Féliciano Matias wrote: > ... > From metacity README : > Q: Why no wireframe move/resize? > A: Also in rationales.txt. Because it has low usability, and is a pain > to implement, <NotAHavocFlame explain="Just a couple of observations"> If it's such a pain to implement, why does nearly every other window manager implement it? (Supporting old hardware is surely the answer that would be given, but that doesn't make it any easier to implement, only more important.) > and there's no reason opaque move/resize should be a > problem on any setup that can run a modern desktop worth a darn to > begin with. I think Aaron has just demonstrated that the above statement is not true for all cases: applications which draw vector graphics could have big problems with it. I've even used applications that don't draw vector graphics still perform poorly with resize (on reasonably modern hardware - i use an Athlon 2400+ w/- GeForce MX 440 8x). </NotAHavocFlame> > ... > And keep in mind that you can use another WM. > I use Icewm :-) <PackageSupporRant> Oh, that it were supported in RHL! I understand Red Hat's policy of only having one default desktop, but why can't they at least provide working packages for the other popular choices? Is RHLP our chance to get a few more good packages that are used by more experienced users into the distribution? Put me down for a few: icewm, isag (dropped to remove the sysstat dependency upon tcl/tk, as far as i can tell), jikes (no idea why this was dropped - it's such a great *fast* compiler), and shorewall. Add one more to that list that doesn't fall into the "experienced user" category: webmin. I have a number of devices on my network at work which are web manageable, including Novell NetWare 6 servers, HP JetDirects and ProCurve routers, an EMC CLARiiON disk array, even Canon photocopiers, yet the best web platform of them all (RHL) isn't web manageable. Does this strike anyone else as odd? I've already had this fight with the RH engineers in bugzilla (http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89555), but their excuses really aren't that valid, IMO (as i explained in that bug). What think you all? </PackageSupportRant> Paul http://paulgear.webhop.net
Attachment:
pgpytRL5CFsYP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
