On 10 November 2013 20:55, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:02:46 +0000, Ian Malone wrote: > >> You are arguing that system management should only be possible through >> a GUI where the affected components are themselves graphical. > > No, not at all. > >> Please take some time to reflect on how ridiculous that is. > > http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct The dreaded code of conduct! I'm being horrible to you! I take it all back! Hang on: "When we disagree, we try to understand why." That's what I asked. > >> Should non-gui packages be excluded from automatic updates because the >> tool used to manage that is graphical? > without affecting LibreOffice. A "System Updates" tool that handles all > updates of installed low-level "packages" could be a completely different > piece of software. > >> Should firewall management be only possible at the CLI? > > No. And firewall-config is a GUI. > I don't understand why you've asked that question. > >> I'm looking at the software management menu >> in KDE right now and on my system there are 26 entries listed in the >> servers management section, since these are non-graphical should they >> be dropped? > > I don't understand why you've asked that question. > It seems to me you may have misunderstood something _completely_. > You're the one that keeps saying you don't understand... I'll try again. And then I'll give up, because I know how futile it is to argue when the other side is has already decided how things must be. > What I don't like is the situation that somebody uses a graphical tool to > install "software", and the installed stuff doesn't show up anywhere in > the graphical desktop user interface (such as a menu system), but is only > listed as installed. That's the "WTF?" scenario, where the user needs to > be an expert to figure out that the installed thing is CLI-only (or not > even "executable" at all) and something that cannot be "used" from within > the desktop UI. > If an "application installer" will be able to install arbitrary > "packages", I would welcome a very obvious distinction in the UI, > a special interface for specific types of components and "add-ons". > Not old-school ambiguous "categories". What I don't like is a graphical > "package tool" that tries to handle the 40,000 "packages" by sorting them > into categories. And the user is confronted with many thousands of "lib" > packages, for example, which are no "applications" (no "programs" to > use). A developer (or a sysadmin) has different requirements. What you are saying here is that if we want a graphical package manager it must be separate to an 'application manger' for 'normal' users (you've used the word 'software', which until today I thought meant anything that ran on a computer). I can only see that *increasing* confusion as you're creating a distinction based on whether a package contains graphical tools or not. And to work out where you want to install something from will depend on whether it's an application, a tool or a library. And so someone who has started with the system for a while and finds they want to install a library or command line tool now has to learn a new tool to do it with. I agree with your final paragraph, I don't see why it should be a problem to simply distinguish in the package manager what the type of package is. It's got a desktop file, it's probably an application, it doesn't, it's probably not. Finally, to return to auto-launching of programs on install. I don't think it's helpful. This is the only time the user ever interacts with the software in that way. Afterwards they're left to figure out on their own where it is. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
