Re: why bonobo-config

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Michael Meeks <michael ximian com> writes: 
>         Yes - true, but the real issue here is maintainership - and it
> seems that it is not possible to get changes into GConf[1],

Many other people have had success getting changes in. *shrug*

But I don't want to try and rehash old mail archives.

> that it's
> design is strongly based on a premis that CORBA shouldn't be exposed -
> which is antithetical to the GNOME viewpoint. Luckily we don't have 6
> extra layers of abstraction, just 1.

Actually, it's antithetical to YOUR viewpoint, not the GNOME
viewpoint.

There are plenty of significant GNOME hackers that are not on board
with the CORBA-everywhere plans that you have.  Personally I think we
should be focusing on the end-user desktop.  Creating the ultimate
CORBA-based app framework is interesting, but I don't think it's what
GNOME should be about right now.

For example, when the board met at GUADEC and discussed GNOME and what
people thought its goals should be, this was not suggested by anyone
as an important one.

I'm not saying the board represents all GNOME hackers, just using it
as an example of a bunch of GNOME people in a room together.

Some people want to make nice apps with a good UI that work, and fix
problems such as xalf, cut-and-paste, keyboard navigation, control
center, etc. - the API churn caused by the push for CORBA everywhere
just gets in the way. Look at all the posts here where people say "I
don't give a damn about GConf vs. bonobo-config, I just want to know
which one to use."

Anyhow, GConf will remain stable and be supported. So I hope it will
be appealing for people who are focused on app functionality.
But if it isn't in their opinion helpful for delivering nice user
features, they shouldn't be forced to use it.

All that aside, please don't push your views as the GNOME dogma,
because the GNOME direction here is still very much open to debate.

Havoc