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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: KAdmin
From:       Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date:       2004-08-01 0:07:13
Message-ID: 200408010007.13286.frans.englich () telia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 01 August 2004 01:55, Ra1n wrote:
> Gérard Delafond wrote:
> > Le dimanche 1 Août 2004 01:02, Frans Englich a écrit :
> >>For long buzzed about is KAdmin, similar to KControl but
> >>does only contain server administration functionality(which KControl have
> >>in addition to user preferences), and has KParts as content instead of
> >>KCModules.
> >>KAdmin would have kernel configuration, boot manager,  "pseudo modules"
> >>linking to web admin interfaces, kuser, KIOSK(no, that's nothing you need
> >>as a regular user) -- all integrated under one roof. KAdmin would
> >> typically be installed on servers only.
> >
> > Can I not compile a kernel if I don't use a server ?
> >
> >>Why is KAdmin needed and what problems does it solve?
> >>
> >>
> >>In short, having this diversity in KControl restrains everyone, and by
> >>splitting the content in two and ensuring these two do One Thing Well,
> >>everyone will be happier. Especially KControl needs it as a step towards
> >>avoiding feature bloat.
> >
> > You know, my life did not change when kinfocenter got separed from
> > KControl. I even think it was a little better before.
>
> Kinfocenter should be separated from the actual kcontrol IMHO, it's a
> simple system information panel that doesn't give access to any
> modification, it simply lists system status
>
> > If you follow that way, you will listen to people who say Konqueror does
> > too many things.
>
> But konqueror DOES too many things :-D

Gérard and everyone else; let's keep Konqueor out of this.

>
> > A program does never do too many things are made by modules.
> > Admin (or info) stuff can be grouped in One entry of the left pane. Not
> > very confusing if the name is good.
>
> I agree, by now there is not a real distinction between server and
> desktop controls, for example I have a desktop but I want to add another
> user(my girlfriend for example) this task should go into kadmin, but
> it's still related to the desktop.

A similar case can be found in network configuration; doesn't regular users 
needs to set up their NIC? Of course.

We will have a light user KCM in KControl for girl friends, guest accounts and 
so forth, while KAdmin have this crazy functionality useful for thousands of 
users(and KAdmin would have NIC setup, routing tables, and so forth). 

This is one way of avoiding feature bloat -- making functionality Only 
available where its relevant.


			Frans


_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]