[linux-elitists] Re: Yet another mozilla atrocity
Fri Oct 3 07:16:16 PDT 2003
<quote who="Rick Moen">
> What the frell? Why would Gnumeric's settings be stashed under those for
> GConf? Furthermore, what's with the nine levels deep of subdirectories?
> Jeezux. It's just a furshlugginer conf file!
GConf has multiple backends; the current file-based backend has some obvious
deficiencies (not related to "oh but Muuuuum, I can't edit it with my text
editor!") which will be fixed, most likely in the GNOME 2.6 timeframe. But
it also allows us to store system (default/mandatory) and user GConf stuff
in network-aware storage, such as ACAP (yikes), LDAP or SQL, etc., etc. This
will be a huge advantage to administrators dealing with many desktops.
> I'm sorry, but that's not progress, it's not good design, and it's just
> basically not acceptable.
You're like, "oh, but it's not how I'd do something with completely
different goals, so it must be arse!" That's non sequitur central, and
appropriate for other mailing lists. :-)
> The song-and-dance about how really nothing's changed because it's
> still text files should not be taken seriously. The next step is for
> these folks to say "Well, maybe we exaggerated about how nothing's
> fundamentally different -- but it's good for you!"
It's not good for you. It's not meant for you. The fact that you're
entertaining all of these half-analysed technical reasons for why you
personally don't like it indicates that you're not in the target market for
"just works" computing. You enjoy farting around with your machine. That's
cool - we're not optimising for you.
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
"Women are too irrational to be crazed killers anyway." - Angus Lees
More information about the linux-elitists