Make kde 1st class in fedora

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le samedi 18 novembre 2006 à 13:11 +0200, Avi Kivity a écrit :
> Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:37:16AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >   
> >> Users want to configure using a gui.
> >>     
> >
> > That's a common misconception.  Lots of users are perfectly ok with
> > text configuration files, and even often like them more, because:

> How many of these users are IT workers or computer enthusiasts?

Yea, right, ever tried to explain a GUI procedure to someone over 40
(aggravating factor : over the telephone) ? They don't know what
right-click is, they don't know conventions, they get hopelessly
confused by renamed menu entries or new themes that change icons they're
used to. GUI power is massively overrated (even when it's designed
properly in the first place, which is the exception, especially for big
proprietary offerings)

(and that's not musch easier for younger people)

Nobody but computer enthusiasts has the time to browse all the app menus
and screens to find the place where the developper moved the magic
button designed to help him not writing a text file

> > - it's easier to find a file in a specific place than to find the
> >   configuration-application-of-the-day
> >   
> 
> It's only easier for developers.  Users know how to open Tools|Options.

1. No they don't
2. when they do they recoil in horror before the mass of badly qualified
checkboxes
 
> They have no idea where the config file sits.

Unlike the GUI, the config file location is usually stable. They can
note it down. Mapping a GUI route OTOH is a disaster

> > - it's easier to find what you want in it, especially when your setup
> >   is nonstandard in any slight way.  Things hidden in the new tab of the
> >   day which appears only when you click on allow advanced in a dialog
> >   box coming from a menu can be quite frustrating.  In other words, the
> >   interface part of a text configuration file is much harder to fuck up.
> >   
> 
> If the configuration file is of any size at all (postfix, apache) you 
> have to read a huge text file to find something.

And usually you have the text explanation right next to the config
option. With examples even. You don't realise what a godsend it is after
the 3-word explanation you have next to a gui checkbox

> If the configuration file omits some of the options, you have to read 
> the manual page.

Hint : do you actually think people grok GUIs without manuals or helpful
power users to explain them what the heck the convoluted label language
means ?

> > - you can google using its contents
> >   
> 
> Shouldn't you try the application's help first?

ROTFL you're hopeless

> > - you often have useful comments in them, where the GUI equivalent
> >   requires a number of manipulations to access

> Context-sensitive help?

Right-click, what's a right click ? What's a right-clickable object ?
Why do you think apple gets by with a single button mouse ?

> > - it's way easier to talk about it in email

> Especially for developers who dislike html mail.  Users don't want to 
> talk about options, they want to change them.

No. Users don't want to talk about options period. They don't want to
change them be it in the config file or in the GUI

> 
> An example:  Thunderbird's Edit|Preferences|Display, "Plain Text 
> Messages" group, 'Wrap text to fit windows width' checkbox, vs prefs.js 
> mail.wrap_long_lines (it isn't there, you have to google for it or look 
> in Thunderbird's config editor)
> 
> [yes, it's easier to type in an email.  but you'd get unwrapped text 
> much. much sooner with the GUI]

That's remain to be proven. Comparing speed once users have learnt the
GUI is cheating.

> For system administrators and developers, text files are fine.  For 
> normal users, let them have their GUI.

If only it was their GUI and not some monstruosity designed to show of
everything is GUI-accessible…

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot