On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 18:06 +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 09:32:07PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 21:16 +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 06:34:18AM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 11:51 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > > > Le samedi 20 janvier 2007 à 04:30 -0500, Greg Folkert a écrit : > > > > > > I would assert they are not listening to their former BIGGEST fans and > > > > > > users. You can easily find droves rants/discussions of current GNOME > > > > > > users very disgruntled with the REMOVAL of features that previously were > > > > > > there. Some users are now FORMER GNOME users due to these removals. > > > > > > > > > > Features. Features, features, features. Do you only want features, > > > > > without even knowing whether they are useful? Sorry, usability is not > > > > > about features. > > > > > > > > Are you telling me that these features I keep see getting removed are > > > > *NOT* about usability for me? OK, functionality to me... Functionality > > > > for me determines my usability. It I have to use some archaic command > > > > like (btw I don't really mind them *IF* they are well documented) but > > > > like: > > > > gconftool-2.3-1-9.mark32 -a2 -r4 --/usr/sbin/someothercommand \ > > > > \-\-optionforexternalcommand -32 --etc -e -t-c \ > > > > --corruptmysettingsplease > > > > > > You *do* know that there is a graphical gconf-editor, right? > > > > > > [snip] > > > > Umm yes, a clumsy replacement for a former GOOD configuration system. > > My mention of the gconf-editor wasn't about whether it's a good or bad > way of configurating a system, just pointing out that your arguments > would be more credible if you didn't use contrived examples to make > seem more complicated than they are. Then why mention it at all? My contrived example is plausible. > > Sure, it has paths and other junk... many things are not able to be > > edited or added in gconf-editor. gconf-editor is a pile of crap. No > > better than the cli ones. > > > > I have regularly had my GCONF stuff partially corrupted in any case. > > Associations go away, programs crash spontaneously, I look for bugs... > > find the exact same things I have. Solution or workaround? remove *ALL* > > user gconf and gnome settings. Literally nuke them. > > Fascinating. That's *never* happened here. Ever. Oh, sorry. I guess this is my bad, I guess *I AM* the only one. In that case. Then move along now, nothing to see here, keep you eyes to yourself > > [snip] > > Oh, and by the way, there's very few things I've ever lacked in ways of > configuration in GNOME; in fact, the only thing I can think of is how > focusing works in metacity. It's implementation of sloppy focus is > quite lousy IMHO, but then again, not even changing the focus setting > through gconf helps that, since it's a lousy implementation, not lack of > configurability that causes my grief. I guess you have tricked yourself into working like a newbie. -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part