[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: System Configure tool
From:       m_elter () t-online ! de (Matthias Elter)
Date:       2001-05-05 21:09:09
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 05 May 2001 20:35, Andreas Pour wrote:
> If KDE has system configuration modules there may very well be some
> distros that don't support it and have their own way of doing things.
> But in the long run if the KDE config frontends are nice and users like
> them distros will adopt them as well.  And by using something like
> environment variables to pass configuration values it makes it very easy
> for each distro to update their system config files.

Distributors like Redhat, Mandrake or SuSE support more than one desktop 
environment. This situation is not likely to change in the near future. They 
will not adopt configuration tools that are integrated into KDE. Caldera can 
provide native kcontrol modules because of their KDE only strategy. And a 
standalone design wont help you much as it would still require most of 
kdelibs in memory and a running dcopserver, kded and what not.

> So it would not be KDE's job to actually change config settings; but
> rather provide a document explaining what program/script/whatever gets
> called with what variables when a configuration change is made (and
> maybe specify what the possible return codes are so error messages can
> be translated using the KDE translation mechanism).  The distros'
> responsibility is to write a script to convert these values into system
> settings, which is IMHO easier for the distro than having to maintain a
> whole set of GUI configuration modules which also have to be updated
> when there are system changes.  Moreover, once these scripts are in
> place and the API known, other desktops (AfterStep/GNOME/etc.) can make
> use of them too, providing even more uniformity in how systems are
> maintained.

KDE runs on very different flavours of Unix. A general abstraction will only 
work for some basic configuration jobs like network settings. So what is the 
point in configuring some parts of your system with KDE and the bigger 
part with distributor/vendor specific tools? 

> Hopefully the distributions can get involved in this process.  In fact I
> would like to involve the distros in a discussion of what makes sense to
> do in a "common" way and what does not.

Join LSB. Have fun! No, wait, I heard LSB is dead.

> The alternative is rather bleak.  I don't see how KDE can ever reach a
> wide audience if basic things like configuring a network card vary
> widely from computer to computer (some use a KDE configuration module,
> others don't, and even configuration modules appear in different
> submenus and have different layouts, etc.), even with the same version
> of KDE installed.  ("Yes, tech support, I have KDE 2.3, how do I

Come on, face reality. It's "Yes, tech support, I have {SuSE 7.2, Caldera 
3.1, Redhat 7.1}, how do I configure my network card?". And what would 
convince Joe Enduser to buy distribution xyz if not because of an easier 
installation (all distributions do a quite good job here) and configuration? 

> configure my network card?"  "Hi, yes, well please tell me which
> distribution you use and which version of that distribution and which
> desktop/window manager and let me see if I can find it, which most
> likely won't be the case" :-/).  This is a good point in time to start
> setting a UI standard for this type of configuration; best of all would
> be if the GNOME project could also agree to use the same UI (the buttons
> will look a bit different but the layout of the dialogs could be the
> same).

Yes, a common initiative of KDE and GNOME has more chances to change 
something. Go talk to them. From the end user (and I don't mean geeks) point 
of view distributions currently differ only in their 
installer/update/configuration tools. This means you get good reviews if you 
have the better installer/updater/configuration. If you are considered to 
ship the better product you are likely to get a bigger part of the limited 
amount of money that can be made with linux desktop/enduser distributions 
today. This means you will need very good arguments to convince distributors 
to through away their investments into configuration tools. A KDE only 
initiative will have no effect at all.

Greetings,
Matthias

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]