Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: foser <foser@×××××××××××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:26:58
Message-Id: 1062076911.3455.116.camel@rivendell
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop by
1 On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 14:52, dams@×××.fr wrote:
3 > Maybe add a vanilla flags, that can be unset. When unset, the DE are
4 > preconfigured and gentoo touched.
5 > The pb is that you want vanilla, but you want also some core feature like
6 > centralized menu system, which is not compatible. So either we decide not to
7 > include such features, or to have a flag.
9 I'm quite against this, there should be one Gentoo to rule them all. I'm
10 not against adding some extra patches, as long as they add clear
11 functionality we can maintain (this is most important). No need for
12 flags for vanilla and not so vanilla.
14 The menu system is a difficult one i know, but in reality there are few
15 people who use more than one DE. We cater the masses well at the moment,
16 those who want to work with a different look 'n feel every day should be
17 able to handle the downsides.
19 The proposed implementation i have seen i dislike for several reasons,
20 but mostly because of the reasons i stated down here in my last mail
21 (compliance part). I think other possible solutions may be a lot more
22 workable and should be investigated first. But these are details, this
23 isn't the place to discuss this.
25 > >> - write guidelines to be more (free)desktop compliant, to be used by the whole
26 > >> gentoo devs for their packages.
27 > >
28 > > We shouldn't be compliant, we should push upstream developers to be or
29 > > work on their packages being compliant. Us providing some hackish layer
30 > > of compliance is a recipe for disaster. It is fighting symptoms, while
31 > > you should be attacking the problem by its root. I don't see our already
32 > > heavily pressured teams do all sorts of compliance work.
33 > >
34 > > And no, just hiring a few more people is no solution if you want to have
35 > > the same quality/involvement.
36 >
37 > That's a possibility, but that means that, as a linux distribution, we don't
38 > provide additional compliance. If you keep the desktop vanilla, we don't either
39 > provide additional desktop default. That can be what we want. But what will
40 > provide gentoo linux, as desktop, then?
42 We provide the power to work with the desktop as intended upstream. The
43 GNOME Desktop is an idea as a whole, we provide it as it is. And for say
44 corporate users you could say they could easily adapt their installs to
45 their needs, without the necessity to hack out all sorts of distro
46 specific stuff. Or for granny's email machine (installed by her
47 son-in-law) she just get what she needs and not all sorts of extra cruft
48 (no granny doesn't need no CD burn tools or LDAP support in her mailer).
50 > I think a perfect corporate desktop would :
51 >
52 > - be cheap
53 > - be installable by not so good technical guys quickly
54 > - be useable at soon as it is installed
56 'emerge gnome' and maybe in the future (but we lack time as it is)
57 'emerge gnome-office' and off you go. I suppose KDE could create similar
58 meta ebuilds.
60 >
61 > Now if the guy has to configure each workstation, it's not very convenient...
63 Humm, that wouldn't be a bright guy. It would be better to work from one
64 'image' machine in a workstation situation. I don't really see how you
65 mean configuration beyond that. User configuration is ok by default
66 mostly (at least for GNOME) and it is up to them to alter it to their
67 preference.
69 - foser
72 --
73 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop dams@×××.fr
Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@×××××××××××.com>