On 2/26/06, Rob <lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun February 26 2006 17:12, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 16:55 -0500, Rob wrote: > > > I hope this isn't the design philosophy for GNOME apps > > > nowadays.... "put minimal configurability into the app and > > > let the power users install the equivalent of regedit." > > > > Unfortunately it is. The Gnome developers get very angry if > > you compare it to the Windows registry "because ours is XML > > rather than a binary blob" - which confuses bad DESIGN with > > bad IMPLEMENTATION. > > Yeah, I only run Windows apps under Wine, which saves the > registry as a set of text files rather than a binary blob, and > it's still annoying to have to hack the registry. Geez, guys, > it won't kill your newbie target audience to have an "advanced" > button here and there. > > Rob Yeah! Or how about a "Configure this screensaver" button? So that, you know, I can set the directory that contains my Pictures...?? I question the intelligence of the people behind GNOME when they make decisions such as "NO. I WILL NOT IMPLEMENT CONFIGURABILITY FOR YOUR SLIDESHOW SCREENSAVERS. WILLNOTFIX." Honestly, WTF are they thinking? Not being able to tell an image slideshow screensaver WHERE to find the images is just fundamentally broken, nevermind any of the other configurable screensavers... Geez. I use GNOME, but if things like this are going to become the norm, I may have to go back to Blackbox. Hey GNOME devs, you won't be "too much like Windows" if you allow users to actually configure something such as a screensaver... Cripes. </rant> Dana
