Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: A Dangerous Evolution, imho (Score 1) 550

by Antity (#5351168) Attached to: How Configurable Should a Desktop User Interface be?

As much as I like to configure my Linux here and there, on every single edge to make it fit my needs, I really appreciate it to be able to install a fresh system from the newest RedHat or Debian or whatever if some bigger update is neccessary (2.2->2.4, glibc, GNOME1->2 etc.).

I really want to have everything configurable, even the desktop, be it GNOME or KDE.

But, IMHO, if for example the KDE people are going to implement a simplified interface for configuring the desktop and hide further options somewhere deeper, I fear that this will be the DEFAULT for distributions like RedHat; maybe they'll hide these options even deeper to "not confuse new users".

RedHat already did this with BlueCurve and trying to hide any differences between KDE and GNOME.

So, at least for me who wants to easily configure my system after a fresh install, it will in fact become harder to have the system behave as I like it because I will have to spend quite some time just to find out where all the options have gone.

Short: If KDE/GNOME offer less configuration options, even as an option, distributions will adapt. And in my very humble opinion, this is a bad move.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.