On 28/02/2008, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek <jakub.rusinek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kelly Miller pisze: > > You're joking, right? > No, I'm not. From users point, YaST-GTK is more readable and better > organized. > > I mean, two minutes with YaST-GTK and I'd > > already gotten sick of the fact that it acts like just about > > everything else in Gnome anymore; that the user should only be able to > > reach the minimum of options and anything else should be buried. > You use KDE, right? As do I. You have a problem with KDE, right? It's bad? It offers options and you think that people don't want options => must not allow configuration? > > And it's a fact that the GTK installer is utterly brain-dead. > Don't be rude... Most of people do not require LOAD of options, but they > expect simple "just works", without hassle. I find it rude that you're suggesting that having options => doesn't "just work". You could have the same behaviour as "default" but let people change it; having sane defaults is not the same as refusing to accept people won't always like *your* defaults. This *is* fairly common with GTk / GNOME based applications (and it seems to be a trend throughout that particular stack / framework / whatever you want to call it). It's extremely frustrating. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
