From kde-core-devel Mon Jul 25 04:02:17 2011 From: Ben Cooksley Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 04:02:17 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: Formal complaint concerning the use of the name "System Settings" Message-Id: X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=131156659307495 On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > Dimanche, le 24 juillet 2011, à 23:07, Ben Cooksley a écrit: >> Dropping GNOME out of this, as it seems quite clear they aren't >> interested in co-operating at all. Which is fairly typical for them, >> they're insular and only care for themselves. > > This is quite insulting, I do not think many share your broad accusations, I > least I hope not many do. > > Sorry, Ben, but someone who names his program with that general term "System > settings" and expects it to have this name in all of the shells/workspaces > (Gnome Shell, Unity, XFCE, Enlightenment, $WINDOWMANAGER, even in Windows and > OS X?), while it only basically controls settings of the KDE runtime > env/platform, is at least also one who is insular and only cares for himself > (or his workspace), no? Think about it. At least to me System = > Shell/Workspace or OS/Computer even. I didn't choose the name. It was chosen a long time ago, when KDE 4.0 was originally forged. I rewrote it to add features, and became maintainer around KDE 4.2. I kept the original name to avoid changing things, and therefore creating user criticism. I have already been criticised for changing the layout of modules in System Settings. I am fairly sure that changing it's name would bring similar criticism. > > And with my user hat on I would think this "Linux" is utterly shitty if I have > to use different setting programs for all the existing toolkits out there, to > do the same settings again and again. > I am only looking out to also see Tcl Settings, EFL Settings, Gnustep > Settings. Perhaps also some Motif Settings, to be old-school. Perfect! Not. I haven't written any of the modules. I just know what is actually the case. > > If Joe user uses Unity and wants to use that hex editor Okteta someone > recommended to him, would/should he need to know about "KDE" and that Okteta > is implemented based on another toolkit than most of the default programs? > I say No, and guess most users don't care as well (unless "toolkit racists"). > And thus he should also not need to know he has to use that other "System > Settings" then the general system settings. > >> In any case, we need a short term solution to this. Basically, we are >> going to have to provide a different name under GNOME, because >> otherwise  GNOME users will complain to distros, who will patch GNOME >> to ignore System Settings (I refuse to acknowledge their app). > > Well, the two desktop file solution might work, no? Name it "KDE System > Settings" or similar for non-Plasma envs in one file, and "System Settings" > for Plasma envs in the original one. Make that other file a patch for 4.7.1. > Or did I miss something? I already said it would. However certain people have complained that this violates the branding, as "KDE" is the community rather than the product. > >> A long term solution > > ... is to continue all the work that has been done to share as many settings > as possible, and to support running programs in not-the-native environments, > ideally without the need for a separate settings program for the toolkit in > use, using some sane defaults there if needed. > A big thanks for everyone who has done before or/and keeps pushing on this, > like Aurélien with the "kdeui/kernel: Use platform palette and fonts" commit > only last friday. Of course that is the proper solution. Assuming they comply as well, so their apps follow our settings in a KDE Workspace. > > And otherwise I completely agree with Cornelius. > > Cheers > Friedrich > -- > Desktop Summit 2011 in Berlin - Registered already? - www.desktopsummit.org >