On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Rick Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to keep gdm3 and customize it? >> >> http://www.khattam.info/howto-change-gdm-3-theme-and-wallpaper-2010-11-14.html > > Interesting. Is the presence and structure of those configuration files > documented anywhere? Was this mentioned in the release notes? I'm not sure that this qualifies for the release notes but I'd hope that it is or will be documented on debian.org. > I'll admit I didn't even try to RTFM to before I asked. I just assumed that > if it was intuitive to use and had a simple gui in gdm, it should have at > least that much user friendliness in the replacement, gdm3. Clearly I was > wrong and we've returned to the days of editing configuration files by hand > as the preferred mode of system administration. Such is life! > > PS: I understand the argument that the GNOME upstream folks have moved on > and do not support gdm anymore. I further understand the argument that > Debian can't go-it alone without upstream support. > > But I don't have to like the result! LOL to the last comment - and I agree. GNOME's fallen into a habit of setting certain defaults and only providing a CLI method of changing them. IIRC, one of the arguments for this design decision is that having too many different settings confuses users. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
