I have raised an issue regarding the new GTK version of the YAST software installer over on the user mailing list, and it was suggested I start a new thread here. There has been a lot of work done on YAST to give the Gnome version of the frontend a GTK look and feel. For the most part, the layout and workflow of all the components remained the same with the changes focused only on GTK theming. This is a good idea as it brings YAST in line with the Gnome look and feel for the Gnome users. One change stands out though, the changes made to the software installer component. The Gnome version of the YAST software component has been completely reworked. From what I read, there were several very valid reasons for this, including (among many reasons): - a simplification of the interface - the QT based backend is in dire need of rework The result is a GTK YAST component that is radically different from the QT version. This raises an important usability issue... with a totally different software maintenance component between Gnome and KDE, there is a major impact to documentation, support and the development path. Documentation must now maintain conditional procedural information (If Gnome then do this, if KDE then do the other). Support must consider which window manager the customer is using and adapt their support processes accordingly. Development must now continue down two paths (development resources are hard to come by as it is... for example, a reason given for using only Tango icons in YAST was a lack of resources to maintain 2 icon sets). While these kinds of changes are important, and in many cases badly needed to keep openSUSE a viable product, this impact is critical to consider. I would like to propose a couple of things to help the improvement process. 1. Whenever a major change is introduced that radically changes the workflow of core components (like YAST), there must be a simple and clear way to switch between the new way of working and the old. My preference is to keep the old default in place, but make it clear there is a new tool in place that is being tested and provide the user the choice to switch. This is very important to people like myself who support openSUSE in the real world because there are massive processes built up around existing workflows. A radical change like the GTK software installer costs time and money for people who now have to contend with this change. 2. If a radical change or improvement is in the works for a YAST component, then that change must include BOTH the GTK and QT versions. (or as a bare minimum, there must be a plan to synch the two tools within one release cycle). The GTK and QT versions of YAST need to be in synch.... not in look, but in workflow. The same options need to be present in BOTH versions of YAST. If a major change is planned for QT, then the GTK version needs to reflect that change as well, and vice versa. 3. The GTK software installation component of YAST should either be reworked to bring the workflow back in line with the existing QT one, or the QT version needs to be reworked to bring its workflow in line with the GTK one. Of course this would also include usability improvements and fixing the old backend (something both versions are in real need of). I am sure that there is more I can add here, but these 2 points would go a long way towards keeping openSUSE (and SLED/SLES) consistent and usable. YAST is a highly important and critical part of openSUSE. It is this tool that really makes openSUSE stand out as a better choice (in addition to the very professional "polish" that we give the product). This critical part of openSUSE must remain consistent regardless of theming for one one window manager or another. C. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org