Re: [Usability]The Real GNOME Project [Was: Feedback on GNOME 2]

Janne Morén wrote:
> To get back on topic: what is wrong with having most little-used options
> in gconf, and avoid cluttering up the UI tools for the vast majority of
> users that well and truly do not need them and do not care?

Nothing, I think it's a most sensible compromise. But perhaps
sensibility is off topic in this thread ...

OTOH, I'm under the impression that many users think that GNOME 2 is a
reduced version of GNOME 1.4, ignoring that a) advanced configuration
options are/will be possible thanks to gconf b) part of the lacking
functionality will be (re-)implemented in GNOME 2.2. Perhaps there is a
page that explains neatly the current situation and the long term aims
of the GNOME developers: can someone point it out to complaining users?
(and to me, thanks?) If it doesn't exist, it should be created.

BTW, I was going to write and submit my personal experience with GNOME 2
(in the end, I agree with the developers view), I think I'll wait until
this thread dies out.

To Derek: while I do think that your objections deserved an answer (not
sarcasm, not the usual "use something else then" dismissal), I'm under
the impression that there's some misunderstanding involved; from what
I've read, maybe RH GNOME isn't the most appropriate environment to
judge 'pure' GNOME functionality. Give it another chance, with gconf and
similar programs we can have the best of two worlds: a desktop that
'simply works' for corporate/inexperienced users and a flexible,
configurable environment in the Linux tradition.


Roberto Rosselli Del Turco      e-mail:	rosselli cisi unito it
Dipartimento di Scienze			rosselli ling unipi it
del Linguaggio			Then spoke the thunder	DA
Universita' di Torino		Datta: what have we given?  (TSE)

   Hige sceal the heardra,     heorte the cenre,
   mod sceal the mare,       the ure maegen litlath.  (Maldon 312-3)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]