Re: new modules consensus

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 11:22, Murray Cumming wrote:
> 
> Like I say every time, I want it in, because I think that's progress. If
> it's not in then we need to tell the maintainer what he needs to do. He's
> been incredibly patient with us so far, trying to work towards goals that
> we are not clearly defining for him.

I tried to define it:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-June/msg00161.html

There's a whole thread there. I don't think it's so much a matter of
doing exactly what was suggested, as it is of "getting" the basic
concept: every setting is either a sysadmin setting or an end user
setting. The end user settings are designed as a whole top-down as part
of gnome-control-center and other parts of the desktop (e.g. as part of
applets). The sysadmin settings should be designed as part of an "admin
console" sort of idea.

The latest thinking around Red Hat is that sysadmin *settings* are
basically nonexistent for desktop. The sysadmin *tasks* include:
 - monitoring and assisting with desktops, e.g. remote 
   desktop sharing, noticing hardware failures, replacing machines
 - setting up *default* end user settings

So the admin UI would be around these tasks or similar. The admin UI
should be built around managing *multiple* machines, not editing 
a single system - editing one system is creating a future management
headache by getting that system out of sync.

End users having to change systemwide settings in /etc for _desktops_ is
a bug, and building UI for doing so is not the right fix. Each
system-config-* for Red Hat will likely become either sysadmin-oriented,
server-oriented, or deprecated. Right now we have menus "Preferences,"
"System Settings," "System Tools" and I hope to eliminate "System
Settings" (every function there should vanish or go to Preferences (end
user) or System Tools (admin), and perhaps some sort of server-related
category).

Right now gnome-system-tools vs. control-center feels to me like an
implementation detail split: things that require the root password and
things that don't. Which is bad because the end goal should be that
nothing in the "end user setting" category should require the root
password, it's a bug if anything does. That means that end user settings
can just be in control center or the panel.

Of course, we could simply not include gnome-system-tools in Red Hat, so
if people don't agree with the basic premises here that's fine. I'm just
trying to share the conclusions we've reached because I do think they
apply to GNOME upstream as well.

These conclusions are certainly a change from historical Red Hat
thinking, no question. We've spent a lot of effort on end user
system-config-* over the years. And many people at Red Hat probably
don't even agree with me. But I think it's a compelling argument.

Havoc