Hi, On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 04:37, Richard Stallman wrote: > It would sure be a nice thing to have a convenient GNOME feature to > change all the X server configuration options--and 200 other things > that users might want to configure. No, I don't agree there. What we need is to have XFree/whatever the programs underneath need less options, and less configuration. All the software underlying GNOME is going this way: - Linux started with things like devfs, modules, and hotplug. Then with 2.5 comes this sort of ramfs (don't remember the name on top of my head) that would, if I understood well, be able to load all the drivers dynamically (yes, even the ones that need to be added *very* early on in the boot process). That means that there is less configuration on this side. - XFree86: the best example (known to me) is the PowerMac port of XFree86 that integrates very well with the hardware. The kernel gets information off the Open Firmware (like a BIOS but much better, ask Sparc admins), and XFree86 gets the info off the kernel. In the end the same configuration file works on most hardware, with very few changes (the obvious being the resolution) - acme: my personal favourite (I'm biased, I wrote it). A very simple tool that integrates the hardware (any Apple laptop or a desktop with an Apple Pro keyboard) with GNOME. The volume keys show a feedback popup when pressed, the power key gives the GNOME logout screen, the eject button does what it should. > The ultimate purpose of a GUI is to make the system convenient for > users; making the underlying GUI system technically powerful is a > secondary goal. To make the GNU system convenient, we need GNOME to > flesh out its user-level features, to provide a coherent, > well-organized collection of GUIs for lots of straightforward jobs > that users want to do with their computers. "ultimate purpose" ? I thought it was the prime one. Or is "making it pretty" the prime one ? Anyway, sometimes fleshing out is not always the right solution. Look at xchat for GNOME 1.4 and xchat for GNOME 2. What's profiling is a better organisation of the preferences, easier to use UI altogether, and no loss of features/configurability. But you're right saying that we need to provide something coherent and straight-forward. But something it's hard to deal with what's underneath (try writing a configuration UI for sendmail), and we need help from the guys below. The guys below would be the people writing the libraries, people writing everything that drives the hardware, the people writing essential OS components. <snip> (You should try to focus, Richard, focus on the topic discussed, stop going sideways, we all know your opinion, no need to add another layer of it). As a sidenote, I'd say that GNOME is certainly not solely to be used on GNU systems, and I think it's very wrong from you Richard to say that non-GNU systems should be not be treated equally to GNU systems. Companies such as Sun, HP, Compaq and IBM have interest in GNOME and most of them committing money and people to the project. Most of them also want to see GNOME running on their non-GNU systems. The fact is that most people use GNU systems, and although they are a driving force, just take a look at who the maintainers for the different core packages are. Most of them are employed full-time to work on GNOME, improving it all the time, for money, for GNU and non-GNU systems. Make the FSF hire a few hackers to work on GNOME, and then you can come back to tell us that GNU systems should be the primary focus of the project. Hacking for GNU systems doesn't pay my rent and I wish I was hacking for a non-GNU one to pay for it. Cheers -- /Bastien Nocera http://hadess.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part