RE: 2.4: System Tools - Please try them
- From: Murray Cumming Comneon com
- To: garnacho tuxerver net, snickell stanford edu
- Cc: sisob eircom net, desktop-devel-list gnome org, rodrigo gnome-db org, gpoo ubiobio cl, setup-tool-hackers lists ximian com
- Subject: RE: 2.4: System Tools - Please try them
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:49:22 +0200
> From: Carlos Garnacho [mailto:garnacho tuxerver net]
>
> Hi!
>
> please, have a look at
> http://www.ultimaorbita.com/garnacho/screenshot.png
>
> does this fit in your idea of services tool? at least it does in mine
> :-P. I did this modification to runlevel-admin in this evening, and
> still needs lots of love, but when it's ready I'll commit it
>
> please! any feedback? :-)
>
> Regards
>
> PD: the intelligent priority support is still a TODO :-)
It looks much better. Here are some minor points based on a comparision with
the RedHat 9 services tool:
1. The checkbox column should have a column title. It's not clear what the
checkbox means.
2. It would be nice if the service description for the currently-selected
service was shown in that first screen,
so people can browse through them without opening a secondary dialog for
each one.
3. It looks like we have to start the service by
- selecting it and opening the details dialog.
- selecting "start" as the parameter.
- clicking the "execute" button.
Can't we just have "start" and "stop" buttons?
4. I guess we would have to investigate the "Graphical Mode" and "Less
Options" things in the actual release.
Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com
>
> El mar, 03-06-2003 a las 20:15, Seth Nickell escribió:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Most people don't care about the bootup sequence. They care about
> > whether the service is running or not. A single checkbox
> would do just
> > fine. It would be especially nice if when you checked the box, the
> > service actually started and when you unchecked it, the
> service stopped
> > (and of course, this also effects the "runlevel" settings... however
> > RH's setup tool does it). It would be even cooler if there
> was some way
> > to check if the service was running (for services which
> support this,
> > like atalk, httpd, etc) and only show the checkbox as
> checked if it was.
> >
> > This gets rid of the distinction between "service runs at
> bootup" and
> > "service is running".
> >
> > -Seth
> >
> >
>
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]