ibmalone at gmail.com
Sun Nov 10 18:02:46 UTC 2013
On 10 November 2013 15:06, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 01:35:41 +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
>> > Please don't let it install applications, which cannot be started via the
>> > graphical desktop user interface (such as a menu system or a list of
>> > installed Applications). Users, who install software with the help of a
>> > graphical program, expect that afterwards they can find and launch the
>> > installed software via the graphical desktop user interface. Alternatively,
>> > the installer ought to offer launching something as the next step.
>> No they don't.
> You're free to claim that, but my experience differs, so it's very likely
> that we won't agree about this.
> An example with a truncated package description:
> Name : ImageMagick
> Group : Applications/Multimedia
> I recommend that anything that is installable via a GUI package tool (or
> application installer) offers the option to _either_ start the installed
> thing as the next step (which is feasible, if it's a GUI application) _or_
> to continue with a jump to a system settings tool where to configure the
> installed thing (e.g. a service, daemon, applet), which is not a program
> that would be listed as an installed application.
You are arguing that system management should only be possible through
a GUI where the affected components are themselves graphical. Please
take some time to reflect on how ridiculous that is.
Should non-gui packages be excluded from automatic updates because the
tool used to manage that is graphical? Should firewall management be
only possible at the CLI? I'm looking at the software management menu
in KDE right now and on my system there are 26 entries listed in the
servers management section, since these are non-graphical should they
More information about the devel