RFC: KConfig XT (KDE 3.2)

Christoph Cullmann crossfire at babylon2k.de
Mon Mar 17 21:54:20 GMT 2003

Hash: SHA1

> See, that's the exact attitude that I'm fearing KConfEdit will enforce.
> You talk about "1%" of users... But every feature has a different "1%"
> that it affects!  So if you remove 50 different "1%" options, you hurt up
> to 50% of the users!
First: I like the idea of having a place to store default values, ranges and 
comments about the config options very much, that was/is needed and a would 
be a really cool extension (without having any kconfeditor/** app in 
thought). It just would make more sense to have this stuff located somewhere 
on the filesystem to:
a) have some overview of the existing options/ranges/values for an app
b) to allow some sysadmin to finetune the defaults for the system (at least I 
would like that ;)

Back to thread:
 I like the idea of having some kconfeditor or how we call it. Neil is right, 
that if we hide options which use 1% we can get to a point where much stuff 
is hidden which is NEEDED for many people. But there is stuff which
a) Is used by nearly nobody
b) Is intented not to be changed just because somebody clicks around like in 
the normal config dialogs

KConfEdit would be in my eyes a nice tool for sysadmins to set some more 
advanced options right without first searching through 100ths files to find 
the right place. Yes, using a texteditor is nice, but sometimes it is nice to 
have some basic gui, too (and if that gui shows the default values & ranges & 
comments it will make faults harder). Yeah, some options may not be in the 
config dialogs of the apps, but that is GOOD. Now there are allready much 
stuff which is not 100% in the config dialogs, which is good. I mean, sure, I 
could give for example Kate 100th options to config stuff in the dialog, 
which would lead to: 90% of the users can't use the config dialog as it is 
messed (even with a lots of categories and "advanced buttons"). There is 
stuff which should be hidden from the normal users, at least in my opinion. 
But such a KConfEditor tool would make it easier for the advanced ones to set 
this stuff right (yeah, they would not just hack in some files, they would 
even get some info what they do !). 


- -- 
Christoph Cullmann
KDE Developer, kde.org Co-Maintainer
http://www.babylon2k.de, cullmann at kde.org
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list