Re: GNOME now

[Emily Gonyer <emilyyrose gmail com>]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:
> hi Dave;
>
> On 28 November 2012 13:57, Dave Neary <dneary gnome org> wrote:
>>>> And if GNOME continues to bury all the configuration in secret corners
>>>> without a UI, and even the basic stuff only by an add on (tweak tool)
>>>> you'll continue to fail to empower users to modify their computing
>>>> environment.
>>>
>>>
>>> yes, because we all know that Freedom means Tweaking configuration
>>> options, or *having* to modify your environment in order for it to
>>> work.
>>
>>
>> Is that what Alan said? Sensible defaults and UIless options are two
>> different things. I'd argue that an UIless option is just as much of a fudge
>> as an option in the UI - if there's no UI for it, why is it an option? Just
>> use the default & remove the code paths handling the option.
>
> you probably missed the fact that there is a UI for the options. it's
> an optional UI exactly because the default is sensible and should be
> enough — unless you're planning to tinker with it, in which case the
> UI is available to you. there are actually *three* UIs:
>
>   - the gsettings command line client;
>   - the dconf-editor UI client;
>   - the "tweak" UI client;
>
> with the first one being the one shipped by default.

Lets be intellectually honest - a command line client editor is *NOT*
user-friendly. Having two other editors to edit various things doesn't
make sense - why can't everything be shipped in the *same* UI client?
And why can't it be shipped by default? Whats wrong with that? I love
GNOME by-and-large the way it ships, but that doesn't mean I can't
empathize with those who do not. When we make changes to the shell
hard for the average end-user we effectively clamp down on choice. If
thats not our intention, then we need to figure out how we are going
to make basic changes to the environment accessible.

>
> as opposed to the days of GNOME 2.x, the tweak UI tool is actually
> maintained, hosted on git.gnome.org, released along with the rest of
> GNOME, and designed by the GNOME design team. but, obviously, having
> three maintained UIs for settings, an extension mechanism that blows
> out of the water anything that was ever available in GNOME 2.x, is a
> clear regression for whosoever decides to tinker with GNOME. oh, no,
> wait: it's not, and I'd appreciated if people at least had the
> intellectual honesty and the good grace to acknowledge this bit of
> history, instead of throwing accusations and wildly inappropriate
> conspiracy theories around.
>
> by the way, I always assumed that my ability to tinker with GNOME was
> a right guaranteed and enforced by the license we use, not by having
> UI to toggle options; I probably missed the memo.
>
>> To put it another way: You don't have to weld to hood shut to sell someone a
>> functional car.
>
> this metaphor is *so* wrong, and on so many levels, it's not even
> funny, and I would have expected far more from you Dave.
>
> ciao,
>  Emmanuele.
>
> --
> W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name
> B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list



-- 
Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius,
power and magic in it. -  Goethe

Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't
matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr.Seuss

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that
counts can be counted. - Albert Einstein