[Usability] Re: Configuration Applications

[michael chang <thenewme91 gmail com>]

I apologise in advance for any 'tones' in this message, offensive or
otherwise.  Please take everything I say 'with a grain of salt'.

> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 13:40:34 +0200
> From: Estradin Solaris <estradin gmail com>
> Subject: [Usability] Configuration Applications
> To: usability gnome org
> Message-ID:
>         <9f3b0b250510050440i6a090ab5ybd3eaed0d83974f1 mail gmail com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi,
>
> I guess this has been already discussed, but i would like to know the
> reasons for it. As a user, I find it quite easy to configure any system
> settings in Mac OS X, because all of the system settings are in the same
> place: System Preferences. GNOME seems to try to do this, but IMHO, it
> fails. Firstly, because some very important settings are not in the

I'm not surprised; IIRC, generally people who develop the Linux kernel
don't believe that system configuration belongs in a Desktop
environment/window manager such as GNOME; since some components of
such things have to be configured during kernel compilation, or
involve sending signals/commands/settings to the kerenl.  Other
components involve wrapping around existing programs (which require
the existing program) or replace it (making it incompatable with the
command-line equivilant).  It is worth noting that while it would be
nice for GNOME to have this; all the effort would need to be
duplicated in other window managers/desktop environments (e.g. twm,
KDE, icewm, xfce, any other one you can think of).  (Furthermore,
software is configured at different levels for different systems; e.g.
Ubuntu uses it's X-based whatever install plus aptitude, Debian uses
command-line-based aptitude (does it support X? I don't know...),
(both Ubuntu/Debian are dpkg-based) SuSE uses YaST, if you compiled
Linux yourself you're editing 5 million different configs in /etc and
everywhere in between...)

It seems to me that for this problem to be truly solved, the
architecture of system configuration needs to be rewritten, meaning
that the entire architecture of Linux in general needs to be
rewritten.  A comprimise would work in the meantime; however, it seems
to me that for something like this is very difficult (if not
impossible) unless you, running the desktop environment, have full
control over the environment (like how Apple has control over most
components in OS X, such as the 'kernel' or whatever that gets access
to the hardware, etc. etc. etc.).

Of course, from a usability standpoint, this sounds like something
that needs to be dealt with anyways (duplication, as well as
configuration for new users versus experienced Unix/Linux users, where
the same config is listed twice and the grouping of
Mice/Keyboard/Input seperate or with X11/Display settings).  Actually
dealing with it is the hard part.  I guess usability is just one of
those things where you can't please everybody.

--
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.