RFC: KConfig XT (KDE 3.2)

[Daniel Stone]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 09:07:42PM -0800, Neil Stevens scrawled:
> On Sunday March 16, 2003 08:38, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > You've utterly missed the point - mine, KConfig XT's, and this entire
> > thread's.
> 
> No I didn't miss where Waldo's "goals" list talks about defaults.  I didn't 
> miss all the work Waldo and others have done on the "kiosk" system 
> administration.  I didn't miss where the author of KConfEdit seems to 
> agree that it's meant for system administrators.
> 
> I will grant you that I've missed your point.  Is it that feel defaults 
> hard-coded in source files are good?

No. Read my mails, and I say that having defaults more explicitly
defined is a very good thing.

> Is it that you think anyone who 
> deserves the title system administrator ought to be forced to configure 
> his system's KDE with vi rather than a graphical tool?

If that's what it takes to prevent every user from going "w00t, it's
regedt32", and fucking up their system, yes.

> Are you confused 
> between this thread and the one talking about a database backend to 
> KConfig?

no, because i haven't read the bloody thing, and i really don't intend
to. in fact, i mainly skim this list, like most others, because right
now, kde is about priority 748 right now, and your constant
contrarian-for-the-sake-of-it posts are starting to shit me to tears,
and are succeeding only in ramping kde further down my list of
priorities.

of course, you will see this as a positive, so congratulations.

good work. you've won, so i don't see any need to continue posting to
this bullshit thread.

scant regards,
daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030317/66cec0b7/attachment.sig>