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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: System Configure tool
From:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       2001-05-06 1:14:05
[Download RAW message or body]

Simon Hausmann wrote:
> 
> On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:15:33PM -0700, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 11:11:47PM +0200, Matthias Elter wrote:
> >
> > > Oh yes, now that you mention it. Go tell them. I'm sure they just don't
> > > realize.
> >
> > Well that's why I don't use em :)
> >
> > Honestly, my config files are very easy to manage for the most part.
> >
> > /etc/defaults/rc.conf is the master one, and is updated any time I run
> > mergemaster to bring in new changes.
> >
> > Any custom settings I want to make get kept in /etc/rc.conf, and get left
> > alone by mergemaster.
> >
> > Then again, I don't have to deal with many incompatible changes anyhow.
> > So yes, if {SuSE,*} keeps breaking config tools with each release, they're
> > broken.
> 
> I bet they don't do so, but they have probably put quite some amount of money
> into developing their configuration software, and dumping that software just
> right away in favour of something new, something that would also be new to the
> users (who got used to the existing tools from DistXZY) is probably not
> something the dists are going to do right away. (not to mention that it costs
> money in addition to train the support to the new configuration frontends)


Hi,

Who's to say that the architecture is such that SuSE could not
contribute it to CVS and have people modify it to be distribution
agnostic?  So the effort would not have to go to waste.

But I fundamentally don't see your argument as any more convincing than
"don't make Konqueror b/c Corel built a file manager".  The reason
distributors are having to all do different configuration tools is b/c
currently they don't exist.  As a distribution it is better to use free
software that others write than to have to write -- and maintain -- it
yourself.

It is true that distros would like to use config tools to differentiate
themselves.  But I did not think it was the job of KDE to please
distributions, particularly in cases like this which are basically the
"tragedy of the commons".  Was there not a time when the distros used to
trumpet, we don't care about our market share, b/c rising tides raise
all boats?  Here is a situation where the tide will almost certainly not
rise if the distributions go about this in their self-interested way
(and we end up with a totally non-standard desktop).

In effect the distributions don't want a truly open solution, b/c they
want their config tools to be better than their competitors.  Now if
their tools were truly open, then the competitor would just pick up
their better config tool, right?  But that's not going to happen, IMHO,
either b/c of arrogance or b/c the tools themselves are written in a way
which makes them non-suitable for other distros.  The only way to get a
common standard is to either have the distros agree on something, which
they have repeatedly proven they are completely incapable of doing, or
to have the standard set by a third party, in this case the free
software supplier.

Of course if KDE has config tools the distros are free to remove them
and use their own.  Nobody forces them to use the KDE ones (or Konqueror
or KOffice for that matter).  But maybe when they see the KDE ones and
realize they need write only a few scripts to have their systems
configured, they will adopt them.  In the long run it will greatly
reduce the costs of the distributors (since the same thing need not be
redone 10 times) and help KDE (as there will be a standard way to
configure things).

Ciao,

Dre

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