On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Mario Vukelic <mario.vukelic@dantian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 13:50 -0400, Peter N Spotts wrote:
>> > Gconf is like the Windows registry; there are
>> > many keys, and the keys have values, and you have to know the right
>> > key and value to modify to get your desired results.
>
> I have a strong personal dislike against this meme, so I have to respond
> with a few corrections:

[...]

All good points, and one more:

gconf changes occur in almost real-time - as soon as the key is
changed, the corresponding behavior is changed. Some Registry
changes require a reboot...

Chris

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 08/01/2008 01:05 PM, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 13:50 -0400, Peter N Spotts wrote:
>>> Gconf is like the Windows registry; there are
>>> many keys, and the keys have values, and you have to know the right
>>> key and value to modify to get your desired results.
>
> I have a strong personal dislike against this meme, so I have to respond
> with a few corrections:
>
> gconf uses xml files and optionally other backends (which haven't been
> written, though) [...]

Don't get me wrong. I know that gconf is ten-times more competently
written than the Windows registry :-) , but from the user-interface
point of view, they are pretty much the same thing.

> Both are actually pretty good ideas. Microsoft just approached it in way
> that probably has advantages for them, but is a pain for the user. As
> usual.

Yes, don't you just love the catch-22 created when a program messes with
the registry--making Windows unbootable--and you have to run
regedit.exe--a Windows GUI program--to fix the registry?

At least gconf can me manipulated from the command line or "by hand";
anyway, gconf is never critical to booting.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 08/01/2008 12:50 PM, Peter N Spotts wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:00:02 -0500
> "Mumia W." <paduille.4062.mumia.w+nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 08/01/2008 10:47 AM, Peter N Spotts wrote:
>>> Folks, [ problem snipped ]
>
> Thanks! Found the setting, changed it, and it works like a champ!
>

Glad to be of service :-)



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 16:12 -0500, Mumia W. wrote:
> but from the user-interface
> point of view, they are pretty much the same thing.

Well, I guess one can be of different opinion in this regard. I already
said that I find gconf much easier (and actually pretty neat for
not-so-important options). That would be:

On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 20:05 +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> gconf keys that control application behavior and that are therefore of
> interest to users usually tell you their valid values, and the purposes
> of these values, when you select them -- descriptions are at the bottom
> of the window.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users