(1/2) > it would be odd to just support a handful of formats. Any format should be supported, then. Furthermore, it shouldn't be just a static preview. I also want to navigate around there a bit then. [...] Hell, I basically want to just have Blender there.
I'm sure the enlightenment folks will be happy to look at your patches for these features you want. I'm not sure how you plan to integrate blender, but you've been programming professionally since 20 years, so I'm sure you have a plan and understand in ways that I simply can't comprehend.
Raster already pointed out, and you ignored, that actually it does support pdfs, and libreoffice already. Seems it just never occurred to me to try them. So you actually won't need to patch that in at all!
> We all know this is oversimplified in so many ways... ;)
Do we? I don't. Maybe you can point me to the relevant lines of source code, where it's more than 3 lines. I'll look forward to seeing your link.
> This was just about adding the video support (which was already implemented and just needed to be called), not for the graphics support in general, right?
No, it does both graphics and video with the same 3 lines of code. As has already been explained and you ignored and/or failed to understand.
> Also, the code isn't even my primary concern at all. Some "improvements" would be just a single line of code, and you'd definitely hate them.
So, to summarise: you bring up an argument that it shouldn't be done due to code complexity, then when that is rebuked because the additional code complexity is very close to zero, just say "the code isn't even my primary concern at all", without elaborating any further to outline what your concern actually is. And to summarise the summary: you don't actually have any reasoning, you just don't like it because you don't like it.
> But just the repetition doesn't make it sound more reasonable to me tbh
Then why do you seem to think that saying "herp derp, I don't understand therefore it's a cult" over and over is going to sound more reasonable to me at some point?
> That might very much be my fault!
Yep
> Unfortunately, you didn't help me in that regard either so far.
Maybe it'd help if you pulled your head out of your ass and actually read what I wrote.
> Well, if you have a superior approach, which is quicker and more seamless, I'd definitely want us to see it using for everything!
We're talking about
previewing. I have a superior approach
for previewing. Which leads me to re-state my previous question: Did I say "editing the thing" or "working with the thing"?
> It's probably just another three lines of code to make the mouse position available in pixel granularity. And then we can basically start porting everything into that new paradigm. Why should we then stick with the inferior one?
I suspect it'll be much more complex than that, but you're a professional programmer since 20 years who has never looked at the code or even run the software, so you probably know better than I do.
I'm sure the e folks will be happy to look at the patches you provide for this functionality you want.
I suspect there might be a bit of discussion about things like "is this desirable" and "does this break compatibility with existing things" because this is a bizarro thing that you've invented out of nowhere based on nothing anybody said anywhere ever. But I'm sure they'll be happy to discuss it once you submit a patch.
> I had hoped that, once someone starts to develop such a "new class of [...] applications", we could have a more modern foundation for it than ttys.
I look forward to seeing your patch that does this without breaking compatibility with ~50 years of legacy software.
> three or four file formats (or whatever EFL supports)
Again, EFL supports a lot of formats. Including ones I didn't even know about, like the pdf and libreoffice docs you wanted. I guess you didn't bother reading that before.
> Technically, the application that runs your terminal _is_ a GUI application. I'm not aware of any terminal-based X11 emulators. That's just what I meant. Not more, not less.
So what's your point? How is it relevant that my terminal emulator runs on X? I'm not talking about the environment that runs my terminal, I'm talking about things that run
in my terminal.
As for "terminal-based X11 emulators:, there's a fairly prominent one you might have heard of, it's called xorg. If you try to run 'startx' inside an X session you'll have problems.
> Ahh, you're also one of the authors of some parts of that software stack?
When did I say that?
> Either way, no I don't expect anything
You demanded that support for terminology's graphics sequences needed to be patched into every terminal emulator that exists in order for you to consider it valid for some reason.
By doing so, you're saying that people who write software that supports these graphical protocols (or maybe the authors of the terminals? It's unclear who you expected to do this for you) should jump through huge, unnecessary hoops just so that you can run their software (that you claim you don't want to run), rather than you..........simply running their software in the environment it requires.
