Re: Lack of transparency of automatic actions
Hendrik Sattler <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Am Montag 16 Oktober 2006 11:34 schrieb Frank KÃ¼ster:
>> Hendrik Sattler <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >> Even worse, you again have to use KDE or Gnome to take advantage of
>> >> network-manager. Why are we leaving CLI users out in the cold?
>> > Good question. The concept for a cli like this would need many thoughts,
>> > though. A GUI makes that a bit easier.
>> It's not "(KDE or GNOME) vs. CLI". I usually work under X, but I don't
>> use a Desktop Environment. I use some of the GUI tools they offer, but
>> it's always unclear to me to what extent this is expected to work at
>> all, and which side effects it may have (like creation of stuff called
>> "icons" on my desktop background, if I use the wrong WindowManager, or
>> "useful" subdirectories below $HOME).
> AFAIK, knetworkmanager only needs a compatible system tray and kwallet (to
> store the keys). I didn't try with Xfce or another WM, though. WMaker is
> probably a good test candidate.
> Normally, they do not create "icons".
And it should fail with an explanation if such is not available. There
is nthing worse than an application that you start and then it puts
itself in an non-existent system tray and sits there unreachable.
> But there is always a lack of control applications, that's true. Another
> example are passkey agents for current bluez (there is only one for Gnome).