| > Right, so that is a problem, but it's a different problem from lack of configurability Lack of out of the box configurability, lack of ease of discovery of configurability, lack of dependability on third party pieces (which may be essential to my workflow, that third party widget in Xfce isn't). That initiative looks like a good move, I don't mean to disparage that. > In the gnome shell, the extension API is built-in and standard. That is the configurability. And that's not a good mechanism for me, as discussed. > If you're asking for specific panel settings to be included by default Yes, that's specifically my preference, for a system the user can configure, easily/out of the box, without relying on third parties to patch some really simple stuff back in. > It's not really possible for the shell to act the way you're asking. I'm not asking the shell to act any particular way, nor am I asking for changes in Gnome. I have had no real interest in Gnome since the 2->3 transition and this approach is part of that. |
I personally would describe that approach as actually more lacking in configurability, because with that you're limited to only the built-in settings. In my opinion all those could be improved with further improvements the extension system. In general I also see the line between "third party" as being blurry in these open source projects, because any random person can contribute something. But in the end, you deserve to use something that is to your preference.
>I'm not asking the shell to act any particular way, nor am I asking for changes in Gnome.
Sorry, I guess I'm confused as to why you'd be talking about technical issues with GNOME, if it's been totally irrelevant to your interests for the last 10 years, and you don't even use it. If you're not interested to give constructive feedback or try to fix the issues, or try to describe different ways of achieving your workflow, then I would say I'm not really interested to discuss complaints about these things.