Amichai Rotman posted on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:22:57 +0200 as excerpted:
> Why go so far?
>
> Is there a special reason for using KDE?
>
> For instance: Ubuntu Netbook Release comes with a locked panel (GNOME) -
> you can't add to it or remove from it.
[Grumble mutter grumble, upside down quoting and HTML mail both...
grumble!]
Well, using permissions to make it read-only effectively locks it, too,
it's a native Linux/*ix solution, and as Peter says, this is a KDE list,
so switching to something other than KDE would in context be more foreign
than simply using the native *ix permissions to lock it.
OTOH, KDE's whole philosophy, at least as compared to GNOME's, seems to be
to cater to the power users and customizers, while GNOME's seems to be
that there's only one "proper" way to do it, and that customizing is
/bad/, so yeah, talking about locking down a KDE installation like that,
when a good part of the point of kde is to allow customization, seems
rather less natural than taking something like GNOME, designed to allow
the user less customization to begin with, and locking it down further.
FWIW, back in KDE3, it was possible to run kde in kiosk mode, with
everything locked down. But to my knowledge, nobody has demonstrated
enough interest in extending the concept to KDE4, to have actually
developed it. Of course, from my viewpoint that's reasonable enough.
Admins that want locked-down installations can install GNOME, as it seems
more suited to that by definition. Trying to do that to KDE... is rather
missing the point!
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
