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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: KAdmin
From:       Ra1n <pk20it () yahoo ! it>
Date:       2004-08-01 9:27:48
Message-ID: 410CD38F.7040801 () yahoo ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

Frans Englich wrote:
> 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.
I agree.
> 
> 
>>>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.
Yes you're right but if I understood you idea, you want to split (and 
enhance) kcontrol into  desktop config(kcontrol) and computer 
config(kadmin) I don't think this is a good idea, for the reasons above, 
and having two entries, one "light" for kcontrol, and the full modules 
for kadmin is, imho, a nonsense, it will add feature bloat.
Why instead don't have first a good control center that includes kadmin 
(in every way, it colud be still possible to launch it stand alone)
Ah I forgot, if you want a full featured admin module there is Yast that 
has been GPL'ed

Luca

_______________________________________________
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]