On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 09:34:24AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> > I think that those advanced settings are better handled through optional >> > after-installation downloads, in much the same way that we don't ship >> > gnome-tweak-tool in the default installation (because if those settings >> > were required, we would really want them to be in the default settings UI). >> ^^^^^^^^ >> >> I find this statement offensive to the intelligence of our users. It >> basically disrepects some users' preferences by saying they aren't >> "required" so it should be harder to set them. > > No, it means that we don't show things that: > 1) don't match use cases we're interested in > 2) are work-arounds for particular use cases instead of properly designed fixes > 3) are necessary for deployments, but not for individual users > > If you think there are settings that are in gnome-tweak-tool should be available > in the main Settings panel, file a bug against gnome-control-center upstream, > and we'll consider it (if it hasn't already been). > > We don't insult our users' intelligence, we just don't show settings that only > benefit a very small minority of our users, especially when that very small minority > is part of the existing Fedora and GNOME users that already know about the "TweakUI" > tools available. That's all well and good and appropriate, up to a point. Otherwise you have a rather circular problem, where the lack of power management capability and exposure to the user causes the user base who want better power management to be in the minority, as they inevitably seek out other options where power management is a priority. -- Chris Murphy -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
