[openbox] Images in the menu

[Mikael Magnusson]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Tero Grundström wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Lucas Hazel wrote:
>> like most people I'm sure Mikael has a Real-Life___ and sending the patch
>> is a much quicker way to get a feature added, rather than waiting for
>> someone to do it for you (hell, you might even learn something).
>
> Well I definately would and should learn something, before I'd be able to
> send a single patch, because I'm not a programmer. But this doesn't make
> it wrong for me to express opinions, feature requests or bug reports.
>
> The point is that for all software, closed or opensource, there are
> the ones who use it and the ones who develop. This is the way /it is/ and
> the way it will /always/ be, *like it or not*. This is a widely accepted
> fact in opensource community too, IMHO. But surely opensource has also the
> advantage that everybody skillfull enough *can* take part in the
> development, speeding it up.
>
> It is also a fact that wide *user* base is the single and only reason
> Linux is talked in the press and feared by Microsoft... Linux developers
> need users just like users need developers.
>
> Why would, for example, Linux kernel be still developed without *users*?
> For the "handfull" of devs?
>
> How on earth, would we have such a wide support for hardware without the
> *success* Linux now enjoys?
>
> How much more bugs would the kernel have without the bug reports of
> *users* (many of whom can't code a single line).

There is a bit of a difference between a bug report and a feature though. 
At first all i did in #openbox was report bugs, which is an appreciated 
thing, but i also made a few feature requests every now and then, to which 
they would mostly say 'patch pls'. Eventually i opened up the source and 
looked at it.

> You see we are *all* important for Linux and other software as a whole.

But developers are more important ;)

> BTW, <if I would send Magnusson a patch for a improvement I like, I'm
> pretty sure he would not add it to openbox mainline. Openbox seems to be
> considered "perfect", hence no new releases in a long time. So what would
> be the point of sending patches?

That's some pretty funky logic, if i tell you to send patches, it's hardly 
because i won't accept them. The reason there isn't a release is there 
aren't really that many changes in cvs right now from 3.2, which would 
change if more people sent patches and/or i had a bit more free time.

--
Mikael Magnusson