RE: tlug: X resolution / color depth

["Jonathan Byrne--3Web" <jq@example.com>]

>> don't think I'm the only person who will always say "But <this other OS>
>> does it automatically," right? :-)
>
>This is obvoiusly not a function of X.  The problem with this concept
>is that there are far far too many available options.  Any program that
>decides to modify my .ctwmrc without asking won't make it for long.

Perhaps it needs to be.  There might need to be some evolution in X to make
that more doable (gee, I keep biting off bigger and bigger chunks :-)  ).  I
agree that all of the different Window managers that are out there make this
much more complicated.  Initially, this would probably evolve on the
individual distribution level.  For example, let's say company A likes
FVWM95, so they set up a system in their distribution where a package that
you add will insert an entry for it in the programs menu of FVWM95.
Company B does AfterStep, so they have one that does the same thing there.
Company C does twm and they do the same.  Eventually, there will be
utilities that do this for all the popular window managers.  Being free
software, these things could then all be used by all the distributions and
you could have a control panel that you used to tell it which window manager
you want it to put the menus in.  If it gets really slick, it could do it to
more than one when you install.  And you could turn it off if you didn't
want this feature at all.  A control panel for easily adding and removing
things from your menus could also be a part of the package.

I think this would not harm any flexibility in Linux or X, just make it
easier and more automated for those who chose to turn on this feature.

>serious problems.  (I'm stuck in CDE at work right now and it is really
>bad, but my preference is still ctwm)

I've never used CDE.  What do you hate about it?  I've also never used (or
seen) ctwm.  What do you like about it?

>I think a lot of the polish you want is doable, but to be effective it
>will take some careful work.  We don't wantto polish Linux OUT of being a
>powerful and configurable server to make it palatable to the masses.

Agreed to both.  I don't think it will be easy.  It will take a lot of
development and a lot of time, but if we really want Linux to compete, I
think it's crucial to be done.   And Linux can be left just as configurable
as it is now.  The option of having everything smoothly and easily handled
by GUI control panels doesn't mean you have to remove the option of editing
every single configuration file by hand if you feel like it and know how to
do it.  Apple and Microsoft pretty much made it impossible or very difficult
to do it any other way, but Linux/X don't have to go that way.   It's just
that right now, if you look in Jonathan's Alternative Dictionary of Linux
Marketing Terms, "configurable" means "can do very little for itself; you
have to configure almost everything manually, often with a command line
interface" :-)  An exaggeration, of course, but I think you can see my
point.  What's powerful, flexible, and configurable to a UNIX sysadmin can
easily be translated to "really hard to use" for a Linux/UNIX  beginner, and
to "impossible to use" for most users who fall outside the profile of  most
Linux users today.  It can be configurable, flexible, and easy too.  I just
wish there was as much money available to throw at this as Microsoft has
available for its R&D :-)

>The first thing to be judged must be the standards of Judgement!

I like that!

Jonathan

---------------------------------------------------------------
Next TLUG Meeting: 11 April Sat, Tokyo Station Yaesu gate 12:30
Featuring Tague Griffith of Netscape i18n talking on source code
---------------------------------------------------------------
a word from the sponsor:
TWICS - Japan's First Public-Access Internet System
www.twics.com  info@example.com  Tel:03-3351-5977  Fax:03-3353-6096