Ok, I know this was touched on before..

[Philip Webb]

030922 Biju Chacko wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:07:59 -0400, hugh d fegely wrote:
>> there is no configuration options for the iconbox to modify any of these,
>> either they exist, or we're stuck with the default.
> Yes. You could change the default if you want. :-)
>> Can I request this to be changed?
>> I understand it's a departure from the standards you are trying to follow,
>> but it mould make the iconbox a nicer feature IMHO :)
> I'm not the maintainer of the iconbox,
> but I think I can answer for if I said 'NO!'.
> If an application doesn't set a proper icon, it's a bug in the application.
> Why should *we* fix somebody else's bug?
> You should realise that each additional line of code that we add
> produces one more place where a bug could occur.
> Increasing the size of the code just makes it more difficult to maintain.

this is a common response -- by no means confined to software production -- ,
but it's fallacious: code bloat <> feature bloat <> feature enhancement.
the purpose of code is to provide a resource for users,
not to make pretty patterns on a developer's screen.

it's quite unrealistic to expect a user to go around nagging applications
which don't live upto some standard adopted by a small project like XFCE.
it has to be quite simple to add the means to associate a program name
with an icon chosen by the user:  /usr/bin/galeon  ==  /path/to/file.png .
perhaps the actual maintainer of the iconbox cd think re it & then do it ?

in any case, of course, thanx to that maintainer for his existing efforts.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow at chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto