> Clayton's second email in this thread resumes why they shouldnt have > made a separated version of yast sw_single. And if it was to have > improvements in qt version (which several people think it needs, I > think it needs too), then they could make the improvements in qt > version, and have the gtk version exactly like the qt version, so it > would be more consistent, dont you agree? > > But that hasnt happened, I tell you why I think it hasnt happened: > 1) Gnome guys want to make it different, they dont care about having a > consistent look in both versions > 2) They (the original yast guys and the gnome guys) cant agree in a > way of doing it. They cant agree or they dont care > > From observation fo what has happened seems both (1) and (2) are true
This is EXACTLY my point. I think it's great that the Google Summer of Code resulted in a GTK version of YAST for Gnome (I was vaguely aware of it when it happened from conversations about it on the mailing list). What boggles my mind is that instead of getting a GTK _version_ of the software manager, we get a TOTALLY different software manager. This is NOT good. This is a bad thing. Support now has to have two different procedures in mixed KDE/Gnome environment using the SAME distribution. I do a lot of phone support for remote openSUSE installs. They are a mix of Gnome and KDE depending on the preference of the users... they are going to be migrating to 10.3 a couple of months after it is released... and I am facing the mess of retraining half my user base on the software installer because of a poorly thought out change in the core tools that make openSUSE better than the other distributions. I am seriously disappointed here. I know I should have raised this waaaay back in the early Alpha stages, but I didn't notice this then. YAST is one of the shiny bits about openSUSE. It is bar none, my favorite admin tool in any distribution. It works. It works well, and up until now, it didn't matter if you were using Gnome, KDE, WindowMaker or whatever... it was consistent and predictable. As a support person, that is CRITICAL. I can't stress this enough! In answer to a couple of points raised by Rajko.... This is not a case of "I don't like it because I am not used to it." This is a case of a change that makes the life of support (and Documentation) a royal pain in the backside. This was an unnecessary change... I could care less about icons. Personally I think the Tango icons are incredibly ugly, but if they are the ones used in YAST, then fine.. it's just an icon. I don't care and I will use it (yes I am aware that I can switch to Crystal icons, but I can't be bothered to do this... it's not that important). Small differences between the text version and the QT version are fine... you will never get a complete clone from one interface to another... and if the GTK native version of YAST was marginally different, I could live with it. Instead we get something that isn't even remotely similar. I thought, oh, this is just the default and if I click one of the other view options I can get something similar to the QT version.. instead I get something even worse for usability. So... what am I saying? It's fine to gave a GTK version of YAST but NOT at the cost of loosing the consistency in the toolset that makes openSUSE better than everyone else. This is the situation we have now with 10.3, and frankly, I'm VERY disappointed (just in case you couldn't already tell from my rant here) C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
