Re: Debianizing Debian's GNOME/KDE a bit more
> > 1. Using the gconf method isn't good enough because some users
> > won't see the changes (because they have made changes
> > themselves)
>
> No, wrong. I've never said that.
You _are_ pulling my leg, right?
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:08:06 +0100
Message-ID: <[🔎] 87wuagec21.fsf@falcon.wanadoo.fr>
First setting a gconf key will be only useful for new user. If you
change a gconf key in the postinst this will change nothing in users
configurations and users will lost nothing. The good approach is to
use update-alternative as the current desktop-base do.
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:20:15 +0100
Message-ID: <[🔎] 87ekwoxoc0.fsf@falcon.wanadoo.fr>
> If you change the .schema file, the change will be for all users
> (except those that already changed that specific setting, gconf
> only store a user preference when it's different from the default
> one.
Apparently you don't understand, changing a schema file does
*nothing* for current configuration. Then tell me what do you want
to change that ?
You *can't* change users configurations in postinst script.
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:57:35 +0100
Message-ID: <[🔎] 87ism0x8ps.fsf@falcon.wanadoo.fr>
> Certainly you can: Globally setting a key with gconftool does
> that. You can set either default values (stored in
> /etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults) that affect *any* user who do not
> yet have a private setting for that very key.
Then this change nothing. You are trying to customize the desktop in
the wrong way. What we are talking about is to cutomize the desktop
for users who have already a configuration. Changing the shemas file
changes absolutely nothing for my configuration.
You insist on your idea that the chosen method has to affect not only
the configuration of existing users, but the configuration that the
user himself has modified.
> > 2. Some users are just too stupid to read (sorry to put it so
> > blunt, but that's what you are saying, without the PC filter
> > on)
>
> Then why the control-center exist ? Why GNOME or KDE exist ? Why do
> ypou think that those projects exist ? Only for the fun ? Are you
> still living at the stone age with your console ?
Oh, please, give me a break. You are the one arguing that users can't
follow written directions:
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:57:35 +0100
Message-ID: <[🔎] 87ism0x8ps.fsf@falcon.wanadoo.fr>
Of course newbie user can do that without any problems... How should
I type thie line "gconftool-2 --direct ..." ?
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:13:51 +0100
Message-ID: <[🔎] 8765hzvnu8.fsf@falcon.wanadoo.fr>
Tell me how you can tell to an user who come from Windows or for a
newbie Linux user to open a terminal (terminal ? sorry I don't
undertstand !) and type gconftool-2 ... ( where I should type
gconftool-2 ... ?)
And the argument with the stone age console? Not impressive. My
reason for wanting something like GNOME is obviously different from
yours, and I don't argue about tastes because it's pointless.
Now, if you don't mind, please focus on the topic of the thread, which
is having a default GNOME configuration that's a bit more branded.
If you are against that, say it so. The particular subthread deals
with achieving that goal for the GNOME desktop. Sadly you have a say
in that. In particular you make this argument:
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 19:15:37 +0100
Message-ID: <[🔎] 87sml5s4hi.fsf@falcon.wanadoo.fr>
Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org> writes:
> Em Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:33:08 +0100, Carlos Perelló Marín
> <carlos@pemas.net> escreveu:
>
>> Now, I think it's better if we add this change to gnome-session
>> package and gnome-session should depends on desktop-base package.
>
> That would work. What does Christian say about this? Christian?
I disagree. User don't want to use gnome-session and I'll receive
bug report for a desktop-base dependency.
Wrt this, two things:
1. People _not_ using gnome-session won't see the change. I fail
to see the problem with that.
2. I fail to see the problem with gnome-session depending on
desktop-base.
You whine about possibly getting bug reports. Gustavo makes an
even worse argument regarding the anal-retentive nature of some
users, but he's at least right about just tagging the
non-existent bug as "wontfix". Why? 'Cause we say so, that's
why. It's our whim to have the distribution we produce on a
volunteer basis display our logo, mm'key?
> > 3. Stupid users have a right to change this too.
> >
> > 4. There's a Really Good Reason why this isn't easy to configure
> >
> > 5. Changing the default splash screen (which stupid users can't
> > change anyway because of 2 and 4) from the GNOME one to one with
> > the Debian logo stomps on the user's freedom of choice.
>
> Pleas don't deform my words. Anyway I spend my time for nothing...
Pardon me? I did not do such a thing:
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:13:51 +0100
Message-ID: <[🔎] 8765hzvnu8.fsf@falcon.wanadoo.fr>
Really ? You impose new users with the Debian splash screen, I don't
talk that freedom of choice.
Marcelo
Reply to: