Hi,
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> So far, I heard a performance argument. Anything else?
>
* The API for gconf is pretty awful, and could be a lot better for app
developers.
* Installing schemas into the config db is a big mess for
distributions and sysadmins.
* gconf
Stef Walter wrote:
> I need the help of a Desktop session genius (is there a gnome-session
> mailing list?).
>
> - gvfs has an SSH module which uses OpenSSH.
> - OpenSSH checks for the presence of the SSH_AUTH_SOCK environment
>variable in order to integrate with SSH agents.
> - gnome-keyri
Personally, we should cede the desktop to other projects like XFCE that
work very well with minimal hardware requirements. I've noticed a lot of
projects in GNOMEFiles with goals to write "lightweight" panels and what
not. 10 years is a reasonable amount of time to expect hardware
requirements t
On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 14:24 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tomas Frydrych a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> I don’t think maintaining a few more packages (especially packages that
> >> already exist today) is a big effort. But it stills
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tomas Frydrych a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> I don’t think maintaining a few more packages (especially packages that
>> already exist today) is a big effort. But it stills bother me if we are
>> going to propose two entirely different user exp
2009/4/10 Josselin Mouette :
> Le vendredi 10 avril 2009 à 15:15 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
>> Just a stupid question... Why should we switch to GSettings? Ie, what
>> does it bring us that we can't do with gconf?
>>
>> So far, I heard a performance argument. Anything else?
>
> Getting rid of th
