<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Actually if you look at the betterdesktop movies where they plant innocent users behind a relatively default gnome setup, you will recognize a lot of the 'problems' those people had that slab tries to address. I'd full heartedly recommend watching them, its a nice way to learn about the confusions a end user could have ps what is the current menu other then a copy of the win95 menu? So why not 'upgrade' *pun intended* :-) Jesse Keating wrote: <blockquote cite="mid200608221454.35147.jkeating@redhat.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Tuesday 22 August 2006 14:39, David Nielsen wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">tir, 22 08 2006 kl. 14:35 -0400, skrev Jesse Keating: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Tuesday 22 August 2006 14:25, Arthur Pemberton wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">However, would you disagree that Windows Control Panel is functional? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Functional to an extent. However I'm not into "lets do it this way because Windows (and now SuSE) do it this way too". </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Rejecting concepts because they happen to resemble those find in another OS is the best of reasons. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I don't reject the concept in whole. The Control Center part of it looks like a slightly better way of representing gnome's control-center, plus a few other things. How does this scale for KDE, or any other window manager? What I don't like is the slab menu that is pretty much modeled to be the default XP start menu thing. For THAT I haven't seen much useful reasoning as to why it should be used rather than the menu system that we use, of upstream Gnome. This is what feels like copying for copying sake. </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>