[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/05/23]
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:36:04PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 06:18:32PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > * Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 14:45]: > > > On Tue, 23 May 2006, Yoz Grahame wrote: > > > > I *think* it's all Winamp's fault, but can't prove it. I'm > > > > actually genuinely interested in researching this for a > > > > reason - does anyone know what totally-user-skinnable apps > > > > existed before Winamp? > > > X11 ? > > ...what? > > Oh come on, you have to admit that making each client application > resonsible for deciding how to draw its widgets is crazy. If 'twere > up to me, X servers would be responsible for rendering at least the > basics, with - perhaps the user being able to choose which widget > library to use. > > I would take a screenshot showing K, Gnome, Motif and a couple of > others next to each just to demonstrate why it's stupid, but really, > you know what it would look like, so there's no point. I guess I think at least X11 has a reason for being inconsistent, that is, they put that functionality in a library, which leads to awful, but it also means stuff still works centuries later. I dunno, it is awful, and hateful, but I hate winamp/skins a lot more for being quite explicitly pointless and intentionally unpleasant. But if we're going to wander into "inconsistent widgets are terrible" territory (which they are), I'm going to have to mention the joy of Opera for Linux. At best a half-baked port, there are so many bad things about it it deserves a proper Top Level Hate. But a quick summary of the many levels of inconsistency can be found succinctly captured in an image: http://skonnos.ducker.org/~jrodman/image/opera-sucks.jpgThere's stuff above here
Generated at 09:00 on 29 May 2006 by mariachi 0.52