Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:04 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:39:53 +0200
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which
> one you choose as long as you only have one installed.
Why restrict people to only installing one?
I am not restricting anybody, I just said that most people will only
have one and we will force them to have specific menu entries for very
generic items. IMHO this is restriction.
> > or you want them both installed in
> > case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work?
> I doubt average users really have two different programs installed in
> case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install
> another terminal. But you cannot just install another email client,
> you need to configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't
> have your mail available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt
> that anybody has installed two mail clients for that unlikely case.
Sure. I agree the case moves further away from reality in apps that are
complex and need setup. But for example web browsers, people may need
several installed to test how a site they are desiging looks in webkit,
I think web browsers are not generic. If they just embedded webkit or
gecko, nobody would install two different browsers based on the same
Terminals on the other hand are way more generic. They just run bash.
Anyway, I am going to stop arguing here, I will (have to) live with