Re: Last word I will speak to you.
GConf is a 'registry editor'. It is the same thing as regedit. It sucks for configuration. Your elitist attitude is showing.
\r\n\r\n
And I have said, at least twice now that I can recall in this thread, that I don't feel it's an ideal solution. I do feel it's better than "expose all options to all users all of the time", however.
\r\n\r\n
This makes no sense. If you are relying on so-called sensible defaults, the that structure has no impact on your "usability for that large majority". Making things a PITA for any of the remaining minority that may want to customise or support Gnome is not a helpful.. In short, it is a net minus for the usability of the desktop.
\r\n\r\n
OK, Interface Design 101 time. Each and every time you add some new element to an application's interface, even if it's "just a checkbox" or "just a toggle", it will have a certain impact on a certain number of users. A sort of usability calculus must then ensue, often involving one or more rounds of testing with actual users, to determine whether the number of users negatively impacted, and the amount of the negative impact on those users, is smaller than the number of users positively impacted and the amount of the positive impact on those users. If this turns out to be "no", then the new interface element generally should not be included.
\r\n\r\n
And as I have repeatedly provided reasons why exposing large numbers of often-esoteric configuration options to all end users often results in a significant negative impact for the majority of users, I find myself unabel to make sense of the rest of your argument here.
\r\n\r\n
Nobody has to do that, you do it yourself quite eloquently. I was responding to what you think are 'points', nobody made up anything about wwhat you were trying to say.
\r\n\r\n
I began this thread with some semi-joking comments about KDE. It quickly devolved into other people's assumptions that I am against configuration of anything, for any reason, at any time, and their attempts to belittle such a position. My own efforts to point out that this was not, in fact, my position and that I did not, in fact, advocate it seem to have gotten lost in people's knee-jerk reactions and exclamations that I was not responding to their points. I found this rather odd, as I tend not to respond to a strawman as if I held the position its creator claimed I did, because this tends to cement in the mind of its creator that his strawman is in fact a correct representation of my position. However, I chose to indulge and attempted to steer the conversation away from such hand-waving and fallacy, and in return was met with rudeness and flames.
\r\n\r\n
So. Nice bunch of folks you've got here, huh?
