Re: Re: A strawman proposal for X.org & XFree86.org

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 09:31:26PM +0400, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> On Monday 31 March 2003 02:19, Ben Jansens wrote:
> |  On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:12:01PM +0400, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> |  > On Sunday 30 March 2003 20:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> |  > |  On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 07:23:47PM +0400, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> |  > |  > Well, GNOME and KDE cover together about 95% of Linux Desktops.
> |  > |
> |  > |  Where did you get this estimate from?
> |  >
> |  > That number has been discussed/quoted many times.
> |  > Estimation I have seen and feel comfortable with os that KDE has 60%
> |  > share, and GNOME - 30%, while the rest is splitted around other WMs or
> |  > environments. My estimationn though that KDE has slightly higher share
> |  > (about 65%), so combined GNOME+KDE is about 95%
> |
> |  Well I'm glad we have an estimate that you feel comfortable with instead
> | of a solid emperical result. I don't know of any reliable studies done
> | which can give a number to this statistic. Forums polls just wont do for
> | accurate data.
> 
> Those figures have nothing to do with forum polls.
> Check http://www.ofb.biz, Mandrake is clear leader (which is not the case if 
> you take paid Linux boxes with per-seat license or whatever)

I took a look around but couldn't find these numbers anywhere. However, from
the sounds of it, this is a Distro usage comparison not a window manager
comparison. Mandrake users have much more available to them than KDE.

Regardless of numbers, modifying X in exclusion to non-desktop-environment
projects is not a good course of action, and I feel confident it wont be a
course of action undertaken with XFree.

> |
> |  > |  > Should XFree86 make focus on 95% of its users or focus on needs of
> |  > |  > minority?
> |  > |
> |  > |  XFree86 should not enforce policy on toolkits/windowmanagers _at
> |  > | all_.
> |  >
> |  > Well, toolkit/desktop users want , say, window transparency - and
> |  > developers for those toolkits/desktops can't implement transparency
> |  > until it's get done on XFree86 level.
> |  > Like it or not, but XFree86 has influence on all GUI-based Linux/*BSD
> |  > apps.
> |
> |  Everything seems to always come down to transparency. In my option, this
> | is a small issue to the overall development of the XFree project. I think
> | far to much emphasis is put on this in arguments for server enhancements.
> 
> MacOS X has it, so I think we should have it too.

If you're just looking for MacOS X, perhaps you should invest in a copy of
the actual thing..

> |
> |  > |  successfull because it doesn't enforce policy.  You can use gnome/kde
> |  > |  or twm+xterm over the same protocol, with the same hardware drivers
> |  > | and even use some gnome app under twm or the other way around. 
> |  > | Changing this is a very bad idea.
> |  >
> |  > You can't use modern X apps (KDE, GNOME) with TWM, or other not
> |  > NetWM-enabled Window Manager. This is just one example.
> |
> |  While this is not even entirely true, I'll give you the benefit of the
> | doubt since _some_ things about these applications may not behave correctly
> | in a WM without NetWM support. This is not an example of how the X server
> 
> Have you ever tried Konqueror or Kmail or nautilus from TWM?

Besides nautilus' desktop window (which just requires disabling with the
command line option), I can't say I've had any problems. However, I think
you missed my point. Even if these applications did not work entirely, it is
solely because of communication between one client (the app) and another
client (the window manager). Unless the window manager was built into the X
server (ya right), there is nothing required from the X server for this
interaction to take place. It is simply a medium for the 2 clients to
communicate and work together.

> | needs to be updated to meet the needs of the "95%" however. This is
> | entirely a protocol between one client and another.

Ben
-- 
I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way.

http://www.icculus.org/openbox/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+iI9o8mPQRGtSu14RAvE9AJ0WxeFRAqIrWuZ6NBRsNzXlMUf57gCeNHu8
kLohLRYy1g6nL+urgnqbqPY=
=DZ3W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----