Re: Proposed: gnome-system-tools

[Ryan McDougall <NQG24419 nifty com>]

On Thu, 2004-22-07 at 12:19 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 11:25 -0600, Ryan McDougall wrote: 
> > On Tue, 2004-20-07 at 18:20 -0700, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> > > >While g-s-t might be good technology,
> > > >its not clear that it offers a better user experience than what the
> > > >distros offer.
> > > 
> > > Please note that not everyone uses Red Hat. I use Slackware or Debian most
> > > of the time and I welcome g-s-t because the default ISOs have no such gui
> > > tools. Other distros don't either (e.g. gentoo and many others).
> > > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Eugenia
> > 
> > I hope to see as many people as possible standardize on GUI tools some
> > time in the future (an OSS configuration stack). g-s-t is simply not a
> > candidate for wide adoption as it currently is because its not the best
> > solution in terms of real user experience. 
> 
> hmmm, which sets of tools are you comparing for saying that g-s-t "is
> simply not a candidate" because it doesn't offer the best user
> experience? they may not be perfect, but that's a really hard statement.
> 
> 	Carlos

You're right I didn't really back that up, mostly since I wanted to try
to keep the noise down.

YaST is now GPL, it does installs, it does online updates, it does
sysconfig things that g-s-t doesn't (like display config), its all-
singing-all-dancing, etc. However its rather monolithic, needs QT AFAIK,
is linux specific and may be SuSE specific.

RH's system-config-* python apps are very good, small, (mostly)
portable, largely independent scripts. However its probably linux/RH
specific too. 

Probably more options than above.

But all those things boil down to what your technical opinion is. I just
gave mine, thats all. I'm sure I'm missing lots of important nuance, but
to most users they simply care about how easy it is for them to get work
done. I'm not yet convinced that g-s-t helps users get work done.

> 
> > 
> > If g-s-t is part of the vision that Havoc, Seth, Jody, etc. have for a
> > much improved control-panel/system-config*/whatever, only then am I for
> > its inclusion since it has a chance of becoming somewhat standard, and
> > an actual improvement in ease-of-use.
> > 
> > Whether slack or gentoo refuse to ship one of the available options for
> > their own inscrutable reasons is simply orthogonal to the discussion
> > IMO.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Ryan
> > 

Good thing my opinion doesn't count for much! ;)

Cheers,
Ryan