Re: FW: Nautilus and Setup Tools

[Chema Celorio <chema ximian com>]

I am well aware of the reasons a particular distribution might not be
interested in using XST. I am all for making XST part of the core GNOME,
simply because what I believe is best for GNOME.

Havoc, wrote :
> Part of the reason you see reinvention from the operating system is
> the fact that GNOME occasionally insists on doing its own proprietary
> solutions that don't fit in to the system as a whole, or that don't
> fit in to a reasonable long-term vision of the open source UNIX
> platform as a whole, or that haven't considered all the requirements
> of an OS primarily targetted at servers and technical users. Just .02
> for your consideration.

I agree with your comments, however i don't believe this is the case
with XST. XST works very nice with the UNIX platform as a whole. We do
inline replacing and you can still use your old OS provided tools.

> Just to toss out a reason this may not be true: what if the operating
> system has its own features for rollback, snapshotting, and location
> profiles.

I don't think that this kind of features make sense at the Operating
System Level. This does not sound like an OS feature to me, maybe you
mean a distribution feature rather than an OS feature. Is this correct ?

Maciej wrote :
> (1) it's hard to write tools of this
> sort that are truly portable to the wide variety of underlying systems

/me nods.
However I believe that the setup tools architecture is the correct
aproach. So yes, it is hard but we have found the current aproach to be
working quiet well.

> out there, and (2) vendors may want to do something different because
> they consider this kind of thing a point of differentiation. I don't
> think either of these are very good reasons to avoid solving the
> problem.

I think this is one of the biggest problem for wide-spread adoption of
XST and i can understand the "bussiness case" in this regard. However
from a pure GNOME standpoint the same gui for configuration is what i
believe is best for the users.

Sander Vesik wrote :
> There are a lot of way more important things to happen for gnome2
> than a setup/configuration UI we think is fine and crack free and for
> which vendors just should make backends. 

I agree

regards,
Chema