On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Evan Stade <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> this makes the assumption that there is some "best" setting for each WM, >> which is false. What's best for me on metacity is not what's best for you on >> metacity. >> > > Unfortunately, if you really believe that, then for one of us the default > is wrong, and statistically the aggrieved party is unlikely to > find, understand, and change the option. The option doesn't actually solve > the problem the majority of the time. > > Therefore, in most cases we should just pick what we think is best, and let > people who don't like it either adapt or leave, because that reduces > cognitive friction, support costs, and code complexity. Unfortunately in > this case we're talking about supporting both codepaths, which nixes the > maintenance pluses. We still get fewer user choices though, which would be > enough for me. > > there have been many, many, many bugs where a user requests some random >> functionality provided by their particular WM, and our only answer (save >> re-implementing the functionality) is to tell them to disable the custom >> frame. >> > > This is why I said the default should be "window manager frame for all WMs > we have not explicitly whitelisted". We can only get away with the custom > frame if we know it will work well. > well I've said all I have to say about it, I highly doubt you'll get the linux team or the linux community to agree to your proposal. I've filed bugs for the ideas in this thread, I encourage further discussion to take place there: crbug.com/29762 crbug.com/29797 crbug.com/29798 crbug.com/29800 crbug.com/29801 > -- Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
