Darren Kenny writes: > Liane, > > I would quote the text : That's exactly the text I would quote too. :)
Config in SMF allows the panel authors to free up their time doing less wonky configuration navigation, because SMF/Visual Panels will provide significant capabilities, but... > ---------------------------------------------- > Lastly, we could provide a means for service > authors to deliver a custom interface for their service. This would be > particularly useful in those cases where the underlying configuration was mor > e > complicated than a user should be forced to deal with, or when the configurat > ion > wasn't published via SMF. > ---------------------------------------------- > > I understand the VP isn't totally focused at SMF, but you have to admit that > it's certainly where the main focus is. It may seem that way because much of our system configuration strategy lies in SMF. From a user point of view, SMF is very much not the focus. Hopefully we'll have the list of Panels we want to work on out soon, which should also help clear up confusion. > You mention being interested in the > desktop preferences earlier on that page, but if I'm not mistaken most of thi > s > will be done by using JDS / GNOME tools - e.g. including the > gnome-control-center launchers in the VP UI. So for now, we will still need t > o > fix these things in GNOME until some alternative is available. Definitely! > > As far as I'm concerned, while there is overlap between the two projects, wha > t > I'm looking at for the JDS/GNOME Single System Admin project is to try meet s > ome > immediate needs of people while waiting for VP to mature, but also to look at > trying to meet these needs on Solaris 10 as well. All the tools I'm proposing > so > far only use the underlying OS configuration tools to do their work - these > could just as easily be replaces with something that works with VP's > mechanisms... I would certainly be against having to store configuration in m > ore > than one location, that's how people get really confused. > > I would be hoping that anything we do would not be in vain, and that it will > be > re-usable even when VP is active. I share that hope. I know we're clear on the fact that any work done with JDS/individual user configuration is not duplicated work. System configuration work may end up with some duplication, but because we're looking to improve the underlying interfaces with VP as we go, so the work that you do will be able to inform the interface changes, as well as providing a faster-relief solution than our strategy, which includes creating a more sustainable architecture for the longer term. > We've discussed this at length before, and > there is a plan to move towards VP in the long-term, but in the short-term we > still need something to try attract people that have already used the tools I > 'd > be looking at, on an other platform like Ubuntu. And the aim is that VP will > provide the integration point for all of these tools when it's ready and we c > an > begin to migrate people to the VP alternative as it become available. > > I cannot see why people are against two projects here I wasn't against it, and never spoke against it!! (I've argued for acceptance of 'duplicate' projects before, and continue to have that stance even if this project was a 'duplicate'.) I simply was trying to correct a misconception on the alias about the (user-visible) focus of Visual Panels which keeps coming up. liane -- Liane Praza, Solaris Kernel Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://blogs.sun.com/lianep _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
