Ian Reinhart Geiser
geiseri at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 30 16:07:23 BST 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Monday 30 June 2003 10:20 am, you wrote:
> On Monday 30 June 2003 14:48, Ian Reinhart Geiser wrote:
> > I know we love to live in our geek fantasy world, but i can assure you
> > this is not the case. Outside of a few KDE hackers, rarely is a text
> > editor used in ~/.kde/share/config/*rc :)
> I wonder why I see so much requests for documentation of our config files
> then. Must be my geeky fantasy world.
Not to be _too_ offensive but you are, im sure there are far more bug reports
for the lack of coherent UIs than the readability of a file. I have about
250 users now that I know are using KDE personally in companies, and ive
never had an issue with config files... ive had more issues with the
confusing nature of the UI over the config files ;)
> > Im thinking the same number of people
> > who used ResEdit and Resource Workshop probably edit rc files. Even a
> > sysadmin now days will just wack the file and move on, and why should
> > they edit the file even with our token readability tag our poor sysadmin
> > would be lost. Its not like we document each kconfig entry anyway.
> That's rather a poor argument. because we do a poor job of documenting our
> configuration files we should make them more obscure? I think the correct
> answer is that we should provide a framework that makes documentation of
> configuration entries easier. This is a step backwards.
Not really but okay, if its better to ensure we have more convoluted
configuration dialogs then lets keep going the old way. IMHO readability to
the user, and ease of use are far far more important that if the config file
is readable anyway.
> > Also
> > KAutoConfig automates the config process, so the developer wont have to
> > maintain it either. Really the only time it needs to be known what the
> > value is is when they write a conf update script.
> > > > I might buy the list reorder argument, but thats where it stops.
> > >
> > > "list reorder"?
> > Currently its "Plain Fuzzy Analog" if in the future it became "Binary
> > Plain Fuzzy Analog" it would get screwed up... so there an index ->
> > mapper might make sense. But as I said above, without starting to open
> > up a LARGE area of special code to handle special cases, this is not
> > trivial.
> Maybe the design should be reevaluated then. It's rather a huge burden if
> we can no longer polish our UI without causing configuration breakage.
Well you have to admit on a simple browse of kde apps everyone has their own
pet way of doing config files. KAutoConfig provides a clean simple way to
make standard and consistent conifg widgets.
Personally if this is a matter of changing the property in the map then lets
go that route, but imho the design as stands works for pretty much every case
I have tried, save for a few cornercases where i was abusing the kconfig
BTW, when i say "Geekworld" or "Geek", im not trying to be deragatory, I just
want to make sure we are aware that not everyone thinks like an OSS developer
on Unix. Some people just *gasp* use KDE :) IMHO we need to cater to them
first, then we will rock as a DE.
-ian reinhart geiser
- --:Ian Reinhart Geiser <geiseri at yahoo.com>
- --:Public Key: http://geiseri.myip.org/~geiseri/publickey.asc
- --:Public Calender: http://geiseri.myip.org/~geiseri/publicevents.ics
- --:Jabber: geiseri at geiseri.myip.org
- --:Be an optimist -- at least until they start moving animals in
- --: pairs to Cape Canaveral. ~ Source Unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the kde-core-devel