Re: Bugs in default GNOME etch?
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.
> 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, 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.
/) David Weinehall <firstname.lastname@example.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/