New developer

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 4/8/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Vlad wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >> It is not worth the effort for Anaconda and many other tools.
> >
> > Sure, if you think KDE users aren't worth having an efficient Fedora
> > system.
>
> Don't presume what I think please. What I am claiming is that a bunch of
> GTK based tools in a KDE spin of Fedora is better than the time spend
> rewriting these tools in QT.
>
> Loading two different graphic frameworks at the same time
> > wastes memory/diskspace, slows down startup time, and leads to
> > graphical inconsistencies. For people with low-end hardware that makes
> > a huge difference.
>
> I doubt that loading GTK instead of QT makes a big difference. Before we
> go down this route let's properly analyze the benefits claimed instead
> of having some vague notions.
>
> Wasting memory and disk space: How much exactly?
>
> Look and Feel: Can be mostly solved by http://gtk-qt.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
> which there was a plan to provide by default in the KDE spin.

I feel I should say this:
I'm a strong KDE user, not loud, but I really like KDE.
However, I very much like the fact that the system-config tools are in Gtk.
1) pygtk is easy
2) they look different from my normal desktop apps - i think this is very good.

My only problem with KDE on Fedora is that is the fairly large number
of package with the name gnome in it that I seem to must have - for
the sake of Firefox and OO.org , and even I know that is being a bit
picky.

By asking that there be a ksystem-config equivalent, that would be
almost doubling the working - or at best multiplying it by a factor of
1.5. We need more, good system-config tools, not ksystem-config tools.

And while on the subject, to those involved, if possible, don't use
gnome widgets in the system-config-tools, seems like that has already
started happening.

-- 
Fedora Core 6 and proud