RE: 2.4 Module List - zenity

> From: Glynn Foster [mailto:glynn foster sun com] 
> Subject: RE: 2.4 Module List - zenity
> > So far it doesn't sound like much more than a language binding. 
> It would be a rather lame language binding ;)

But the use-case seems to be similar.

> > A few users might like to write nautilus scripts for 
> themselves. But surely
> > anything that's useful for lots of users should be a real 
> feature. If we are
> > just talking about a tiny minority of users then I don't 
> think it belongs in
> > the Desktop.
> Well, I can see us shipping a bunch of really useful nautilus scripts
> with our desktop - it's basically a case of identifying which ones we
> should go with. Zenity would be a side effect of shipping 
> those scripts.

If we ship those scripts then we should ship zenity. But we shouldn't just
create those scripts to justify the shipping of zenity.

So "more Nautilus scripts" is a more appropriate proposed module or feature
addition. Actually I'm likely to argue against that too, unless someone
comes up with some compelling feature that belongs in a script rather than
the regular GUI.

> It should also be noted that gdialog was part of GNOME 2.2 
> Desktop - so,
> we have a basic feature regression now ;)

Yes, I just noticed that while investigating. Are a lot of people
complaining about that regression? As I understand it a lot of the stuff
that used to be in scripts is now regular Nautilus functionality.

> > I think sysadmins are capable of downloading and installing whatever
> > language binding they think they need. Actually, I doubt 
> that sysadmins want
> > to write GUIs anyway.
> True, but making that assumption would be a pretty bad idea - I think
> that more and more sysadmins being introduced to Linux/GNOME will
> definitely want to use some sort of UI.

So basically we don't know what sysadmins want.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]