observed that myself with both GNOME and Fedora,> repeatedly. It is a sharp contrast to e.g. FreeBSD, where the default> answer to complains is "You're right. So what? Send patches or shut> up.". Patches are always welcome. Simply adding ‘features’ tends to not workmuch, though, because feature are in most cases non-orthogonal andinteract with parts of the system the patch author had not evenconsidered. <http://ometer.com/features.html> and<http://ometer.com/free-software-ui.html> spell out these issue quitemore clearly that I can. If you browse bugzilla, you'll notice that patches tend to be slow tocome, though. > Personally I am at the edge of ditching GNOME because I can't figure> out how to put different background pictures on my different screens> (non-Xinerama, fvwm2). It's nothing life-threatening or even> productivity-damaging. But it shows that there's some seriously short> thinking here (different aspect ratios on both displays make a> same-picture policy a joke). It doesn't help that I cannot find the> code that actually does the picture display for the background.> Digging through starting from the gconf variable names didn't get me> far. If you google for "gnome different background per-workspace" the firstresult is <http://live.gnome.org/PowerUserTools> which includes a linkto an app called wallpapoz which does apparently what you want. The request asking for this has been sitting on bugzilla for quite awhile (the bug is #48004) waiting for someone to come up with a sensibledesign for the feature. Implementing it will probably be quite trivial,-once- a sensible design is drafted. > It's mirroring my first GTK+ programming experience where I was> looking for the $DISPLAY holder that is passed around in contexts,> only to see there is none. It's a hardcoded global variable so that a> GTK+ application cannot (or at the time could not) open GTK windows on> more than one display at the same time. FWIW, you have been able to use gtk_window_set_screen<http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/gtk/GtkWindow.html#gtk-window-set-screen>since gtk+ 2.2, which was released in december 2002. Cheers, -- m -- Mariano Suárez-Alvarezhttp://www.gnome.org/~mariano _______________________________________________gnome-list mailing listgnome-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
