Advertisement
Get Stuff Done - For active developers in Linux graphics, kernel, libraries, and more
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 17:50 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)Parent article: GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
I'd call this article a mostly fair analysis of the issue at hand (which
is refreshing because much of the 'analysis' done by the likes of /. and
other sites has been anything but).
And to get disclaimers out of the way, I'm currently typing this post
inside of Akregator, on a KHTML-rendered LWN, on KDE.
The way I see it, Linus was pointing out his frustrations with GNOME, and
I want to take a moment to address one of his points in that discussion
that I think was quite golden.
Minimizing *available* versus *default* functionality on the grounds that
"the majority of users" don't want it is a bad thing. The problem, as
Linus very clearly defines, is that while it's true that "some" majority
of users may not need, say, control of their mouse and another "majority"
of users may not need control of their printer, it's not the same
majority.
The problem is that the "majority" of the users may each have some
special desire - Linus wants to screw with his mouse buttons, and I want
to make full use of my Tektronix printer. Now let's say Linus's desire to
screw with his buttons puts him in a minority, as does my desire to fully
use my Tektronix, so the GNOME developers exclude extensive mouse control
and extensive printer control. Now they've pissed off more than a
"minority" of users, because we each had a separate (simple) expectation
for being able to use our computer that was denied by some usability
crusade.
If you want an extreme example of where this "minority" attitude breaks
down, let's consider accessibility features for a moment. 99% of the
current Linux desktop market probably doesn't have damn bit of need for a
screen reader / magnifier / sticky keys. But you'd get flamed off the
planet for suggesting that we forget about this 'accessibility nonsense'
on the grounds that the desktop should Just Work for the Majority.
Indeed, adding acccessibility has been a hugely highlighted issue due to
the recent Massachussets/ODF debacle.
The opposite problem, of course, is the KDE Control Center where I have
Laptop configuration settings present even though it's running on a tower
PC.
In any case, I think the mistake everyone is making is that they're
assuming that Linus's popularity / affiliation with Linux means that his
words are somehow spoken rule or so powerful they should be tamed. Come
on guys... this is open source. We're all adults here. Who cares if
people get a little vocal from time to time? The alternative is that we
all agree to sit around with our thumbs up our asses while we get left by
Win/OS X. Part of the reason open source often works so well is because
of engineering flamewars. Big "government" or diplomacy just doesn't help
here.
Linus wasn't trying to force his decision on anyone. He was making a
point, albeit very directly (which I quite enjoyed). And his biggest
point of all is one that I think was actually missed most in this LWN
article:
> But hey, just continue to remove all that confusing functionality from
> Gnome. I don't care. I voted with my feet.
He's just another man speaking his mind.
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 18:27 UTC (Tue) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]
A few things to note from the thread that answer some of the things you've raised in your post:- Functionality and options are different things.
- All of the issues raised were explained, and the whole "confusing users" rationale debunked every time. That's not how we make design decisions at all.
- Accessibility is one of GNOME's strengths, and we include screen reader, magnifier and sticky keys functionality in the GNOME Desktop release suite. Remember, we want to make GNOME "Just Work" for users with motor, visual and other disabilities too!
- We tend not to talk about "majority" user segments, except when we speak of the "vocal minority" we work within and receive most of our feedback from: users who are highly technically proficient and care deeply about their computing experience. That's a very different class of user to, say, my doctor. He's a smart guy, but totally doesn't give a shit about computers. I want to make Free Software that works for him.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 18:57 UTC (Tue) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link]
You said:
- All of the issues raised were explained, and the whole "confusing users" rationale debunked every time. That's not how we make design decisions at all.
Why don't you place the so-called advanced functionality behind an Advanced button or in another dialog tab, then?
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:05 UTC (Tue) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]
There are plenty of places in GNOME where options exist on separate tabs, dialogues and behind disclosure triangles. It is not as if GNOME has no preferences or options whatsoever.
(Functionality and options are different things, and "functionality" generally doesn't hide in the same kind of places options do...)
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:33 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
You're right, but the critical swinging point here is the concept of'plenty'. You see, you can make lots and lots of users happy (the 5-nines
you refer to elsewhere) by having an advanced desktop that has a
well-designed layering exposing more advanced functionality to more
advanced users as they drill down. The cost is that you will occasionally
get the layering wrong and make small minds be overwhelemed. Here we have
KDE.
The other option is to use the idea that you're designing for the
majority as a reason to not implement features or configurables at all.
You'll *please* a small number of users this way because you're going to
be lucky and get a good handful of them that find not a thing more than
they need. But these people would have been *happy* if you had more, as
long as you managed it wisely. Here we have GNOME.
And I know you've stated that you don't design for the "majority", but as
far as I can tell you're just saying that:
>> That's a very different class of user to, say, my doctor. He's a smart
>> guy, but totally doesn't give a shit about computers. I want to make
>> Free Software that works for him.
Is the "totally doesn't give a shit about computers" not the majority
crowd? What exactly do you call it if the word "majority" is banished?
WYSIAYG
Posted Dec 27, 2005 0:03 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]
The problem on point is referred to as What You See Is *All* You Get, and it's the traditional argument made against GUI's by command-line partisans, as well.
It *is* a problem, though, and the *real* problem that it is, is this:
Non-power-users *don't stay that way*.
People learn. And regardless whether your interface failed to scare them away when they were newbies, if they *can't get their work done* now that they're *not*, they're leaving, anyway.
So the "progressive complexity" partisans are the ones closest to right.
The as-yet unsolved problem is one corollary to "*why* is that menu item greyed out when I want to use it?" -- *how* do you let the user know that there are more powerful commands hidden from them that are pertinent to what they're doing?
Once someone comes up with a good, portable, intuitive solution to that which app writers can deploy without great pain, we'll really be going somewhere.
You heard it here first. ;-)
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:58 UTC (Tue) by mightyduck (subscriber, #23760) [Link]
But even for an experienced user it's sometimes nearly impossible to findout how to change some very trivial things. For instance, the only
GNOME-like application I use at times is Firefox (I know it's GTK and not
GNOME but that all comes from the same stable to me). What drives me nuts
in Firefox are the freakin' wrong button order and the key bindings in
the location bar (every time I press CNTRL-U it wants to show me the
HTML-source). Now, after googling for quite some time I found that I have
to put the following stuff into my .gtkrc-2.0 file:
gtk-key-theme-name = "Emacs"
gtk-alternative-button-order = 1
I did that and you know what, it STILL doesn't work! I tried all kinds of
things with gconf-editor and whatnot in order to fix that broken stuff
but until now I couldn't figure out how to change it! The result is, I
stay away more and more from GTK- and GNOME-apps because it drives me
nuts. Now you can call me an oldtime UNIX user (the ones you apparently
don't care about and try to piss off as much as possible) but I still
have some influence and I really can't recommend something (even to your
doctor) which I'm not able to use myself.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:13 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
While we're griping about GTK, can someone please tell me why every timeI hit + in GAIM or another GTK app, it renders as a tiny superscript plus
sign? Why do I always get these weird "binary character" graphics in the
course of normal IM conversations with a small amount of copy/paste? Why
does copying text out of a syntax-highlighting editor result in broken,
non-newline-terminated colourized text showing up in the GTK edit box I'm
pasting into?
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 14, 2005 0:51 UTC (Wed) by diakka (guest, #10310) [Link]
use gconf-editor and set /desktop/gnome/interface/gtk_key_theme to "Emacs".
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 14, 2005 17:35 UTC (Wed) by tjw.org (guest, #20716) [Link]
use gconf-editor and set /desktop/gnome/interface/gtk_key_theme to "Emacs".
Settings you make with gconf-editor will only be used if gnome-settings-daemon is running when you start firefox. If you don't use gnome-settings-daemon, you are correct in editing your ~/.gtkrc-2.0 file.
Note that ~/.gtkrc-2.0 is just silently ignored if gnome-settings-daemon is running.
There's also the possibility that you don't have the Emacs theme in /usr/share/themes/.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 14:24 UTC (Thu) by mightyduck (subscriber, #23760) [Link]
I made the change with gconf-editor but it still didn't work at first.Now I switched to KDE 3.5 and the gtk-key-theme suddenly works! I have no
idea why it decided to respect my settings now. The only thing which
started up together with firefox is gconfd-2. Maybe that's the
gnome-settings-daemon which makes it work? I don't know.
Anyway, thanks for all the hints, but my point is that it's extremely
complicated even for experienced users to change such simple things.
Maybe GNOME should provide an "idiot" and a "poweruser" mode if they
don't want to confuse their doctors. Then at least the ones who want to
tweak obscure settings and know what they're doing can switch to
"poweruser" and mess up their UI in whatever way THEY want. I still
believe the UI should adapt to the user and not the other way around.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 14:25 UTC (Thu) by gallir (subscriber, #5735) [Link]
Oh my freaking God. Is that "usable", "simple", "it just works". I'mstill parsing what I should do to change key bindings in Firefox.
So, to be sure it reads my resource file I should first do some "ps -
kill -9" commands? No, I can't believe it.
BTW, I'm a vim user. What's the "emacs' style"? :-)
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 14:37 UTC (Thu) by mightyduck (subscriber, #23760) [Link]
BTW, I'm a vim user. What's the "emacs' style"? :-)I'm a vi/vim user myself but I frequently use CNTRL-U in the shell in
order to clear the command line and I want to do the same in the firefox
location bar. But the default binding for CNTRL-U in firefox is "view the
HTML source" which drives me nuts if I hit it by accident. And, believe
me, I'm not the only one here, most of my coworkers complained about
that. Maybe it appeases the Windows crowd (which we don't have here
except for our secretaries and they're not used to keybindings at all,
they just point and click with the mouse) but it drives UNIX users
insane.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:43 UTC (Tue) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]
>> Why don't you place the so-called advanced functionality behind an Advanced button
yuck!
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 0:37 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
Please don't do "Advanced" tabs. If you're looking for a feature, you have to look twice, in the relevant tab and in "Advanced". It's like record stores that have a separate "Alternative" section. You have to look twice to see if they're out of something.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 7:25 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (subscriber, #1256) [Link]
Just have one option somewhere near the top that enables the "Advanced" (more options) throughout all configuration dialogs and widgets.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 10:09 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Apparently this `confuses the users', too. (Well, that's what I was told when they took it out of Nautilus, along with every feature of that program that I actually used it for.)
Perhaps the GNOME project should change the expansion of its acronym: with the near-demise of Bonobo the amount of `network object model' in there is minimal anyway. Given the GNOME attitude (`on crack' and dismissive contempt) to suggestions that perhaps not all features that the program's maintainer doesn't use are useless, I suggest the recursive acronym `GNOME Now for Obtuse Morons Exclusively'. It's not true, but at times it seems to be their goal :(
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 7:53 UTC (Thu) by komarek (subscriber, #7295) [Link]
And please, don't call it "Advanced". It's not advanced. Perhaps it is rarely used, or obscure. But emacs key bindings are not any more advanced then remapping ctrl-c (ascii ETX, which we all learned was used to abort a program) to "copy". The same thing goes for hundreds of other options that devs like Havoc Pennington don't like to expose.
-Paul Komarek
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:08 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
Maybe you're right about some of these points having been addressed. Ifit's not usability and not confusing users that you're after, than what
is it exactly?
One of the reasons KDE continues to be such a joy for me is because of
how many features are hiding right under the covers. I often discover
them by thinking at some random moment, "Wouldn't it be cool if I could
-- wow! They thought of that and implemented it! Way cool". In that
moment I've just discovered that I can detach tabs in Konqueror. Or get
Wiki feeds about my artists as I'm listening to music in amaroK. Or one
of hundreds of other things that makes my computing experience a joy and
doesn't get in my way.
Honestly - every time I use GNOME I just end up getting let down. I'll
admit that I put it on my teenage sister's laptop (she's not a computer
person)... but that was more because I had an old Ubuntu CD laying
around.
She loves Linux - likes it better than Windows (and has since expressed
interest in try KDE after seeing me use it). But little things just annoy
you. One in particular I remember - she nudged her Synaptics touchpad too
much and the GNOME top bar or whatever it's called ended up right-aligned
with HUGE quick-launch icons. I couldn't for the life of me figure out
anywhere on that panel to right-click in order to get to the screen I
needed to in order to get it re-aligned. In the end, I had to delete all
the quick-launch icons to make room to click through to the panel. This
exercise took me 10-15 minutes of frustration, and I'm a goddamned
programmer! All of my intuition about the ways to control the thing you
guys *might* have thought of were useless, whereas generally in KDE if I
have an intuition they might have implemented some random feature,
chances are I'm right and it's there, more powerful than I imagined.
I don't mean to just slam on GNOME, but once again, what's your goal? Why
is GNOME software often so much less desireable / powerful than KDE
counterparts? Why do my GNOME-using friends use Konqueror and K3B and
amaroK and Kaffeine, using GNOME for nothing more than the pretty window
decorations? I run one GTK app - GAIM. And occasionally when I go to send
someone a file, I get reminded of how much I hate some of your project's
decisions about the UI. The moment all the IM clients decide to support a
common encryption standard, GAIM will be leaving my desktop (unless GTK
apps magically start looking / working better by then).
Perhaps Linus (and myself) are totally wrong about GNOME devs being
motivated by "not confusing users". Why have you excluded all useful
functionality then?
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:17 UTC (Tue) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]
What's our goal? To bring software freedom - and the deeper freedoms it defends - to the 99.999% of people around the world who don't care about computing technology quite as much as we do.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:23 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
Mine too. Now in the process, can you guys make your GNOME desktop alittle more functional and powerful so that it doesn't feel like I'm
using an airport kiosk?
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:37 UTC (Tue) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]
Perhaps some constructive feedback may actually get you where you want to go.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:05 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
Well, my apologies for stepping over the line a bit with that last post.The airport kiosk remark is just the best describing remark I've come up
with after tinkering with GNOME a few times in between spans on KDE over
the years. (IIRC, my earliest time spent running around on an actual
Linux *desktop* was Red Hat 5 or 6).
My biggest criticism (is this constructive?) of GNOME is that every app
and dialog feels like it was deliberately reduced from what it could have
been. In some cases, this is genius and the dialog is simple / elegant /
pretty. But way too often does it simply get in the way (Your file picker
is a *big* example - why won't it let me sort by file type and why isn't
it immediately evident that I can type a location?)
If GNOME stood alone on the desktop market, I think it would be a great
desktop. The fact is that it stands next to KDE, and even though I admire
your looks and in *some* places the simplicity, any time I spend any
length of time at all in GNOME I come away frustrated after X number of
important things appear to have been intentionally excluded. (X is
porportional to the amount of time I spend on GNOME)
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:42 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I only learned about the `Ctrl-L to type' thing by following that mailing list thread. Affordances in GNOME are frequently absolutely *awful*, even in very widely-used common dialogs.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 14, 2005 5:17 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]
In my opinion, Gnome shouldn't even have a file picker. Saving a document should just ask for a name and drop it in a default location. After that you can put it somewhere different with Nautilus. Opening a document shouldn't even get a dialog: open it from Nautilus or drag and drop it.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 14, 2005 11:45 UTC (Wed) by csamuel (subscriber, #2624) [Link]
Gah, do that and I'll give up helping the folks I know who use GNOME getthemselves out of trouble!
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 14, 2005 13:58 UTC (Wed) by mauvaisours (subscriber, #6130) [Link]
Have you learned about this useful little thing called "Folders" that helps you organize what you do ?
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 22:25 UTC (Thu) by emj (guest, #14307) [Link]
Well you are right in one sense, what should a user do in the root? You really should have everything in your home directory, perhaps in the "my Documents" folder. Or even better let people "tag" their files, and make it a database.
On bigger multiuser system it's even worse, have you ever tried to find the account of your friend John in the local /afs.. "Now was is /afs/fnord.se/homes/h/dk/sf/u2313n23? I can't really remmeber... "
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 27, 2005 23:05 UTC (Tue) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569) [Link]
"why isn't it immediately evident that I can type a location?"
OMG!!! Do you know how many times I screamed at that stupid dialog because I thought I couldn't enter a location?
I positively hate hidden functionality and think all GUIs should be "discoverable" which means that you should be able to learn at least 99% of its functionality just by "looking around".
I find that most of the time for me Gnome either does not have the functionality I want or they have hidden it so well that even I as a very experienced user can't find it.
But it's not only Gnome, I love Firefox for example but I still miss some of the settings that you could find in the Mozilla preferences. I want a button "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" that show me all those option pages they removed! (And please, do NOT tell me about about:config!!)
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 23:16 UTC (Tue) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]
One of the big things I have to do for customers is to turn off the spatial perspective in nautilus. People hate having to close 15 windows as they went searching for something in their directory tree structure.. but every time I and others mention it.. its that we arent understanding what we should do.. Here is a sample of what multiple customers have complained about:
Well I am just wanting to open up a document that I filed away in the way that I wanted, but I when I have finished opening up
Desktop
Work Documents
Project XYZ
2005
Work Orders
I now have 4 windows I dont want to stay open and 2 that I do.. so I end up spending a lot of time closing stuff.
[And switching to 'classic' mode makes everything look like it is GNOME-0.8 and not as featured as the KDE desktop.]
I currently use GNOME, but I am coming this close to switching over to KDE even if it means being a third class citizen on Fedora.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 14, 2005 6:55 UTC (Wed) by Mithrandir (subscriber, #3031) [Link]
Agreed. At least my default desktop distro (Ubuntu) has made that change for me. :)
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 14, 2005 8:25 UTC (Wed) by heini (subscriber, #33614) [Link]
One simple thing: You mentioned this doctor w/o computer knowledge.Imagine it was a german doctor, who simply would like to see his desktop
in german language. I am a KDE user and when I start KDE the first time, a
configuration wizard pops up where the very first thing I can choose is
the language.
Now on to Gnome (or XFCE). Whenever a new version is released, I try it
out. I am not asked to choose my language. I spend 15 to 30 minutes to
find out how to change it to german (other than setting some ENV vars, I
know how to do that). I finally give up and stay with KDE, and so will the
german doctor, he doesn't know how to set ENV vars.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 14, 2005 20:12 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link]
GDM, choose the language before you log in... Now that was hard, huh?
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 7:15 UTC (Thu) by heini (subscriber, #33614) [Link]
You really think this is a good idea, don't you?No other display manager out there let's you choose the language,
because it's simply stupid to put it there.
1) This locks Gnome users to using GDM, but what if they have no
control over what display manager is used (because it's not their
machine)?
2) You have to re-login to change the language.
3) What if you don't use any display manager at all?
So this makes the situation even more worse, sorry.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 9:48 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link]
1) I expected you wanted the whole package.2) New user = new login... Or are we schizo here?
3) If you don't use a display manager, you'd mostly be a shell user (Or one of those strange people who login with the text console and do a startx as the only command there), and used to LC_LANG if you want another language.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 10:33 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]
Changing the display manager is simply not possible for anyone using a multiuser system where the admin doesn't use Gnome. And it gets real tiring when every program expects that you're running the whole system; is it that unreasonable to try and choose the better program instead of the one from GNOME?
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 16, 2005 17:47 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
Surely you always have to re-login to change the language: a process may only alter its own environment, and anyway translated strings are usually loaded by an application at startup, and never altered.
I do agree that there should be some kind of regional settings option in the preferences menu that would allow one to change the value of LANG. LANGUAGE and the various LC_* variables that will be used the next time one logs in.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 14, 2005 20:26 UTC (Wed) by aigarius (subscriber, #7329) [Link]
I am a programmer, but I still want my desktop to "just work". I do not want to configure things - I have work to do. Maybe sometimes there is an option missing, but the time I spend configuring my desktop is tiny compared to time I spend working. If there are more options - I will spend more time on useless configuration just because I *have to* look through all the options.I am all on Gnome about this one - if you want to work, just work and forget about configuring.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 7:41 UTC (Thu) by pascal.martin (subscriber, #2995) [Link]
I am in a similar situation, except for a few things:- Gnome removed some of the options I did setup. I felt cheated.
- Despite its "keep it simple" mantra, Gnome has become really heavy.
- Gnome has had a tendency to forget my config on upgrade (debian specific?)
As logon time kept increasing, the frustration of not being able to restore my config convinced me to switch to Xfce:
- Xfce is simple and has not much more options than Gnome,
- but it starts much faster and takes up less memory.
- It tends to loose the user's config less often (your mileage may vary).
- It still use GTK (I don't like C++, the language made complicated so to maximize memory leaks :-)
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:23 UTC (Thu) by mightyduck (subscriber, #23760) [Link]
Oh, come on, this is just BS. Nobody forces you to look through allavailable config options, you don't *have to*. I use KDE and I never scan
the whole control center and go through all the options. I have maybe a
handful of things I change on a new system (like "focus follows mouse"
for instance) and then I'm able to work. But if for some reason I decide
to tweak some option because my habit changed or I discovered a more
practical way of doing things I know the option is there and I can easily
find and change it.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 23, 2005 4:54 UTC (Fri) by obi (guest, #5784) [Link]
Maybe it's BS for you, but you seem to think that everyone thinks like you. I agree with the parent - seeing boatloads of options just irk me. And this visual annoyance happens every time I have to search for an option. And I always feel something is set up "wrong", but I don't know what (maybe I'm paranoid).
I'm a programmer too, and I do appreciate Gnome's "not-in-your-face"-ness. Yes, there is some functionality missing, but I'm willing to bet it's not by design, but simply because they didn't get round to it yet, or in the worst case that it's not really a high priority.
Every time I try KDE, I appreciate the polish and some great technology, but I just can't cope with the UI feel for a very long time. Considering how many pro-KDE comments there were, I can see not everyone feels the same way as me. It just goes to show that it's good there are choices, and I'd encourage all the desktop projects out there to continue finding their unique identity.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:43 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
Where did you get that 99.999% number? Many people care about computing technology, they just care about different aspects of it. I think that the 99.999% myth is used as an excuse for lazy programming. You may be surprised how much a designer cares about color quality of the monitor or how much a helicopter pilot cares about real time properties of the flight control software.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:28 UTC (Tue) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link]
Those users don't care about either of those things.
They just care that the computer does what they need. The details of how it does it is irrelevant to them. They especially do not want to have to learn how to edit rc files or memorize patterns of double-click icon -> right-click interface -> select Options -> select Advanced tab -> click Computer button -> check checkbox -> click OK or so on.
The designer wants an efficient application for doing their work, and they want to be able to ensure colors are correct, preferably by using a likewise efficient and simple tool. They do not want to need 12 steps to do it, either.
The pilot likewise couldn't give a crap about how the software works. He just wants to know that it works. Whether it's well-written real-time software or a staving kid in a box with a chalkboard and an abacus is entirely unimportant, so long as the helicopter stays up in the air and goes where the pilot wants it to.
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:18 UTC (Tue) by mgb (subscriber, #3226) [Link]
>One of the reasons KDE continues to be such a joy for me is because of>how many features are hiding right under the covers.
Yesterday I had a problem with an application window that had content off the right side and resizing disabled. It took ten seconds of clicking to discover some KDE controls which allowed me to temporarily override the window size. Right click title bar - Advanced - Special Window Settings - Geometry. Exactly where any logical person would look for them.
And the Qt libraries are just as logical. GUI programming is easy and fun with Qt. GTK may be easier than Xlibs, but its nowhere near as productive as Qt.
We've started with the default Gnome in several distros but always become frustrated and switched to KDE. Now we always install Kubuntu - on our own systems and for our clients.
And yet: Long live Gnome! Competition helps both.
--Mike Bird
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:06 UTC (Tue) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]
For comparison, where does other window managers put that control? How would you go about doing the same thing in Gnome?
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 14, 2005 6:00 UTC (Wed) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link]
Historically I've reconfigured all the window managers I've used for more than a few hours such that they don't understand the "disallow resize" window hint to begin with. Sometimes the "reconfiguration" is done by editing the config files...you know the ones...every window manager has them...they typically come in a big tarball, and you edit the ones ending in ".c", then type "make" or something similar to update the WM config. ;_)
Hints that disable window controls seem kind of silly to me. Putting on my naive-user hat for a moment, I expect that if you can resize one window, you can resize any and all windows. Actually, before I actually used a Macintosh for the first time many years ago, I had read about user interfaces and I assumed that you'd be able to pretty much move, edit, and resize anything you like in any application while it was running. Needless to say, I've been disappointed with everything that has come since.
IMHO, applications that can't cope with window resize at all (e.g. those that behave in some anti-social or useless way when the WM blithely ignores the application and reconfigures its window anyway) should have some kind of default panning or scaling behavior imposed on them, preferably transparently so that the clueless application has no idea this is happening. The only reasonable excuse for disabling WM controls would be in an airport-kiosk type of situation--in which case it would make more sense to disable the controls globally in the window manager, so having the application WM hints makes no sense in that situation either.
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 14, 2005 7:27 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Every WM respects at least one hint to disable controls: the transience property. As long as you have to support that, why not make the control more configurable?
Hints
Posted Dec 14, 2005 14:19 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]
That hint doesn't really mean to do that, it just means the window is associated with another application window and that it is likely to be short-lived. In fact, some window managers don't disable controls on transients. Many do, but there is no requirement that they work that way.
Hints
Posted Dec 14, 2005 20:16 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The vast majority that provide any decorations at all disable them on transients: in fact, given the common use of transients for things like pop-up help bubbles, any wm that didn't disable decorations on them would be unbearable to use.
Hints
Posted Dec 14, 2005 23:45 UTC (Wed) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link]
Pop-up help bubbles (and menus and drag+drop handles and other weird window cases) usually use override_redirect, not wm_transient.
I don't see a reason why transients (even real transients like dialog boxes) should not be organized or decorated differently--in fact, I think that's usually a good idea. The thing I insist on is that I retain the ability to arbitrarily move, size, raise and lower them (including the often-denied privilege of restacking a dialog window behind its parent, and independently minimizing parents and transients), regardless of decoration or initial position.
I do see many cases where the transient windows *themselves* are often a bad idea, but that's application misdesign that a window manager can't fix.
I've used truly hintless window managers (ones that don't move the keyboard focus from parent to transient and place the transient randomly, so I have to aim at the appropriate window with the mouse cursor for every single transient) and hintful window managers (ones that respect all of the hints to the letter and even impose restrictions of their own). If these were the only choices (thankfully they're not) then I'd pick the hintless WM, because it's at least possible to sensibly arrange windows with the hintless WM, even if I have to do a lot of extra work manually.
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 14, 2005 3:55 UTC (Wed) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link]
People often comment that QT is more productive than Gtk, yet the only big QT apps I use are scribus and qcad (and both rarely). On the other hand, we have the gimp, inkscape, abiword, gnumeric and gnucash; none of which have comparable QT versions. Maybe it is just the company I keep, but most of the top notch programmers I know prefer Gtk. Why is that do you think?
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 14, 2005 15:05 UTC (Wed) by cloose (subscriber, #5066) [Link]
On the other hand, we have the gimp, inkscape, abiword, gnumeric and gnucash; none of which have comparable QT versions.
IMHO it the success of the corresponding KDE apps (krita, kword, kspread, kmymoney) that lowers the interest in writing Qt equivalents for those apps.
Maybe it is just the company I keep, but most of the top notch programmers I know prefer Gtk. Why is that do you think?
Maybe you're only looking for/attracting C programmers? I'm a C++/Java/Delphi programmer and I would never ever use a OO in C API.
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 15, 2005 7:11 UTC (Thu) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link]
I had a look at koffice recently and though I was impressed by the progress, none of them are close to their gtk equivalents. kspread, for example, couldn't open a few computational excel spreadsheets I've collected over the years, yet gnumeric had no trouble. Karbon's renderer seems to generate wrong results regularly and couldn't open even some simple svg diagrams. The connector routing in kivio is crap compared to that of inkscape. Krita feels like gimp 1.4, though my wife prefers the oil paint effect in krita :)
Actually, it may be unfair, but the feeling I get from the koffice suite is that they are mainly playing catch up to their gtk counterparts and have just lifted chunks of code wholus-bolus (nothing wrong with this, but it makes me wonder what their aim is).
If you are a C++ programmer you should take a look at gtkmm. It is a lot more C++ than QT. Murray Cumming has done a much better job of understanding the C++ paradigm (ouch, did I just use that word..) than the Troll developers. And the people I'm talking about tend to program in more esoteric languages (they would say 'real languages') such as Haskell, ocaml and Mercury.
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 15, 2005 8:25 UTC (Thu) by cloose (subscriber, #5066) [Link]
If you are a C++ programmer you should take a look at gtkmm. It is a lot more C++ than QT. Murray Cumming has done a much better job of understanding the C++ paradigm (ouch, did I just use that word..) than the Troll developers.
After looking at the following you will sure understand that I have a different opinion about gtkmm <-> Qt and KOffice. :)
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 15, 2005 8:41 UTC (Thu) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link]
Sorry, I don't understand that comment - could you expand a little bit? As far as I can see you've just shown me a CVS log for some project I've never heard of...
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 15, 2005 10:14 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
It's the (extremely nifty) KDE CVS interface program, with changes to kdebase scattered throughout as well.
So yes, I'd say it's not surprising he likes Qt and friends. :)
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 15, 2005 11:07 UTC (Thu) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link]
Ah, so he's heavily biased, and I should discount his opinion... ;) Full disclosure: I work on inkscape, a gtkmm app :)
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 16, 2005 3:27 UTC (Fri) by thedevil (guest, #32913) [Link]
njhurst wrote:If you are a C++ programmer you should take a look at gtkmm. It is a lot more C++ than QT. Murray Cumming has done a much better job of understanding the C++ paradigm (ouch, did I just use that word..) than the Troll developers. And the people I'm talking about tend to program in more esoteric languages (they would say 'real languages') such as Haskell, ocaml and Mercury.
Your sense is not clear here. (Who are the "people I'm talking about", Qt people or Gtk?) Can you please explain?
From my post way above you'll see that I quite disagree with you, but
until you clarify I won't repeat that again :-)
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 16, 2005 4:36 UTC (Fri) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link]
I said 'good programmer', cloose seemed to think I meant C++ instead of C or something, I said Haskell etc.
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 17, 2005 4:18 UTC (Sat) by thedevil (guest, #32913) [Link]
Ok, now I see, you referred to a post up the thread. Here's where thedisadvantage of a web forum over a newsgroup or mailing list shows ...
I think the preference of Real Language people for gtk is very simple -
there are, by historical accident (or is there another tangible reason?)
bindings for Gtk in those languages, while there aren't any for Qt.
One aspect of Qt is annoying - its dependence on database libraries.
I don't know if that played any role in making Gtk bindings preferred.
KDE = Joy
Posted Dec 15, 2005 23:49 UTC (Thu) by pynm0001 (subscriber, #18379) [Link]
There are indeed a lot of good GTK apps.But please let me know when GnuCash has finally left the stone age of GTK
1.4, then I might be able to stomach using it. ;)
Regards,
- Michael Pyne
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:04 UTC (Tue) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]
On the subject of Gaim, have you tried Kopete from KDE 3.5 yet? It has all sorts of nifty features such as webcam support, and the integration with kaddressbook was what finally made me switch.
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 18:35 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
99% of the current Linux desktop market probably doesn't have damn bit of need for a screen reader / magnifier / sticky keys.
This argument is weak. There is a difference between features a minority of users desire, which the things Gnome doesn't do might be, and essential features which a minority of users simply can't do without. You can use a command line tool to configure PPD files. A blind user has no alternative if accessiblity features like screen readers are missing.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 18:44 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
When you use the phrase "configure PPD files" you make it sound geeky. But what you're really talking about is giving the user access to all of the printer's capabilities. If the user can't get the job done in Gnome, and isn't an experienced hacker, then features of the printer that the user might have paid extra money for are inaccessible. Crippled support for printers has long been a major issue for Linux and Unix.While I use Gnome myself, I wasn't surprised to see Linus get all pissed off in response to justifications given for not supporting full PPD functionality because it might confuse the users. If this is an issue, then it's up to the Gnome project to figure out a way of giving access to the full set of printer capabilities, not to argue why they shouldn't.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:05 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
When you use the phrase "configure PPD files" you make it sound geeky.
Excuse me for using plain language.
But what you're really talking about is giving the user access to all of the printer's capabilities.
Wrong. What I'm really talking about is the difference between providing acess to "all of a printer's capabilities" to a user who won't look up the instructions for using lower level mechanisms and providing any kind of access to any feature of a computer for a user with a physical disability. Why is that so difficult to understand?
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:21 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
You seem to be misunderstanding him. The difference you posit does notexist in the way you think it does. Corporate users - some of the very
people your GNOME devs target - might very well want access to all of
their expensive office printer's capabilities. And they probably don't
know what a PPD file is, or how to configure it. So if you don't expose
the configuration to them behind a few clicks, then they as *disabled*
users (in the sense that they are not systems people) have absolutely 0
access to their printer's expensive and advanced capabilities.
Making the last remark you made is a bit like me saying "Why can't
disabled people have their Human assistants read the screen for them?"
Because if they won't do so, it's their fault they can't use the computer
- right?
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:33 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
Making the last remark you made is a bit like me saying "Why can't disabled people have their Human assistants read the screen for them?" Because if they won't do so, it's their fault they can't use the computer - right?
This is purile sophistry. Why do you have so much trouble admitting that there is an important difference between being unable to access a computer at all and losing the benefit of advanced printer features?
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:40 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
>> What I'm really talking about is the difference between providing>> acess to "all of a printer's capabilities" to a user who won't look up
>> the instructions for using lower level mechanisms
The point is that requiring a user to look up instructions for using low
level mechanisms makes that functionality 'off-limits' to most users,
despite how many of them might actually find it useful.
The only difference between not being able to access the computer at all
and not being able to access advanced printer features is a mangitude of
how much you cannot do. Both concerns are addressed by adding features to
software that a vast majority of the users won't end up using. This was
my original point, and you seemed to be implying that accessability
software got some kind of magic exception from the "don't implement
unless it's used by a majority of users" rule just because we were
talking about disabled people instead of non-technical people.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:01 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
you seemed to be implying that accessability software got some kind of magic exception from the "don't implement unless it's used by a majority of users" rule just because we were talking about disabled people instead of non-technical people.
I've said nothing about the policy by which Gnome developers select features to implement (though actual Gnome developers on this thread have explictly disclaimed your characterization), but you've almost grasped the point I'm making. Being a non-technical person is a choice, such a person can gain technical knowledge and getting a more technical person to install a PPD file is an operation that needs to be done once. Being blind is not a choice, there is no practical way to regain sight and having an assistant read the screen must be done continously forever. These qualitative differences make your argument weak.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:21 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
>> These qualitative differences make your argument weak.Your argument is dangerous to the future of the Linux desktop, if it is
to have one! Advanced printer utilization is not rare enough that it is
acceptable to require end-users to seek out technical people, or to cover
the VAST domain of knowledge between working with a GUI and working with
text-based configuration on the command line (complete with all the
idioms you need to understand to get from point A to point B), merely to
print a report!
Let's break this down into pieces and find out which parts you disagree
with. Please address 1 point at a time.
1) Accessability software enables a small portion of the public to do
something they couldn't otherwise.
2) Advanced printer configuration would enable a larger portion of the
public to do something they couldn't otherwise.
3) Learning to work with PPDs directly is not practical for the vast
majority of these users.
4) Hiring an assistant to read the screen is not practical for the vast
majority of disabled users.
If you agree with 1-4 (and you should), then the only possible thing you
are left with is this idea of 'choice'. I submit that not understanding
PPD files isn't much of a choice either.
1) Blind people can get around being blind on the computer by hiring an
assistant, in theory. It would quite suck, but it's a *choice*.
2) Corporate users can get around not understanding PPD files by hiring a
assistant, in theory. It would quite suck, but it's a *choice*.
You made some smaller points, so just for thoroughness:
1) Well, it depends on what exactly we're talking about when you say that
the PPD scenario would only occur once. But in any case, if your desktop
design philosophy makes this expectation, how often do you suppose a user
might run into these unrecoverable pot holes during their computing
experience, requiring the attention of a seasoned expert?
2) As for GNOME developers disclaiming my idea of their policy, well,
they've verbally disclaimed it, but I so far have not seen an ounce of
reason that leads me to believe they are telling me something that is
consistent with the actual philosophy in practice. If so, perhaps you or
someone else could tell me - if advanced printer features were not to be
excluded because (a) most people don't need them, or (b) they confuse
people, why were they going to be excluded?
Now where exactly am I going wrong?
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:06 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
Your argument is dangerous to the future of the Linux desktop, if it is to have one!
Nonsense.
1) Accessability software enables a small portion of the public to do something they couldn't otherwise.
While technically true this is simplistic. A commitment to support disabled users where possible speaks to the values of a society in a way that advanced laser printing does not.
2) Advanced printer configuration would enable a larger portion of the public to do something they couldn't otherwise.
Do you have sound statistical evidence to support this claim? Most of the printers people buy for their homes don't need PPD configuration and not all of those that do need it for basic features. Most advanced laser printers are installed in office environments where a system adminstrator can deal with configuration. In between there are people who are not affraid to read enough documentation to configure PPD files with or without a pretty graphical tool. Are the remaining users who have such printers and refuse to use the command line more numerous than the blind or elderly who need assistive technologies? I don't know. But don't pretend to know if you don't.
3) Learning to work with PPDs directly is not practical for the vast majority of these users.
Really? So the vast majority of users who want advanced laser printing can't operate a search engine or read CUPS documentation?
4) Hiring an assistant to read the screen is not practical for the vast majority of disabled users.
Irrelevant. Even where it is practical assistive technology will cost less and provide more independence and privacy for such users.
1) Blind people can get around being blind on the computer by hiring an assistant, in theory. It would quite suck, but it's a *choice*. 2) Corporate users can get around not understanding PPD files by hiring a assistant, in theory. It would quite suck, but it's a *choice*.
Do you really not see the glaring differences here? Corporate users generally call such assistants system administrators and they hire them regardless of whether they need to make advanced laser printer features. Asking them to spend an hour or two out of a year to deal with such a routine task is not comparable to asking a disabled person to have their experience with a computer mediated by a full time assistant.
But in any case, if your desktop design philosophy makes this expectation, how often do you suppose a user might run into these unrecoverable pot holes during their computing experience, requiring the attention of a seasoned expert?
You don't know anything about my design philosophy, on the desktop or anywhere else. I don't particularly care whether the Gnome print dialog supports PPD configuration or not. Go ahead and use KDE if you are disappointed with the way Gnome works. Go ahead and encourage othersto do the same too. All I ask is that you stop pretending that support for disabled users and advanced laser printing are comparable. They're not.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:35 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
1. Yes, well I was under the impression we were debating technology - notpolitics or ethics.
2. Ignore the home users, because they'll start using desktop Linux after
their office does. The office is the #1 important ground for desktop
Linux to take first. And sure you don't need configuration for basic
printing in most cases. But should you banish your users to the command
line every time they want their printer to do staples for them, when
they're in a hurry to make it to the next meeting? I should hope not!
And I *am* making the assertion that this "minority" is larger than the
percentage of people using accessibility tools, because I've never seen
anyone use an accessibility tool (though I know people do) while I'm
sitting here in telecom corridor surrounded by office buildings with lots
of computer users and lots of printers. If Desktop Linux is to make it
here, the only way full printing support could ever be considered less
important than accessibility support is if someone is deliberately trying
to appeal to people's sensibilities over simple practicality.
3) They can operate a search engine, and they can technically read CUPS
documents. But my grandma could technically read a car's FSM -- that
doesn't mean it would be *at all* practical for her to rebuild her Honda
2 liter.
4) "Assistive technology" like being able to use your printer without
reading CUPS docs and hitting the damn command line will cost less and
provide more independence for corporate users!
>> Asking them to spend an hour or two out of a year to deal with such a
>> routine task is not comparable to asking a disabled person to have
>> their experience with a computer mediated by a full time assistant.
If you don't understand that this requirement for a third party assistant
is equally prohibitive in a corporate environment then you know nothing
about business. The big Linux vendors will never sell into an enterprise
if the customer knows they'll need system admins to assist on a user's
command line for changes to simple things like printing. Shared calendar
support in Outlook that *no one* used at my own company was enough reason
to drop a flawless, high-performance, already-paid-for Linux/qmail IT
rack in favor of recurring-expense, off-site, hosted Exchange. Business
features are important to businesses and while YOU may think it's fine to
leave your users out in the cold, the rest of the world is going to do
like Linus Torvalds and vote with their feet.
>> All I ask is that you stop pretending that support for disabled users
>> and advanced laser printing are comparable. They're not.
I've been making the comparison along with many others. Perhaps your
trouble is that you're unable to acknowledge that a world exists outside
your little bubble. If you're into software design, I should hope you
correct this, because you're not going to please many users that way.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:13 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
I've been making the comparison [between assistive technology and PPD printer configuration] along with many others. Perhaps your trouble is that you're unable to acknowledge that a world exists outside your little bubble.
No, my "trouble" (to the extent that I have any) is that this is the only point I'm interested in. I don't care about your messianic predictions about people abandoning Gnome or your pseudo-science explanations of the reasons Gnome developers implement some features and not others. The reason I haven't responded to your rants on these subjects is simply that I don't care what your opinions are. And while I'm touched by your concern about my business sense and success as a software designer, I'm afraid I don't find you credible enough to pay much attention to your opinions in these fields either.
All I want is for you to admit that bringning the disabled into the online world is more important than configuring PPD printers. Is that so hard for you?
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:39 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
It's very hard for me when you keep changing what you want me to claim. Isaid nothing about bringing users into the online world. In fact, I never
said accessibility utilities weren't important - quite the contrary,
since my argument for the equal necessity of good PPD support in the GUI
rides on it!
>> All I want is for you to admit that bringning the disabled into the
>> online world is more important than configuring PPD printers.
It sounds to me like you want to use the inverse of the argument you wish
I never made as an excuse for not implementing good printer support in
Gnome. Is that the case?
PPD files
Posted Dec 14, 2005 0:11 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
It's very hard for me when you keep changing what you want me to claim.
Exactly what about my position do you imagine I've changed? Maybe the reason this is so hard for you is that you're not especially bright. That's a tempting conclusion when considering the "arguments" you've presented so far.
It sounds to me like you want to use the inverse of the argument you wish I never made as an excuse for not implementing good printer support in Gnome. Is that the case?
No. That's a completely preposterous question. Are you even reading what you respond to? Show me where I have taken a position one way or another on whether Gnome or KDE has better printing support. Show me where I have compared the design philosophy of the two teams or in any way advocated one over the other on this thread. Here's a hint: I haven't. I'm certainly not going to begin debating such things with someone too dim witted to understand that accessibility is more important than printers that staple pages.
PPD files
Posted Dec 14, 2005 3:14 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
Well, let's list out three specific quotes from you and see if we canfind the (in)consistency.
>> Why do you have so much trouble admitting that there is an important
>> difference between being unable to access a computer at all and losing
>> the benefit of advanced printer features?
You posit an important difference...
>> All I ask is that you stop pretending that support for disabled users
>> and advanced laser printing are comparable. They're not.
Then you say there is no way to compare them...
>> All I want is for you to admit that bringning the disabled into the
>> online world is more important than configuring PPD printers. Is that'
>> so hard for you?
Then you say that bringing disabled users into the 'online world' is more
important than the printer features. When did the 'online world' enter
into this debate? Why and how? The same way the morals / ethics kneejerk
to the comment that "printer drivers are equally important to
accessibility tools" did - you simply thought it would be a nice way to
argue?
You might want to take your head out of the sand and look around... many
more people care about this issue than I, and your attitude is very
obviously defective for someone that's supposed to care about things that
work well for their users. You won't convert me to GNOME, but that's OK,
because I'm just another programmer. But there are a lot of users that
haven't been converted to either KDE or GNOME, or perhaps ones looking to
switch. If you care at all about attracting these people, banishing the
capability to do anything non-default about their printer to the command
line is very much not the way to welcome them with open arms.
And that makes you a run of the mill stupid engineer, because stupid
engineers are the people that not only design for themselves (which isn't
wrong as often as it's sometimes said) but actually flat out ignore the
idea that anyone else without an engineering degree might one day want to
use the product. Good job :)
In any case, I'm going to stop responding to your nonsense... if anything
makes me feel "not very bright," it's the feeling like I've been baited
into wasting my afternoon to argue with the functional equivalent of a
coke machine.
PPD files
Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:08 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
You posit an important difference... Then you say there is no way to compare them... Then you say that bringing disabled users into the 'online world' is more important than the printer features.
This is nothing but word games -- that is, sophistry. In context, when I say the two things are not comparable I'm refering to the absurd comparison you made at the beginning: "99% of the current Linux desktop market probably doesn't have damn bit of need for a screen reader / magnifier / sticky keys." You are comparing a refusal to support printer PPD configuration with refusing to support accessibility features. This comparison is invalid (regardless of whether Gnome developers actually have done so as you allege and others refute) because there is a qualitative difference between the two. You could admit this rather obvious fact without otherwise modifying your militant stance against Gnome. But then you wouldn't seem like such a moron and what fun would that be?
When did the 'online world' enter into this debate?
More word games. "Online" in this context is merely a shorthand for direct access to computers and the internet. I am clearly not attempting to expand the detate to some other subject with this phrase.
The same way the morals / ethics kneejerk to the comment that "printer drivers are equally important to accessibility tools" did - you simply thought it would be a nice way to argue?
Your creative grammer makes it impossible to be sure, but I can only assume you mean by this to accuse me of introducing nastly old morals into a lofty debate about technical issues. If so you're wrong as usual. This has more to do with logic and common sense than morals or ethics. I've explained this elsewhere.
You won't convert me to GNOME,
Why do you have so much difficulty grasping that I don't care which desktop you or anyone else uses? You are so bent out of shape over the difference between Gnome and KDE that merely by pointing out a flaw in your windy and incoherent statements that is completley unrelated to which is better I have become some sort of evangelist for the enemy in your eyes. Amusing.
PPD files
Posted Dec 16, 2005 6:56 UTC (Fri) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]
Back in the real world, there is no qualitative difference between the two. They're both people who can't use the system to do what they need. There's always going to be someone out there who could use the system if only you made some small change.
PPD files
Posted Dec 17, 2005 0:19 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
Do you actually want to pretend there's no qualitative difference between being unable to use a subset of the features of a subset of printers (assuming the command line is off limits) and having no way to access to email, the web, office productivity tools or any of the innumerable things a computer can offer? You seem less like a credible emissary from the "real world" than just another space cadet.
PPD files
Posted Dec 17, 2005 22:21 UTC (Sat) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]
Not a subset of printers, their printer. Assuming the command line is not off limits, the blind can access email, the web, and most of the innumerable things a computer can offer without GNOME's assistence.
PPD files
Posted Dec 19, 2005 1:09 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
By that reasoning, there could be no qualitative difference between Gnome and Bash because both offer enough features for some users but lack features others require. But common sense recognizes that they are not directly comparable. That's why alternative implementations of accessibility features are irrelevant. A Gnome that didn't have such features would have to be abandoned entirely by disabled users while a Gnome without PPD configuration could be used for everything except that relatively narrow task. This difference in the quality of the user experience is the issue.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:18 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
Being a non-technical person is a choice, such a person can gain technical knowledge and getting a more technical person to install a PPD file is an operation that needs to be done once.If this is the general opinion of GNOME developers, then I'm keeping GNOME far away from nontechnical people who rely on me for technical advice. They shouldn't need to jump the chasm from dumbed-down GUI to command line, or call me, in order to take full advantage of their computers. They should be able to discover the more advanced features for themselves through their own exploration. They shouldn't have to go off and independently become the sort of Unix people that GNOME expressly prefers to dismiss anyway.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:54 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
First, I never claimed to speak for the Gnome developers. Pretending otherwise in order to smear a group of people is intellectually dishonest on your part. Second, you have completely misunderstood what you are responding to. I never said it was good for PPD configuration to be more difficult, all else being equal. Everything I've written on this thread concerns the relative importance of accessibility and PPD configuration, which your comments don't address at all. You've taken a quote out of context and used it as an excuse for an ignorant rant. Pay attention before posting angry words unless you enjoy making an fool of yourself in this way.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 23:37 UTC (Tue) by rleigh (subscriber, #14622) [Link]
>>> What I'm really talking about is the difference between providing>>> acess to "all of a printer's capabilities" to a user who won't look up
>>> the instructions for using lower level mechanisms
>The point is that requiring a user to look up instructions for using low
>level mechanisms makes that functionality 'off-limits' to most users,
>despite how many of them might actually find it useful.
>The only difference between not being able to access the computer at all
>and not being able to access advanced printer features is a mangitude of
>how much you cannot do. Both concerns are addressed by adding features to
>software that a vast majority of the users won't end up using.
The PPD file tells the printing system what the capabilities of the printer are. They are useful for all printers, from a top of the range beast that occupies an entire room, through to small cheap inkjets. Without them, the printing system wouldn't let you choose the print quality and speed, paper type and size, and other basic options through to more esoteric features such as stapling, colour profiles, duplexing etc. They aren't something that can be ignored.
As a result of not supporting PPDs in *any* form, you can't do anything but print with the print queue defaults, giving the user zero control over printing. It can't even let you choose a paper size the printer can cope with. Printing under Gnome is painful at best, and completely inadequate the rest of the time. This is not usability. Rather than hiding advanced options, it provides no options at all...
KDEPrint (kprinter) has solved the problem for several years now, and supports all the major print spoolers in a general fashion (with plugins). Its printing support is top-notch. The reason why it wasn't done for Gnome is because instead of reimplementing this ideal solution, they wanted to reinvent the wheel, and avoid PPDs (supporting them just as an option). I discussed this with the maintainer at the Linux Printing Summit in Bordeax in 2004.
Roger
(a Gnome user and Gimp-Print developer)
No sophistry involved
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:54 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
You say magnifiers and sticky keys are essential to some people who otherwise can't use their computers, even though they could have a hired assistant reading or typing for them at extra expense, yet you deride people wanting GUI access to all PPD capabilities which enable them to use their printers, by saying they should hire a sysadmin to use a command line for them.
Tell me again the difference between hiring a sysadmin and hiring a reading and typing assistant. --- No wait, I'll tell you. Sysadmins cost a lot more and thus are only used by rich wealthy bastards, while reading and typing assistants humiliate the differently enabled persons who have to hire them. That sounds about right. Pardon me if my politically correct jargon is not quite up to snuff, my personal translator assistant hasn't shown up for work today.
I have been rolling my own fvwm-based X for years. Once in a while I will try Gnome or KDE just to se what I am supposedly missing. I was a bit distressed when Slackware dropped Gnome. But your politically correct posts have convinced me that the Gnome mindset has nothing to do with my future.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:59 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]
Why do you have so much trouble admitting that on some printers, the "advanced" functionality may be essential to getting it working at all? Or are those of us who want to use cheap and readily available laser printers at high altitudes supposed to know that we can't find the feature in the GUI, and will have to tackle complex command line stuff?In any case, even without a screen magnifier, someone blind could use a braille terminal, or get a friend. In addition, you could have the person who'd set your magnifier up set your screen up at a ridiculously low res (e.g. 300x200 on a 25" 4:3 CRT), with a larger (e.g. 1024x768) virtual desktop. The software isn't needed if you have the right hardware, but it sure helps make life easier.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:19 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
Or are those of us who want to use cheap and readily available laser printers at high altitudes supposed to know that we can't find the feature in the GUI, and will have to tackle complex command line stuff?
Yes. Using a command line is not rocket science. Or use KDE. But stop pretending that support for PPD files in the graphical interface is as important as accessibility features. It's not.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:25 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
If you don't think GUI support for PPD files is as important asaccessability features, don't implement it. Just watch how fast people
continue to bitch about your archaic printer support, especially as KDE's
print system continues to leave you in the dust, even being the deciding
point in a GNOME vs KDE Linux desktop rollout of size.
Sooner or later one or two things simply has to happen:
1) GNOME gets real printing support
-or-
2) People stop/don't start using GNOME in environments where printing is
at all important
PPD files
Posted Dec 14, 2005 12:53 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
You're not very imaginative, cventers. I suggest you look up the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
3. Printers become obsolete in 2012 so nobody cares anymore.
4. The patent system makes it impossible to use open source in the U.S. causing both Gnome and KDE both wither and die.
5. Microsoft suddenly embraces Gnome wholeheartedly and ports the Windows printing system over.
6. Space aliens land and share their technology with us. Gnome and KDE (and vi and emacs) become irrelevant overnight.
7. Ubuntu writes front-ends for every PPD ever made, fixing yet *another* serious screwup made by the Gnome decision makers.
8. J. Random Hacker writes a PPD->GnomePrint converter so you can just download your printer's profile from the fine folks at linuxprinting.org.
...and so on.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:34 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]
I used the example of a screen magnifier for a reason; with a default X.org configuration on an EDID capable system, or a correctly set up XFree86 on any system, you don't need a magnifier application. You can use Ctrl-KP Plus and Ctrl-KP Minus to switch down to some small resolutions (400x300 is the smallest EDID resolution on my 21" CRT, which is normally run at 1600x1200).Why do you say that the minority of users who need a magnifier application (but not other accessibility features) are so much more important than the minority of users who need access to "advanced" PPD features to make their printer work at all that GNOME needs several ways to make things OK for the magnifier users, but that people who want to print should learn the command line?
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:45 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
Why do you say that the minority of users who need a magnifier application (but not other accessibility features) are so much more important than the minority of users who need access to "advanced" PPD features to make their printer work at all that GNOME needs several ways to make things OK for the magnifier users, but that people who want to print should learn the command line?
I didn't. Those are your words. The subtext of your question is this: why is bringing the disabled into the online world more important than making it as easy as possible to configure PPD printers? That the answer isn't obvious to you speaks volumes.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:49 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
Look, do you want a quick and simple answer to your stupid question?Advanced PPD configuration is NOT more important to bring disabled into
the online world. These two items, in both a technological and a business
perspective, in the context of GNOME being anything beyond a child's toy
in the office environment, are equally important!
The only way that accessibility becomes a more important concern is if
you're talking about moral / ethical concerns. This debate is not at all
about morals or ethics, but you were so eager to shred any part of my
original argument that you foolishly attempted to turn it into one.
Now that you're focusing on accessibility being "more important" than a
"different issue you can't compare" as you did originally, you're seeming
to imply that because there are remaining accessibility battles to be
fought, PPD configuration doesn't matter. If that's really the case, so
be it. I'm making a random assumption at the moment that you are at all
involved with the development of GNOME - if so, open source being more
evolutionary than its proprietary brother, you can be quite sure Darwin
will come knocking.
PPD files
Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:08 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
Advanced PPD configuration is NOT more important to bring disabled into the online world.
At last you admit the equivalent of two plus two is four. Well done! What a pity you couldn't resist adding that this holds only for some values of two:
The only way that accessibility becomes a more important concern is if you're talking about moral / ethical concerns. This debate is not at all about morals or ethics, but you were so eager to shred any part of my original argument that you foolishly attempted to turn it into one.
Accessibility is more important on the basis of logic and common sense. Let's replace disability with something more morally and ethically neutral and see what happens: Suppose we have two users with no physical handicaps. Both have computers and PPD printers that they would like to use their full capacity. The first user has an operating system which is perfect in every way except that it has no graphical support for configuring the printer. The command line is available but very scary. The second user has an operating system which is perfect in every way except that it has no support for graphical display of any kind, including text consoles.
Which of these users has the more important problem?
Now that you're focusing on accessibility being "more important" than a "different issue you can't compare" as you did originally,
These seem different only because you are so determined to twist words that you can't see the forest behind all the trees. Accessibility is not comparable to PPD printing in the crabbed way you attempted in your original post. This is true because you started with the assumption that both were of equal importance. Maybe if you made fewer "random assumptions" this would not be so difficult to understand.
PPD files
Posted Dec 15, 2005 21:06 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
I want you to re-read my original remarks to which you objected:>> If you want an extreme example of where this "minority" attitude
>> breaks down, let's consider accessibility features for a moment. 99%
>> of the current Linux desktop market probably doesn't have damn bit of
>> need for a screen reader / magnifier / sticky keys. But you'd get
>> flamed off the planet for suggesting that we forget about this
>> 'accessibility nonsense' on the grounds that the desktop should Just
>> Work for the Majority.
If you think for a second that reading documentation and
interacting with CUPS on the command line for non-default printing is not
an _absolute_ barrier to usage for 90% of corporate computer users on the
planet, you're missing:
>> logic and common sense
Scenario 1: A large number of corporate users can't use GNOME because it
sucks bad at printing.
Scenario 2: A small number of people can't use GNOME because they can't
see and it lacks a screen reader (hypothetically, if it did).
In Scenario 1, a group of users cannot use GNOME because it lacks
critical functionality.
In Scenario 2, a group of users cannot use GNOME because it lacks
critical functionality.
Now, tell me, what piece of critical functionality are _YOU_ missing to
imply that these two things are totally different / can't be compared?
I never implied the disabled weren't important - quite the contrary, in
fact. But to claim that people who print aren't at least as important is
(see Linus's big F word) INSANE.
PPD files
Posted Dec 17, 2005 1:58 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]
Scenario 1: A large number of corporate users can't use GNOME because it sucks bad at printing. Scenario 2: A small number of people can't use GNOME because they can't see and it lacks a screen reader (hypothetically, if it did).
I've already pointed out that you have presented no credible data to substantiate your claim about which group of users is larger. Without that you're merely speculating. But even so you're on shaky ground for two reasons. For one thing, whether you care to admit it or not, most so-called "corporate users" are supported by system administrators who are quite capable of reading documentation and configuring things on the command line. For another, the second group will include elderly users who are not necessarily blind but have impaired visual and motor abilities which probably makes it larger than you imagine.
Nevertheless, the relative sizes of the groups is not the real issue.
But to claim that people who print aren't at least as important is (see Linus's big F word) INSANE.
Nowhere have I claimed that one person or group of people was more important than any other. Quote the text that lead to you to believe that and I'll clarify what you have misunderstood. The point I've been making (again and again and again...) is that coping with a missing feature that prevents a user from accessing a computer in any way is qualitatively different from coping with a missing feature that prevents a user from accessing a subset of features of a subset of printers.
Leaving a user unable to make a printer staple automatically is preferable to leaving one without access to email, the web, office productivity tools or indeed anything a computer could possible do -- not because the second user is more important but because the first has a much smaller burden to bear. Admitting this does not require you to concede that Gnome is in any way better than KDE, that the printing support the former provides is adequate in general or that any particular decision made by the designers of the former is appropriate. But it does require you to think of something other than your bruised ego. Can you manage that?
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:42 UTC (Tue) by Frej (subscriber, #4165) [Link]
I'm guessing the choice was1) a working printer dialog without every ppd option
2) fantasy print dialog with every option
It all comes down to someone doing the work.
There is a gnome-cups-manager module in cvs. But you have to know it exists. It seems to provide every ppd option for my driver here.
More often than not issues are bugs and missing features and not forced by "design".
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:21 UTC (Tue) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]
Though we did point out that those justifications were not the real reasons for any of the issues raised. The "too confusing for users" rationale comes up as shorthand or regurgitation. It does not even remotely represent the way we approach GNOME design or usability.
PPD files
Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:48 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]
Can I ask an honest question? How often do features in GNOME programsthat KDE counterparts include get excluded specifically because you guys
are worried they will get in people's way?
I'm not saying my MP3 player should make coffee, bit it would be awesome
if, for example, my File Open dialogs were a bit more powerful. What if I