Re: Emacs manual mentioning thumbs mode but not tumme

[Dieter Wilhelm]

"Mathias Dahl" <address@hidden> writes:

Hi Mathias, thanks for answering and for tumme (of course).

>> The point for retaining thumbs is that one can't please everybody with
>> one approach.
>> ...
>> From a user's perspective I think offering choice
>> outstrips every other disadvantage concerning maintainability,
>> consistency, etc.
>
> That might be true in many situations. However, Thumbs and Tumme are
> very similar, feature-wise. There are some differences in how things
> are implemented which I do not think is very important.
>

I also think that the differences aren't *very* important.

...
>
>> There might be users who dislike tumme's name and
>> "unnecessary overhead" and ...
>
...
> don't think they were very good ones. The name, for example, could be
> changed. We could have an alias called `thumbs' which would call

That would be a good idea.

...
> Anyway, my main point is that it feels like a waste of resources to
> keep both packages. The packages are very similar so I don't buy the
> "choice" argument. The choice argument would be a better one if we
> talked about the different MUAs, for example, which seems very
> different in some cases.
>

I'll give you an example: I, personally, prefer the way tumme handles
the images when the size is bigger than the display buffer, it fits
the image to the buffer size.  thumbs is displaying the image in the
original resolution, I'm damn sure that there are users out there who
would prefer it the thumbs' way.

Well, I know that my arguments are weak because the packages are in a
way similar (and tumme seems to cover ?all? abilities of thumbs).

address@hidden:/tmp$ wc thumbs.el tumme.el 
   819   2801  26311 thumbs.el
  2599   9708  96740 tumme.el

But then: So are your arguments for removing the packages 8-).
thumbs.el is small and therefore would not eat lots of resources (I
guess).


-- 
    Best wishes

    H. Dieter Wilhelm
    Darmstadt, Germany