[gnome-love] Re: GNOME user environment brainstorming
- From: Glynn Foster <glynn foster ireland sun com>
- To: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Cc: nautilus-list eazel com, gnome-love gnome org, gnome-2-0-list gnome org, Calum Benson <calum benson ireland sun com>, "James M. Cape" <jcape ignore-your tv>, Anna Dirks <anna ximian com>, Joakim Ziegler <joakim ximian com>
- Subject: [gnome-love] Re: GNOME user environment brainstorming
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:17:54 +0100
Havoc Pennington wrote:
Well, criterion a) would eliminate Wanda the Fish, which is blatantly
unacceptable ;-)
Heh, that's funny...it seems to be on the top of the list here too :P
GConf does allow this, more or less... though apps have to actually
call gconf_is_writable() or whatever it's called and properly
desensitize the options in the GUI, and I'm sure none of them
will. ;-)
Okay...so if in porting to the new widget set, we port over to gconf and
force people to use this. If we want wide adoption of GNOME in places
like big companies who have some sort of support for their desktop, then
they certainly don't want users to be configuring their desktop and making
their lives harder :)
Is there any way that we can draw up a list of fixed requirements for apps to
be included in 2.0 [I know this was discussed at length in GUADEC] but I think
this is another important issue....a) adoption of gconf b) provide locking
down mechanisms
Yes, non-configuring takes all the fun out of a desktop [and personally I can't
stand the thought] but I can see huge advantages in having this facility.
Glynn ;)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]