Re: Proposed: gnome-system-tools

[Ryan McDougall <NQG24419 nifty com>]

On Thu, 2004-22-07 at 12:15 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 09:26 -0600, Ryan McDougall wrote: 
> > On Tue, 2004-20-07 at 17:13 -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:05:47PM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > > (This is a thread-starter for the final module discussion before the release
> > > > team reports back with a summary and proposal, which will aim to represent
> > > > the consensus of the community. Please be kind to authors, and start totally
> > > > new threads if there's a reason to shift off-topic.)
> > > > 
> > > > Proposal:
> > > > 
> > > >   http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-June/msg00099.html
> > > 
> > > <polite>
> > > While the g-s-t are useful, I'm not in favour of including them in
> > > desktop itself until we get further to consolidate the random
> > > elements of control-center with the user oriented tools in g-s-t.
> > > Along the lines of havoc/seth's top down approach.  The more admin
> > > tools will ideally have a similar shell at some point for ui
> > > consistency, but probably need less of a top down design.
> > > </polite>
> > > 
> > 
> > I nth Jody and Havoc's statements. While g-s-t might be good technology,
> > its not clear that it offers a better user experience than what the
> > distros offer.
> 
> At least the user experience that the g-s-t offer is consistent between
> all most used systems (i.e.: linux distros), and this is a key behavior
> if we want GNOME to be tied to the underlying system in a integrated
> way, instead of letting distros fill this gap on their own.
> 
> 	Carlos
> 
I completely agree with you. Thats what I tried to say in the paragraph
below.
> 
> > 
> > Ideally RH et al., could use the g-s-t back-end to implement the
> > control-centre changes they allude to so that control-centre remains
> > relatively portable.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Ryan
> >