Talk:Gconf-editor: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:52, 15 August 2005

Some of the points made in this article are plain wrong or at least controversial. I've read that controversial articles should be marked as such. How is this done?

Like so:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

But well, really, you don't need that unless a subject is *REALLY* controversial, and huge flamewars have erupted in talk pages about a subject.

See say ohhhhhh fascism. Does Gconf-editor look so controversial now? Kim Bruning 13:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if you see something that is wrong or controversial, just edit the page! Kim Bruning 13:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't the whole thing about gconf and GNOME was that they widely changed configuration methods and did so in a controversial manner, and not due to the technical nature of gconf itself? I'm probably wrong, but I don't know... Dysprosia 14:02, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Although raw GConf settings are stored in XML files, editing them with a text editor or XML editor is possible. Gconf-editor presents an interface similar to Microsoft Windows' registry editor?, making the editing process simpler.

Anyone want to take a crack at rewriting this bit. GConf settings are held in XML files at the moment... but part of the justification for GConf was that it could use many backends for storage (are there any other backends yet?) Motor 14:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I orginally started this article. Yes the gconf-saga is a cause of controversy. It is part of the great KDE vs GNOME debate.

Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with the GNOME/KDE debate. I thought about removing the "switching to KDE or XFCE" bit because it doesn't really belong. The gconf-editor controversy is about the direction of GNOME... not GNOME in relation to KDE (or Windows or the Mac). Adding KDE in just makes it more likely to end up being even more controversial, as well as less informative. Motor 15:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I prefer Grahpical tools, not because they are eaiser, but because they allow me to do stuff quicky and efficently. But gconf-editor is just a tool, its the way that it has been used that has caused controversy. If it was used as a simple debugging tool and not a tool for end users (this includes power users) then it would not be so controversial. But it is a GNOME issue not a wikipedia issue. We should keep to the NPOV, but it is hard to when there is strong arguements from both sides of the debate. Kirk 14:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

link registry editor or registry? Until someone creates a "Microsoft Windows registry editor" article, we should leave it as a registry link... that at least explains what the windows registry is. Motor 16:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) You fixed it. :)