Renaming of Xfce components

[Jelle de Jong]

Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:47:51 +0200
> Nick Schermer <nickschermer at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 2009/4/2 Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac at debian.org>:
>>> On jeu, 2009-04-02 at 08:13 +0200, Nick Schermer wrote:
>>>> renaming other components that are core parts of
>>>> the Xfce desktop sound like a stupid idea resulting in a lot of
>>>> work for absolutely nothing.
>>> Naaah, that's just fnu!
>> Yea read that, after scrolling down (didn't expect any jokes this
>> morning after reading my mail last night, I admit). But I do know
>> people want such renaming, same as gdesktopmenu, which i still find a
>> bit sad. Crossdesktop is how stuff is written, not the name. Sounds a
>> bit like we're not proud of Xfce anymore. 
> 
> I think that psychology plays an important role in the adaption of
> libraries in the *nix world. I mean, why do we not depend on any
> important libraries with 'gnome' in the name? And why does GNOME not
> depend on any Xfce libraries? And why do we all use D-Bus, GTK+ and
> HAL?  Of course it's not all about the name but it can make it harder
> to get a library acknowledged cross-desktop. 
> 
> It's not about being proud of Xfce or anything. There is a reason why
> DeviceKit, PolicyKit, HAL, D-Bus, DConf and tons of other libraries
> have more generic names rather than carrying the name of their origins
> with them. You could as well approach the "problem" from another angle:
> Why would you want to name a library after one desktop if you want it
> to be used cross-desktop? 
> 
> The "g" has been sort of established in the GLib/GTK+ sector and I
> fail see how that is a bad thing.
> 
>> Personally i think if we
>> show the Xfce libraries/applications are crossdesktop and they are
>> used by more people, it will result in Xfce being more popular and
>> that's why we write software, make Xfce better but help open-source
>> (more global) too.
> 
> Yes, it would be nice if Xfce libraries were used on other desktops.
> But this is not the case for most of the GNOME libraries either, at
> least not the ones that have 'gnome' in their name.
> 
> (And yes, of course the mail which started this thread was an April
> fools joke.)
> 
>   - Jannis

Well, I have to commit on this thread, there is a good thought behind it
and I think the xdgconf naming is a good move.

If there is no reason why an other environment can't use the libs and the
code is not specially xfce desktop code dependent then why should make it
a general code name? It would at least lower the adoption threshold.

Best regards,

Jelle