On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Well, sure, but I don't place much faith in this exact formulation of > this common argument. 'Caring' isn't something that just magically > Happens or Doesn't Happen. It's not like anyone was maintaining s-c-* > before because it was a bundle of fun, they were maintaining them > because they were the Fedora system configuration tools. And, bluntly, > RH was paying most of them. But now RH's paid resources and most of the > 'we care because they're our most prominent configuration tools' > resources get re-directed into working on the GNOME tools, to the > detriment of the desktop-agnostic tools. > >> Configuration tools that are part of and integrated into >> the desktop do offer a better and consistent user experience, > > They offer a better and more consistent user experience *for users who > use that desktop and only that desktop*. They offer a less consistent > user experience for users who use multiple desktops, and they offer > nothing at all for users who don't use that desktop. > This is not exactly a fair picture. GNOME has offered a set of configuration tools for over a decade now (initially created by Ximian), Ubuntu has used them since it was created. That Fedora and Red Hat are finally working with other distributions to have a unified set of configuration utilities, whether it's designed in KDE or GNOME or others, is a very *good* thing. It means less work for everyone involved and a much better experience for users. It's true, desktops which don't offer a set of configuration utilities get left behind. But I don't think someone running a custom .xinitrc with openbox and xscreensaver and others really cares about a GUI for setting the time or hostname. And if they do they can still use gnome-control-center, it's not that much different. -- Evandro -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
