[Thunar-dev] Thunar-dev Digest, Vol 4, Issue 13

[Edscott Wilson Garcia]

El mar, 31-05-2005 a las 12:00 +0000, thunar-dev-request at xfce.org
escribió:

> Well, benny just completely eradicated your point, it seems he wants
> to quit with it: http://xfce-diary.blogspot.com/2005/05/break.html
> So, how to pick up from here?

After watching from the sidelines for a while, it is time to venture
some comments in good faith. Most of the people on this list, except
maybe Olivier and Jasper, are unfamiliar with the history of xffm. And
those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. 

Xffm became more and more complicated because I would please everybody
on the developers list, and the result was that *no* developer was
pleased. If you try to please everybody, you will please nobody.
Read this for some milenium old wisdom (and it's fun reading too): 
http://www.literature.org/authors/aesop/fables/chapter-281.html

The mockups suggested on this list, whilst interesting and valuable,
just remind me of the same situation. A lot of suggestions with an
implied, "Hey Benny, code this for me". And thunar passed from being a
simple filemanager to an xffm^2. No wonder Benny walked away. 

Anyways, I believe Benny will come back when you stop complicating
things and show some code.

About python? I really have my doubts. Please look at the old posts for
the "CLAW" file manager (another alternative to Xffm) which was
programmed in python. The main complaint was that it was *too* slow.
Being slow does not fit in with the "everything goes faster" slogan. If
python (or whatever) was better than C, why in earth would Linus use C
for the kernel? Just something to thing about.

I don't want to run on, so I'll sum up. Thunar will not shrivel up and
die but rather follow Benny whereever he goes, the same goes for Xffm.
The main issue I've learnt is that people confuse the GUI-frontend with
the actual filemanager. Complaints about Xffm have been about the
GUI-frontend, and suggestions on how to make Thunar complicated have
been limited to the GUI-frontend. The current development of Xffm are
heading towards the removal of the GUI from the actual filemanager, so
any number of GUI's would be possible for Xffm (supposing you have the
time and skills to code, otherwise /dev/null). This will be ready by
4.3.3, because I will need it for the third GUI in blueprint
---deskview--- unless Brian puts icons on the desktop sooner. Since the
library API is currently in the blender, you will have to dig into the
code if you want to have a say into what the API will look like (beware
that suggestions without attached code or patches are not taken
seriously). If you do not want to have a say on the Xffm API, that will
not hold development back, so you need not feel guilty ;-)

Anyways, my wife is poking me in the ribs because there is nothing in
the fridge but a couple potatoes. You can't code all the time, you
know ;)