Ok, I know this was touched on before..

[hugh d fegely]

Yes, that's my point. Sure it would be nice if everyone of the programs out there would fall into order on a standard icon representation built in, but then (as I pointed out before) we start mimicking that other operating system..

Every other window manager I have tried has given at least some default option for the user to choose which icon gets used for a specific application, even if it has to be a specific style, or in a specific directory.

Also, not all programmers are genius artists, and they may not have any sort of icon designed for their program. So are they supposed to suddenly stop and create something? And, even if they did come up with something simple, with the various options for other icons out there (just like the many variations offered in the XFce panel) why can't the user be given the choice to the icons he wants displayed?

Even if it's tied into the XFce panel, so that when we choose a new item for the panel, that icon gets represented in all XFce modules..

Just a thought from a simple user.. I have always liked XFce, as it is different than everything else out there, easy to use, and looks sharp. I just thought the idea of the desktop environment/window manager/ etc etc was to make the user's experience a simpler and more pleasant one.. this is just something that I think would do just that.

I'll go back to lurking now.

"Philip Webb" <purslow at sympatico.ca> had stated the obvious on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:20:49 -0400 when they said:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce mailing list
> Xfce at xfce.org
> http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce