On 2 November 2011 18:04, Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schins...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > I'm usually called Jo-Erlend, but I don't really care that much what you > call me, as long as you don't call me at home. :) > > lol, no worries, I'll make sure I don't do that :-) > > I were attending remotely, and there was quite a bit of chatter, so I > couldn't catch everything. My impression, though, was that they were > talking about the desktop, and that includes more than just Unity. However, > once you start changing software, the workload increases. Because of this, > it is very much in the interest of the Ubuntu community to stay as close to > Gnome as possible. That means what configuration options should be > available in 12.04, would probably also depend, at least in part, on what's > accepted into Gnome. Nautilus supports plugins and extensions, though, so > that might be a better solution than to make Nautilus itself more > configurable. > > Ahh, that makes sense. Didn't realise that Nautilus supports plugins/extensions, good to know. I think I have to spend some time getting into some dev work on ubuntu related stuff this summer (your winter I believe), learn the ins and outs and start contributing. > But you know, these sessions last one hour, so there's very little room to > figure out the smallest details. That's not the goal. The goal is to figure > out what the goals are. What configuration options becomes available > remains to be seen. Some configuration options are necessary and others > would be nice. I hope not to see a configuration bonanza though. > Configuration options are often fairly easy to add, but -- obviously -- > difficult to remove without making lots of people very unhappy. And for > something to be configurable, you don't just need a checkbox. You need > extra features, which necessarily consumes some resources. They also make > the desktop more difficult to support. So, all in all, I would prefer to > see configuration options appear as they're proven to be necessary, and not > in the hope that they won't be useless. In other words, to err on the side > of simplicity. > > Agree with all your points. Personally I tend towards the minimalist approach as well. My main concern is for infrequent users and for users who require accessibility considerations. In my experience, accessibility can be a pain to factor in after the fact. But sounds like plug ins or extensions could be the way to go for Nautilus. Thanks for answering my questions Jo-Erlend. Cheers, James
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
