On Jun 21, 2002 at 12:33 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > The 4.1 configuration makes the 102 key layout incompatible with the > > 104 key one. The 4.2 configuration makes the 104 key layout a strict > > superset of the 102-key one. > > > > This was discussed in depth on Xpert, and the 4.2 layout reflects the > > rough consensus reached. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall Branden > > as saying that he doesn't care either way. > > Well, let me elaborate a little: > > 1) I personally don't care, since I remap the funny keys on the bottom > row to suit my own strange tastes anyway; > 2) I don't want to subject my users to shock and horror. > 3) I don't want to deviate gratuitously from upstream practice. > > All this means is that 1) doesn't do anything to sway me between 2) and > 3). > > I'd appreciate input from the people on this list as to the impact of > XFree86 4.2 on 2) and 3). Are those goals truly in conflict? Is this > only a problem for people with buggy window managers? How many Debian > users use window managers that are buggy in this way?
I was mildly shocked by the Meta/Alt switch. I've grown used to mild shocks of this nature since I started using Linux regularly a few years ago, so I wasn't outraged or anything. I've also grown used to the little glitches "fixing" themselves (or at least becoming more consistent & rational) with each upgrade. In my case I use GNOME + sawfish. I used the Windows key for a while in emacs, and after a couple weeks got annoyed enough to do the Google search for the solution. IMO the right docs in a prominent place are important; a config option to simulate old behavior would be gravy. -- Thatcher Ulrich http://tulrich.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
