On 9/9/07, Anders Johansson wrote:

On Sunday 09 September 2007 15:00:47 Druid wrote:

...

If I recall correctly the justification was "to have the stuff in gtk in gnome". But see, kde was forced to have "gnome/gtk stuff" on it, and nobody complained. The zmd applet, for example.

People did complain, which is why we have opensuse-updater today

But my point is still valid. They didnt have a problem in throwing a gtk version in kde environment, but when it was the opposite situation it was the horror, oh oh, cry cry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Your point is not valid. People did complain about having a gtk app in kde, which is why it was replaced

The point is valid. The reason they created a gtk version of yast was because they wouldnt accept using a qt app in gnome. By the same logic, there shouldnt be the gtk applet in kde from the beginning. That if they would care about that, which they didnt. Only after it was already there, they thought of making a qt version, but as an enhancement, that wasnt considered a blocker or a big deal (it was considered by the users, it seems). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sunday 09 September 2007 16:19:33 Druid wrote:

...

Your point is not valid. People did complain about having a gtk app in kde, which is why it was replaced

The point is valid. The reason they created a gtk version of yast was because they wouldnt accept using a qt app in gnome.

Actually no. It was a google "summer of code" project. Not a blocker bug that had to be fixed

By the same logic, there shouldnt be the gtk applet in kde from the beginning. That if they would care about that, which they didnt. Only after it was already there, they thought of making a qt version, but as an enhancement, that wasnt considered a blocker or a big deal (it was considered by the users, it seems).

I don't quite see how you reason. There was a qt application (yast2) in gnome. People wanted a gtk/gnome version, so someone wrote it and now it gets used. Similarly, there was a gtk application in kde (the updater applet). People wanted a kde version so someone wrote it and now it gets used. I see absolutely no difference at all (except perhaps that yast2/qt was used for far longer in gnome before someone bothered writing a gnome/gtk frontend for it) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Clayton's second email in this thread resumes why they shouldnt have made a separated version of yast sw_single. And if it was to have improvements in qt version (which several people think it needs, I think it needs too), then they could make the improvements in qt version, and have the gtk version exactly like the qt version, so it would be more consistent, dont you agree?

But that hasnt happened, I tell you why I think it hasnt happened: 1) Gnome guys want to make it different, they dont care about having a consistent look in both versions 2) They (the original yast guys and the gnome guys) cant agree in a way of doing it. They cant agree or they dont care

From observation fo what has happened seems both (1) and (2) are true

This is EXACTLY my point. I think it's great that the Google Summer of Code resulted in a GTK version of YAST for Gnome (I was vaguely aware of it when it happened from conversations about it on the mailing list). What boggles my mind is that instead of getting a GTK _version_ of the software manager, we get a TOTALLY different software manager. This is NOT good. This is a bad thing. Support now has to have two different procedures in mixed KDE/Gnome environment using the SAME distribution. I do a lot of phone support for remote openSUSE installs. They are a mix of Gnome and KDE depending on the preference of the users... they are going to be migrating to 10.3 a couple of months after it is released... and I am facing the mess of retraining half my user base on the software installer because of a poorly thought out change in the core tools that make openSUSE better than the other distributions. I am seriously disappointed here. I know I should have raised this waaaay back in the early Alpha stages, but I didn't notice this then. YAST is one of the shiny bits about openSUSE. It is bar none, my favorite admin tool in any distribution. It works. It works well, and up until now, it didn't matter if you were using Gnome, KDE, WindowMaker or whatever... it was consistent and predictable. As a support person, that is CRITICAL. I can't stress this enough! In answer to a couple of points raised by Rajko.... This is not a case of "I don't like it because I am not used to it." This is a case of a change that makes the life of support (and Documentation) a royal pain in the backside. This was an unnecessary change... I could care less about icons. Personally I think the Tango icons are incredibly ugly, but if they are the ones used in YAST, then fine.. it's just an icon. I don't care and I will use it (yes I am aware that I can switch to Crystal icons, but I can't be bothered to do this... it's not that important). Small differences between the text version and the QT version are fine... you will never get a complete clone from one interface to another... and if the GTK native version of YAST was marginally different, I could live with it. Instead we get something that isn't even remotely similar. I thought, oh, this is just the default and if I click one of the other view options I can get something similar to the QT version.. instead I get something even worse for usability. So... what am I saying? It's fine to gave a GTK version of YAST but NOT at the cost of loosing the consistency in the toolset that makes openSUSE better than everyone else. This is the situation we have now with 10.3, and frankly, I'm VERY disappointed (just in case you couldn't already tell from my rant here) C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

It's not like you are forced to use it you know. sudo sed -i -e 's:^WANTED_GUI="auto":WANTED_GUI="qt":' /etc/sysconfig/yast2 Voila, your problem is solved.

That makes as much sense as changing the YAST Tango icons to Crystal. Possible to do, but why am I munging the default install to "fix" poor decisions by the developers? If we simply accept everything Novell/SUSE decides without raising our voices, then we will continue waltzing down the path without anyone raising their hands and saying "wait a sec". We yelled loud and clear about the mess that was 10.1... and things were fixed in 10.2 and continue to be fixed in 10.3. We could have simply disabled zen/zmd (which we all pretty much had to do anyway) and let Novell continue with the mess they created... but we didn't. This is another mess. It is the default. Why should I have to tell all the people I support with openSUSE to go do some sysconfig change (either with YAST or from the CLI) after the install? On my own machine... fine, I could do that, but I am NOT interested nor have the time to do it across multiple installs at multiple locations in different countries. Up to 10.2 I could tell them... do the default install. Make no changes... and I knew that regardless of if they chose KDE or Gnome, the toolset was the same when I needed to walk then through installing more software. Now it's not. Now I and everyone else that supports openSUSE in a multi-WM environment is faced with 2 different toolsets... when we had a common one. C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

If you are serious about trying to influence what's default and not, then I suggest you start a new thread in opensuse-project. In that thread, you probably want to include constructive criticism and argue your point in a manner that decision makers and developers a like will read. The insults and bad mouthing that's been going on in this thread will certainly not help your case.

If I insulted or badmouthed anyone, then I apologize. That was not my intent... I tend to get worked up over things I strongly believe in. openSUSE is one of those things. I am frustrated with the change and somewhat baffled. The change means a whole lot of support problems for me... and I am surprised more here aren't seeing it as a problem. I will do as you suggest... but to be honest.... I do not expect any resolution. At least I have spoken up though.. better that then stewing in silence. C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

One of the complaints about Vista is that yet again they've changed the way things are done and it adds nothing, let's hope this will not be the same for this.

In defense of the work done on the GTK version, they did try to solve a big problem with the QT version of the YAST software installer... it's complexity.... see the comments here: http://en.opensuse.org/YaST2-GTK Improving that issue would be nice, but then the improvements (whatever they may be) need to be made in parallel with the QT version, not forked off into some other direction. C -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 05:34 -0400, Richard C Creighton wrote:

I have left this 'unsnipped' because it is an important discussion:

Magnus Boman wrote:

...

On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 09:21 +0200, Clayton wrote:

...

...

Clayton's second email in this thread resumes why they shouldnt have made a separated version of yast sw_single. And if it was to have improvements in qt version (which several people think it needs, I think it needs too), then they could make the improvements in qt version, and have the gtk version exactly like the qt version, so it would be more consistent, dont you agree?

But that hasnt happened, I tell you why I think it hasnt happened: 1) Gnome guys want to make it different, they dont care about having a consistent look in both versions 2) They (the original yast guys and the gnome guys) cant agree in a way of doing it. They cant agree or they dont care

From observation fo what has happened seems both (1) and (2) are true

This is EXACTLY my point. I think it's great that the Google Summer of Code resulted in a GTK version of YAST for Gnome (I was vaguely aware of it when it happened from conversations about it on the mailing list). What boggles my mind is that instead of getting a GTK _version_ of the software manager, we get a TOTALLY different software manager. This is NOT good. This is a bad thing. Support now has to have two different procedures in mixed KDE/Gnome environment using the SAME distribution.

I do a lot of phone support for remote openSUSE installs. They are a mix of Gnome and KDE depending on the preference of the users... they are going to be migrating to 10.3 a couple of months after it is released... and I am facing the mess of retraining half my user base on the software installer because of a poorly thought out change in the core tools that make openSUSE better than the other distributions. I am seriously disappointed here. I know I should have raised this waaaay back in the early Alpha stages, but I didn't notice this then.

YAST is one of the shiny bits about openSUSE. It is bar none, my favorite admin tool in any distribution. It works. It works well, and up until now, it didn't matter if you were using Gnome, KDE, WindowMaker or whatever... it was consistent and predictable. As a support person, that is CRITICAL. I can't stress this enough!

In answer to a couple of points raised by Rajko....

This is not a case of "I don't like it because I am not used to it." This is a case of a change that makes the life of support (and Documentation) a royal pain in the backside. This was an unnecessary change...

I could care less about icons. Personally I think the Tango icons are incredibly ugly, but if they are the ones used in YAST, then fine.. it's just an icon. I don't care and I will use it (yes I am aware that I can switch to Crystal icons, but I can't be bothered to do this... it's not that important).

Small differences between the text version and the QT version are fine... you will never get a complete clone from one interface to another... and if the GTK native version of YAST was marginally different, I could live with it. Instead we get something that isn't even remotely similar. I thought, oh, this is just the default and if I click one of the other view options I can get something similar to the QT version.. instead I get something even worse for usability.

So... what am I saying? It's fine to gave a GTK version of YAST but NOT at the cost of loosing the consistency in the toolset that makes openSUSE better than everyone else. This is the situation we have now with 10.3, and frankly, I'm VERY disappointed (just in case you couldn't already tell from my rant here)

C.

It's not like you are forced to use it you know. sudo sed -i -e 's:^WANTED_GUI="auto":WANTED_GUI="qt":' /etc/sysconfig/yast2 Voila, your problem is solved.

Cheers, Magnus

I have been following this thread with interest. Magnus, you are obviously among the elite when it comes to ability to devise solutions to problems like this but for many the solution will end up being "Format C:" Install Vista: Enter 20 digit CD key code: That solution is the solution the masses understand because they are NOT software engineers, they are Windoze escapees and Linux hopefuls, Hopeful that Linux, SuSE in particular will offer them a solution to Redmond and Company and the never ending 'Give us more money for less and less substance with more and more paranoia and company self serving 'you are a thief' cpu stealing cycles that do nothing except ensure you have paid for your copy of a bug-ridden OS so full of security holes that an industry has risen to exploit the software hole patching business. Linux and SuSE in particular is their (and my) hope, but the elegance and flexibility of your solution will certainly elude 99.9% of them and certainly during the installation or shortly thereafter, few will know how to do such magic that SuSE is capable of.

I seriously don't think that anyone that's prepared to format C: (meaning that they are probably running DOS or Windows already) and install Vista would have had Linux in mind anyway if they followed this thread.

Thus, the issue becomes not *can* SuSE do it but *does* SuSE do it 'out of the box' in such a way that is intuitive and consistant and importantly, understandable to the unwashed masses coming from the world of Windoze and even from earlier versions of SuSE or other distros. Installation programs are NOT the place to expound upon the virtues of KDE *or* GNOME or any other GUI for that matter. It is a place to get the OS installed with as few problems as possible with as wide an equipment and environment base as possible and with a consistency that allows product support the greatest chance to succeed when trouble arises and the customers cries for help.

Which could be a valid point, so let's discuss that as adults in another thread. I'm hopeful that Clayton will start it on the project ml.

Sincerely, a real friend of Linux/SuSE Richard Creighton

Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 10:26 -0300, Druid wrote:

On 9/9/07, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Sunday 09 September 2007 15:00:47 Druid wrote:

...

If I recall correctly the justification was "to have the stuff in gtk in gnome". But see, kde was forced to have "gnome/gtk stuff" on it, and nobody complained. The zmd applet, for example.

People did complain, which is why we have opensuse-updater today

But my point is still valid. They didnt have a problem in throwing a gtk version in kde environment, but when it was the opposite situation it was the horror, oh oh, cry cry

we have been using the QT version of Yast in GNOME in the last 4 years. Isn't that enough to consider we have been using a KDE thing in GNOME? Or are you talking about something different? -- Rodrigo Moya -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

I quite like the look of the QT version of YaST. It certainly a much closer match to the console version, which is something I find myself using more than the GUI version.

Therein stands my point. The CLI version and the QT version are close enough in layout and style to be effectively the same. Walking through one or the other, you are in familiar territory. Then you fire up Gnome expecting consistent tools... and you're faced with that dogs breakfast mess of YAST. There is ZERO consistency. That is plain dumb. Consistency is critical in the interfaces that make SUSE stand out.

...

Since you expressed your feelings about it, my advice is dont use the yast gtk version for the sw_single module and dont use gnome. That way you will never see it again, only the qt version, which I think will solve your problems, mostly.

Fine, but... Gnome is as much a part of openSUSE as KDE is. I think that even though I choose to use KDE at home (I have to use Gnome at work), I have a responsibility to at least be familiar with Gnome as Novell packages it. When things looks stupider than usual in Gnome I also think I should speak up... and YAST in 10.3 is really poor. It is a regression... a step backwards in usability... then again... that's par for the course for anything Gnome.... so I guess it's to be expected. Still... I am quite disappointed in where "we" are taking Gnome in openSUSE. This new YAST is not an improvement... fine, base it on GTK.. I don't mind, but for God's sake, do some usability testing... and put some thought into the fact that change for the sake of change is wrong. And making the software installer so radically different between KDE and Gnome makes my job supporting openSUSE a total nightmare. I used to be able to walk the users through things like the software management part without having to worry about whether they liked Gnome or KDE, or were stuck with the text version of YAST... it was all basically the same. Now? Now, it's a mess. A real mess. I even tried the various other views... and they were worse than the default flat view. Basically... I'd like to smack someone and ask "What were you thinking???" :-( C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Anders Johansson writes:

[...] Isn't it more important to have internal consistency in the desktop you're using? I think the gnome frontend to yast is quite similar to the gnome control center, which means gnome users should feel at home in it

There are two different things: The yast control center - which is indeed similiar to the GNOME one - and the YaST Gtk modules. The YaST2 Gtk modules are similiar to the Qt modules with one major exception: The package manager. Documentation wise it's a challenge with such differences. Wanting something that looks more "natural" is on side, changing the interface in such a way that people have to learn a new one is the challenge and that was done in the package manager. On the other hand I do think that different interfaces show where problems exist and I would like to see both evolve to be consistent and usuable, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform/openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Dňa Sunday 09 September 2007 15:52:00 Clayton ste napísal:

...

I quite like the look of the QT version of YaST. It certainly a much closer match to the console version, which is something I find myself using more than the GUI version.

Therein stands my point. The CLI version and the QT version are close enough in layout and style to be effectively the same. Walking through one or the other, you are in familiar territory. Then you fire up Gnome expecting consistent tools... and you're faced with that dogs breakfast mess of YAST. There is ZERO consistency. That is plain dumb. Consistency is critical in the interfaces that make SUSE stand out.

...

...

Since you expressed your feelings about it, my advice is dont use the yast gtk version for the sw_single module and dont use gnome. That way you will never see it again, only the qt version, which I think will solve your problems, mostly.

Fine, but... Gnome is as much a part of openSUSE as KDE is. I think that even though I choose to use KDE at home (I have to use Gnome at work), I have a responsibility to at least be familiar with Gnome as Novell packages it. When things looks stupider than usual in Gnome I also think I should speak up... and YAST in 10.3 is really poor. It is a regression... a step backwards in usability... then again... that's par for the course for anything Gnome.... so I guess it's to be expected.

Still... I am quite disappointed in where "we" are taking Gnome in openSUSE. This new YAST is not an improvement... fine, base it on GTK.. I don't mind, but for God's sake, do some usability testing... and put some thought into the fact that change for the sake of change is wrong. And making the software installer so radically different between KDE and Gnome makes my job supporting openSUSE a total nightmare. I used to be able to walk the users through things like the software management part without having to worry about whether they liked Gnome or KDE, or were stuck with the text version of YAST... it was all basically the same. Now? Now, it's a mess. A real mess. I even tried the various other views... and they were worse than the default flat view.

We simply took the hard work done by Ricardo and Michael to create the community-developed Gtk frontend. I see your point of support and also documentaiton is very similar issue. However, the value of difference, trying out a different approaches is very valuable. For your particular case of support problems, I suggest to adapt /etc/sysconfig/yast2, set WANTED_GUI="qt" Stano -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 10/09/2007, Clayton wrote:

...

We simply took the hard work done by Ricardo and Michael to create the community-developed Gtk frontend.

I do not ever want to fault the tremendous effort that took. On it's own, I think it is a very professionally done application, and I hope they continue working on improving Gnome and the toolset. The problem is... well.. I've stated the problem already.

Making such a fundamental change in the workflow between Gnome and KDE a major issue in so many areas - documentation, external 3rd party support, actual toolset development (spreading limited resources now across 2 toolsets instead of focusing on one.. this was the reason given for selecting Tango icons for YAST in 10.3.. yet that same reasoning doesn't apply here?).

...

I see your point of support and also documentaiton is very similar issue. However, the value of difference, trying out a different approaches is very valuable.

Right... makes sense... but... not as a default. The YAST tool is very important to openSUSE. Keeping it stable and predictable is so very important for support. I appreciate the need for change... if we didn't change, Linux development would stagnate.

Part of the problem is that the Qt package manager interface itself is pretty dire, hopefully both can be improved significantly towards a common consistent & usable interface in 10.3++. So please do raise the issue on -project, 10.3 is not going to change this late in release. For 10.3++ hopefully both versions can be fixed. _ Benjamin Weber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2007-09-10 at 11:27 +0200, Stanislav Visnovsky wrote:

I see your point of support and also documentaiton is very similar issue. However, the value of difference, trying out a different approaches is very valuable.

Probably.

For your particular case of support problems, I suggest to adapt /etc/sysconfig/yast2, set WANTED_GUI="qt"

What about having this a click away inside yast? Somewhere very easy to find, "use QT/GTK interface"? Click and restart yast. Perhaps check first if the appropriate packages are installed. I suppose this wouldn't be difficult to implement and would solve problems. We could choose any of the two interfaces either in KDE or Gnome. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether they use QT or GTK as long as they work in both environments. I hope it is not too late to do it? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFG5ZtQtTMYHG2NR9URAl7MAJ9RfBoT/vcXfnSZm4fSv2JrZUsx0wCdHjmZ VQ1UOkCE32L62k/4EUez51Y= =QE61 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2007-09-10 at 21:01 +0100, Benji Weber wrote:

Not exactly a click away, but you can:

yast -> system -> /etc/sysconfig editor -> system -> yast2 -> GUI -> wanted_gui

http://bw.uwcs.co.uk/yast2-wanted-gui.png

It probably is too late for a real GUI option now. Besides, changing the GUI backend is not really something most users are going to understand anyway.

It changes the UI frontend, too. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFG5bKatTMYHG2NR9URAqXdAJ92crl81kV+HiIxL4aSENmJlgLphACeIMKk qCWzL/IDUs38i8HZrHDjY7w= =tnnk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 10:00 -0300, Druid wrote:

On 9/9/07, Clayton wrote:

...

Just wondering... why is it that the Gnome version of YAST is so dramatically different from the KDE one in openSUSE 10.3 Beta3?

My oppinion, based on historic observations, says that the reason for that is simply because they like to change the stuff, just for the sake of saying they changed, without absolutely any reason (may the flames begin, I know).

If I recall correctly the justification was "to have the stuff in gtk in gnome". But see, kde was forced to have "gnome/gtk stuff" on it, and nobody complained. The zmd applet, for example.

and doesn't that look bad? If so, I would suggest to write a KDE applet. The backend would be shared, but the GUI should not, at least until we find a good way of having KDE apps look good on GNOME and viceversa.

But it seems no, they (the gnome people) couldnt have yast qt, no that would be too much, its impossible, cant be accepted. No, they need to be different, they are special.

reading this it looks like us (the GNOME people working on SuSE) are evil :-) But the reason was not to not use QT, that's a very poor reason. The real reason is UI integration, that is, even though the QT version of yast works very well (I've been using it for years), it looked so different to the rest of GTK apps that they were not consistent at all. And given that Yast provides a way to write different frontends, that seemed to be the best option.

...

I haven't used Gnome on SUSE in a very long time, but I don't remember YAST being any different between KDE and Gnome in previous versions.

It wasnt

...

The Gnome version of YAST is unwieldy and hard to use

100% agreed

...

- not that the KDE one is a good example,

100% agreed

...

but it is certainly much much better than the Gnome one.

100% agreed

...

Isn't it a bit of a major usability issue if the core tools that set SUSE apart from all the other distributions are so inconsistent/different?

Yes, but as Ive said the gnome people want to make it different at all costs.

no, we want to make it consistent with the rest of the desktop

...

Also.. who thought that the Gnome version of YAST software installer is a good thing?

I really dunno. Its really one of the most terrible app screens I have ever seen

...

Was it actually tested with users? Does anyone else find it to be a very poor UI design?

I really dont know, but I would be surprised if it was tested by humans.

I also find the GNOME version of the software installer a bit hard to use, so please, just file bugs to bugzilla and people working on it will fix them. -- Rodrigo Moya -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Dňa Monday 10 September 2007 13:28:27 Mark Goldstein ste napísal:

Hi,

On 9/10/07, Rodrigo Moya wrote:

...

reading this it looks like us (the GNOME people working on SuSE) are evil :-) But the reason was not to not use QT, that's a very poor reason. The real reason is UI integration, that is, even though the QT version of yast works very well (I've been using it for years), it looked so different to the rest of GTK apps that they were not consistent at all. And given that Yast provides a way to write different frontends, that seemed to be the best option.

Why not to adjust it according to the desktop used? For Gnome users the default would be Gnome UI and for KDE users Qt? (And also let the user chose preferable UI from some configuration menu...)

That's exactly what is done in 10.3. The discussion is about a different topic - how the different UIs match. Stano -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org