Re: [Fwd: GUADEC cancelled due to beer shortage]

[Ghee Teo <Ghee Teo Sun COM>]

Mark McLoughlin wrote:

> > I find the current rationales difficult to justify introducing another
> > level of complexity to user and system
> > admins, or is it just me :(
> >    
>
> 	You don't regard making simultaneous logins sharing the same home
> directory relatively non-broken as being a big win?
   I have heard a lot about when people can not log in more than once 
sharing the same
home directory, but I have seen little evidence that gconf is to be 
blamed for all these.
Here at Sun, these are either have to do with:
- internally deployed version of evolution which delivers its own copy 
of gconfd. That
 certainly causes conflicts and problem with the default version.
- staroffice configuration in shared home directory problem
- profiling problem in mozilla
- occaionally bonobo problem because user's IP has been recycled
Abeit there are occasional crashes of  key processes that leaves 
~/.gconf in some
undefined state.

> 	You're going to try and tell me that this isn't one of the biggest
> gripes you personally hear about GNOME every day? :-)
   The biggest gripes I have heard is that about GNOME every other day 
are like:
- I set up my GNOME 2.0 desktop with certain panel layout, when I login 
to JDS they are gone
- I have my JDS running sharing home directory, login to Sunray which 
only have GNOME 2.0,
 I log back in to JDS, my panel no longer appear at the bottom.
 etc..

   I think these little usability problems annoyed users more than 
ever. I like to see if the further
enhancement can address these problems.
   Assume from 2.8 we can have backend xml store isolated, it doesn't 
interfere with pre-2.8.
which is good. When 2.8 comes out, can the 2.8 continues to use the 2.8 
version of xml
store only, the anwser is not. The 2.8 and 2.8 next will have to share 
the same backend data store,
one problem this enhancement attempt to fix comes back again.
Unless we make further enhancement such that *each version* of gconf 
releases uses its
*own version* of the backend configuration data.
Can this be done, is this a good idea to explore this?

-Ghee


> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>