| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Do the actually not like their users?Do the actually not like their users?Posted Apr 23, 2008 16:42 UTC (Wed) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648)Parent article: The Grumpy Editor encounters the Hardy Heron
That's. Just. Hideous. Does the GNOME team not like their users? (Ducks to avoid barrage of flames) Disclosure: I use KDE, but I guarantee it has its fair share of annoyances not unlike our editor's "strobe light" situation in GNOME. As for the desktop wallpaper/background, well, I have to insist that GNOME got it wrong. Routing all users to a file browser application (Nautilus) to change desktop appearance is unacceptable. Heck, even Microsoft Windows does this right: Right-click on the desktop and bring up a context menu. How difficult can that be?
(Log in to post comments)
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 17:00 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] There is a perfectly good GUI for that setting, as with all the GConf settings, on my Fedora system it's Applications -> System Tools -> Configuration editor. It includes search* so that you can quickly find settings you want. You are of course also welcome to write a GUI configuration tool that has exactly the fourteen settings you think should be configurable, without also listing the hundreds of other settings you think only idiots would change, but since everyone's list is different your tool may have a limited audience... * although in this case you'll find a bug, searching for "cursor" doesn't match the relevant configuration setting even though it obviously should. Some other entries about cursors are found instead, someone more patient than me could investigate whether this is fixed in a newer GNOME than my 2.20.3 Also, you DO right click on the desktop and bring up a context menu item to change the background in GNOME. But what are you clicking on? When Nautilus is running (which is the default for GNOME users) then the background is owned by Nautilus. Since our Grumpy Editor wasn't running Nautilus there was nothing to click on except the empty root window.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 23, 2008 17:15 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Also, you DO right click on the desktop and bring up a context menu item to change the background in GNOME. But what are you clicking on? When Nautilus is running (which is the default for GNOME users) then the background is owned by Nautilus. Since our Grumpy Editor wasn't running Nautilus there was nothing to click on except the empty root window. How about System->Preferences->Look and Feel->Appearance? There's a nifty "Background" tab there that used to work; now it silently fails to do what it says it's going to do.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 23, 2008 17:24 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] Presumably because it tells Nautilus to set the background, and your Nautilus is long dead. Is that outcome a bug? Yes, perhaps. But it's going to be on the priority scale somewhere between "GNOME does not show correct free disk space on my 20 Petabyte USB RAID array" and "GNOME world map is wrong for my planet, Neptune". My guess would be that if you don't write a really good patch of your own, any bug would be "fixed" by just greying out that entire panel when Nautilus is disabled.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 23, 2008 18:25 UTC (Wed) by mightyduck (guest, #23760) [Link] This is a pretty rude response. You GNOME people really hate your users! Disclaimer: I'm using KDE.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 23, 2008 19:36 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I think we are LWN subscribers here in the first place, not "GNOME people" or anyone writing in any official capacity. It's not an interview with a GNOME developer or something like that.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 24, 2008 0:57 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I don't see this has a huge problem. Just use gconf-editor I find using that a lot easier then navigating KDE's option menus. Seriously. It's not that bad. For example for blinking cursors you go: ctrl-f checkmark "search also key names" type 'blink' hit 'enter' First two finds are: /desktop/gnome/interface/cursor_blink_time /desktop/gnome/interface/cursor_blink The first one tells me: "Length of the cursor blink cycle, in milliseconds" Soo.. no that's not it. The second one tells me: "Whether the cursor should blink" I uncheck it. The change is immediate. That's not that bad. It's a obscure setting that few people want. Why clutter up everything with a billion options? I can understand getting irritated that previously options that are set get unset, of course. But we don't need a 1001 GUIs or windows with a billion icons on them representing every single obscure option imaginable. It's just not worth it. Seriously. People who are a serious Gnome users need to use gconf-editor. There are descriptions for most options that are not blindingly obvious. For example; clicking through metacity's options I found how to enable it's compositing mode and to enable low-resource mode. For nautilus I found how to change the 'my computer' name. All sorts of other stuff.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 24, 2008 8:17 UTC (Thu) by lab (subscriber, #51153) [Link] Sorry, but I cannot begin to describe how wrong I think you are, and thank you for putting it very concisely. You exactly hit one of the nerves that made me go "fed up" with Gnome a while back, and switch to KDE. I've been a happier person for it.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 25, 2008 4:53 UTC (Fri) by vapier (subscriber, #15768) [Link] as much as i hate the karma system, i have to +1 this comment. so spot on, it's like you copy & pasted my brain.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 26, 2008 0:22 UTC (Sat) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Or you can go to System -> Preferences -> Keyboard -> Cursor Blinking ...
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 23, 2008 20:58 UTC (Wed) by ernstp (subscriber, #13694) [Link] You have disabled one of the most basic components of Gnome (Nautilus) and can't tolerate any glitches... ?
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 23, 2008 21:05 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] If I turn off the file manager, I expect not to have a file manager. I was surprised to find that it breaks seemingly unrelated functionality, especially given that things did work in previous releases. The breaking of something which once worked is called a "regression," normally.So be it, this one is not that big of a deal. I can't see my background anyway (which is why I see no point in having nautilus cluttering it up), and xsetroot is sufficient to clear away the obnoxious default color scheme.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 23, 2008 22:45 UTC (Wed) by russell (subscriber, #10458) [Link] Is is still a regression if the GNOME developers never intended old releases to work that way? I would have thought nautilus was something GNOME developers could have counted on being around as a fundamental piece of infrastructure on which they can build on. Any GNOME developers out there?
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 23, 2008 23:19 UTC (Wed) by NCunningham (guest, #6457) [Link] (Not a Gnome developer, but I am a developer) It doesn't matter how the developer intends the software to be used. Users will always come up with ways of using it that you never imagined. What counts is whether the knobs you provide for tuning your software work as advertised, regardless of which combination of settings the user tries. If they find a combination where something doesn't work as intended, you have a bug. If they find a combination where something works as intended, but not as desired, well... that's a feature request. In this case, it's a bug because the advertised functionality doesn't work as advertised in these circumstances.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 24, 2008 1:20 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well the guy that was asking the question asked 'If it was a regression', not 'if was a bug'. It may be a bug, but it's not a regression. It's always been like this as far as I know. It shouldn't be hard to fix, so file a bug report and let it go. They fix it or they don't.
nautilus =? infrastructure Posted Apr 23, 2008 23:25 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I don't run nautilus either. I don't want unrelated features built on it as "infrastructure". By all means put desktop file management features there. That's what it's for. Me, I use "mv", and prefer it. So, yes, this *is* a regression. Any core dependency on nautilus is a regression, just as would be any core dependency on tomboy or beagle. They're programs I don't happen to use, and that I see no reason to have installed. There are other programs that do behind-the-scenes work. Gnome-session seems like a not unreasonable place for this bit.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 28, 2008 12:54 UTC (Mon) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] Yes. Plain and simple yes. If doing that USED to work, but doesn't work TODAY, then it is a regression. It matters not how the developers, or anyone else, INTENDED it to work, what matters is actual behaviour. Actual behaviour is that right-clicking the desktop and setting the wallpaper USED to work, even for people without Nautilus running. Today it no longer works. That is a regression. It's not a major issue or anything, not as if this makes the computer unusable, but a regression nevertheless.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 28, 2008 19:40 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link] Hehe, talking of regressions, you'd like KDE 4.0 ;-) More serious, this is a weird thing. I would personally say it's good to reuse code (use Nautilus code to paint the background) but it was done wrong (needs Nautilus running somehow). Should be factored out in a common library, I would presume. Imho despite all it's shortcomings, KDE does things better in this regard - the infrastructure is in order. Let's see if our Grumpy friend will get acquainted with KDE again when 4.1 is out - see if he likes it.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 29, 2008 6:09 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] I personally don't mind minor regressions much. I deal, and like our grumpy editor I like living on the edge, and I'm fully aware that that means suffering bruises and cuts every now and then. I was just responding to the (imho!) very misguided idea that something that stops working somehow isn't a regression if the developer never "intended" it to work in the first place. I do indeed like KDE4, bugs and all.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 24, 2008 15:54 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I don't know how it is in Ubuntu, but in Fedora 9, removing bluetooth support removes nautilus:
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 24, 2008 19:26 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] > You don't make one of the most basic components depend on libraries for optional hardware. By most basic components I guess you mean gvfs? Nautilus is not the only dependency for that (at least not in the future) as it replaces gnome-vfs...
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 24, 2008 21:49 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] "one of the most basic components" referred to nautilus. I should have used quotes.
Hmm... Why? Posted May 12, 2008 14:25 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You don't make one of the most basic components depend on libraries for optional hardware. Interesting. Why it's Ok for optional software (like kerberos) but not Ok for optional hardware (like bluez)? And if you'll say that you should make everything optional removable then the only sane answer is Gentoo... Ubuntu, Fedora and other popular distributions are NOT Gentoo and are NOT designed to allow mix-and-match use. They are designed to WORK. Out of the box. They are doing it quite well - unless you are trying to change them too much.
Hmm... Why? Posted May 15, 2008 12:24 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Interesting you mention Gentoo. That's in fact what I was going to mention as well. Binary distributions often have compile-time support choices that force library dependencies if enabled. It was apparently judged worthwhile to enable bluetooth support for those that had it, even at the cost of forcing the library dependency. The option would be disabling bluetooth support even for those that needed it. This is the kind of choices binary distributions make all the time. Among other things, it's why most binary distributions favor one desktop environment (KDE, GNOME, XFCE, whatever) over another, even if they have binaries for both. Inevitably there will be packages with compile-time enabled options to better integrate with more than one, and a binary distribution will, by working policy borne of necessity, tend to enable the support for their "default" desktop while disabling the other, thus not forcing the installation of their non-default desktops, while forcing the installation of at least major components of their default choice due to the build-time linking they enabled. The only way around this sort of thing for a binary distro is shipping multiple choices, either as different distribution flavors, ubuntu/kubuntu, etc, or by shipping multiple versions of the same package (say vim and vim-minimal, to cite one example I'm familiar with from my time a few years ago on Mandrake). Either way that's a limited workaround, because it doesn't deal with the more obscure choices, which will tend to be enabled or disabled based on individual distribution policy for that sort of dependency and the functionality hit taken when disabling it. While they certainly have their own faults, source-based distributions shouldn't have this one, at least not to anywhere near the same extent, because being source based, the choice of whether to support the extra functionality and take the extra dependencies is made at the user end, at compile and install time. That's what Gentoo's USE flags are all about. If you're using a binary distribution, you're choosing a package set where untold hundreds, more like thousands, of these choices have been already made for you. If you choose one more or less compatible with your usage, purposes and preferences, a good share of them will be the same choices you would have made anyway and you've saved yourself the hassle of compiling everything from source at the cost of, probably, a handful of packages that get installed as dependencies that you'd not need had you compiled each package with just the support you needed. Hopefully, you find one fairly close to what you want and you have just those few extra packages and interdependencies. But, you WILL get those few. It comes with the territory. It's a tradeoff you choose to take when you choose a binary distribution. If you don't like it, choose a from source distribution that allows you to control such things... at the cost of compiling everything yourself. Your choice. When it comes to my computer, I'm definitely and admittedly a control freak, and I had decent hardware, so I chose the extra control. Others don't mind the loss of functionality and customizability, as long as it "just works". For them, from all I read, GNOME based Ubuntu tends to be a pretty good solution, as are (in a different way) various proprietaryware solutions, where you pay your money and get a more or less turnkey solution they expect you you to take more or less as is and not be too interested in poking away at the internals of (indeed, it tends to be against the EULA to do so). If they are lucky, it'll meet their needs and wants as well as my Gentoo with KDE has for me, and they'll be as happy with the results as I've been. =8^) Duncan
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 17:25 UTC (Wed) by alvherre (subscriber, #18730) [Link] Agreed. I'm a long-time GNOME user and while I'm happy with many of the improvements in every release, it seems the developers find ways to annoy everyone all the time. I have no need for Nautilus at all. In fact I'm not too worried about having to use gconf-editor or whatever to change the appareance of my desktop; but the fact that not running Nautilus means that I get *no background image at all* is disturbing. Regarding blinking cursors, I am not worried, given that the switch from gnome-terminal to xterm is the first thing I do when setting up my desktop. Oops, I just noticed that I get a blinking cursor on Epiphany for editing this comment ... yikes.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 20:34 UTC (Wed) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link] My prolonged exposure to GNOME has resulted in apathy: I don't care about the desktop settings anymore. I guess it's inevitable. To caricaturize: if I like a setting, it's almost certainly gone in the next release, so there's no point to set oneself for disappointment. That being said, while I can no longer easily configure myself a nonblinking cursor, at least I can still put text as white on black. When this option is gone, too, I guess my frustration level will finally reach its all-time peak, and I will dream of murderous rampages in GNOME HQ. The single best thing to have happened to GNOME lately is compiz. I don't talk about the bling, although I somewhat appreciate that as well, especially whole-desktop zoom. What I am talking about is the ability to drag windows from one desktop to another again. Every day that I have been allowed to keep using this feature, I have dutifully sacrificed a chicken and gone to bed as a happier man. Is there nothing that can convince GNOME guys to stop removing settings? Would someone at least write a GNOME advanced GUI that will have all the settings the devs choose to remove? I think it'd be a hit!
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 23:34 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I have watched the text edit mode setting for emacs key bindings gradually fade away. First the dialog-box checkbox disappeared. Then the on-line documentation on the setting in gconf was deleted! The first could be attributed to streamlining. The second smacks of malice. When emacs edit key binding ultimately goes away, as it seems it must, I suppose I will finally switch to KDE. I wonder if there will be anything to miss, then.
Do they actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 23:56 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] By the way, the gconf key required appears to be desktop/gnome/interface/gtk_key_theme and the value that still works to fix the key assignments is "Emacs".
Do they actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 17:32 UTC (Thu) by jfranks (subscriber, #1213) [Link] Thank you, thank you, thank you! I thought this was lost.
Do they actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 19:25 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] Through Gtk themeing you can actually set Gtk text widgets to use any key theme (RC file) you like: http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/2.12/GtkSettings.html#... The above mentioned setting just tells it to use a pre-installed Emacs keybindings theme RC file from here: /usr/share/themes/Emacs/gtk-2.0-key/gtkrc If you look at it, it should be fairly obvious how to create your own keyboard themes.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 25, 2008 4:33 UTC (Fri) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link] > I guess it's inevitable. To caricaturize: if I like a setting, it's almost certainly gone in the next release, so there's no point to set oneself for disappointment. For me, it happened only one time during the switch from Gnome 1.4 to Gnome 2.0. After an initial shock and an understanding that it's really going to be this way from that point, I've *so* switched to KDE :) Don't like being tortured this way. They should have renamed the project to something different, really.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 28, 2008 15:23 UTC (Mon) by ceplm (subscriber, #41334) [Link] > Would someone at least write a GNOME advanced GUI that will have all the > settings the devs choose to remove? That's called gconf-editor. Yes, really -- see above explanation of how to change the settings for blinking cursor (if you don't use normal configuration in System menu that is). It is not that hard.
Do they actually not like their users? Posted May 7, 2008 17:04 UTC (Wed) by celtic_hackr (guest, #47391) [Link] So, Gnome's answer for removing obvious features is to go to gconf-editor, but this doesn't appear to be in the menu, so one would have to dig to find this, just so they can set the desktop background? And while on this rant, who would ever look for desktop settings in a file manager, and why would you make the file manager the system settings manager? Isn't that the job for a system settings manager and not a file manager? I run Linux Mint, so it's a Ubuntu clone (on steriods). I use KDE, simply because everything is just too hard to do in Gnome, for my taste. When I want to change something, I want to be able to do it intuitively, not by having to google for it. Life is complicated enough without having to make it more so. GUIs should be painless and made for the simpleminded. Not that KDE is all that, there are certainly things that are hard to do in KDE, but it's far superior to Gnome. I even opened a Gnome desktop to test changing the background. There was a way to do it from a right click on the desktop (since I didn't disable Nautilus), but something running in the background made the window come up so slowly, and every other tab (fonts, animation, etc) in the configuration screen refused to open. Gnome is a real dog on this <1 year old laptop, but to be fair it was the third X session running, but when I switch it to KDE it runs fine. I see comments in here about disabling things in Gnome to get the speed performance back. Sorry, that's the wrong approach. It seems Gnome has taken all the bad ideas from Windows and implemented them, only making them worse. Of course, our Grumpy editor has made his life harder by his own action, which any normal person would have probably thought was innocuous. Who'd a thunk it? Remove a file manager and remove your desktop!? I'll bet adding back Nautilus won't easily fix those problems though, and probably the only way to properly fix removing Nautilus is to re-install the OS? Wow, just like Windows. Great job, Gnome guys!!! So my advice to you Grumpy Editor is switch to KDE, it's not perfect but I like it.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 17:36 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] Oh yes. Hideous! Giving users an option instead of making them recompile the source code. MacOS X, widely claimed as one of the most user friendly environments, in its 10.5 version introduced a new look for the Dock. Users who don't like that look had an option: open a command line and enter a nasty command. But they did at least have that option. Windows, another "user friendly" environment, has about a zillion networking options hidden inside a command line tool called "netsh". Displaying all the options instead of a selection of options gives you interfaces like the older KDE 2 versions, or Gnome 1, or Gnome 2's gconf-editor, or the UI Joel Spolsky uses as the "worst ever" example: the Windows version of wget, where the UI is just every possible wget option on a series of tabs in a dialog box. Instead of all these hard to use options, real users edit the source code and rebuild, like with the "dwm" window manager.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 17:56 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] That's. Just. Hideous. Does the GNOME team not like their users? (Ducks to avoid barrage of flames) From the brief and unpleasant interactions I've had with GNOME developers, I would conclude that they do not like their users. Well, I voted with my feet. XFCE for me, and my kids independently chose KDE after trying GNOME and KDE. Unfortunately, some GNOME annoyances are difficult to escape such as the stupid file browser that hangs for 10 seconds in large directories. Firefox 3 uses GNOME (well, I guess GTK) widgets by default. Here's the magical firefox incantation to get a usable file browser again:
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 19:11 UTC (Wed) by jorism (subscriber, #21807) [Link] Thanks a lot for the magical firefox incantation! If I use the standard file browser to pick the application "gv" in /usr/bin, I have to wait about 50 seconds until the contents of /usr/bin is displayed (!!!). I always thought that this bug would be noticed by many people and thus get fixed soon, so I never bothered reporting it. I now realize that I have been waiting for a fix for more than two years already... and in the mean time, I even got used to this strange behaviour. But your trick reduces the waiting time from 50s to about 0s...! I wonder what the standard firefox file browser is doing with the list of files that takes so long...anyway, thanks a lot for this workaround!
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 20:26 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] I always thought that this bug would be noticed by many people and thus get fixed soon, so I never bothered reporting it. In the spirit of civic-mindedness, I opened bug 430532 with mozilla.org.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 23:51 UTC (Wed) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] While I agree that the GTK+ file browser could be faster... if Firefox bothered to integrate with the GNOME platform at all then instead of picking 'gv' from a /usr/bin directory containing (on my system) 3740 files (a pathological condition if ever I saw one) then you'd just pick it from a dropdown of other applications capable of opening image files.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 0:41 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] instead of picking 'gv' from a /usr/bin directory containing [...] you'd just pick it from a dropdown of other applications capable of opening image files. Ye gods, no! That means that Firefox would totally ignore software it doesn't know about or recognize. It means that if you're not part of the GNOME Universe, you may as well not exist, which is the most objectionable aspect of GNOME anyway! It would also do nothing to solve situations that really need arbitrary files, like "File : Open"
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 8:45 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Nothing prevents there from being a way to add arbitrary programs to the list. This user interface has already been designed, fer-christsake, it's just up to mozilla.com to use it. Now you should both be happy; you who want to pick some random image viewing program that doesn't fit in with the rest of the desktop out of a directory of 3500 other files; and the ordinary user who just wants to view an image! http://imagebin.ca/view/KGirIbR1.html for a screenshot...
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 13:43 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] This user interface has already been designed, fer-christsake, it's just up to mozilla.com to use it. But that would introduce a dependency on GNOME rather than just GTK. And that's completely unacceptable to those of us who do not use GNOME.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 13:48 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] No no no it absolutely would not create a dependency on GNOME. And people who don't understand that it wouldn't should quite frankly shut the hell up instead of spreading more FUD.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 15:09 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] OK, sorry, I didn't realize the "helper program..." dialog was part of base GTK. I still dislike the interface, but for personal reasons rather than because it's part of GNOME.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 25, 2008 5:00 UTC (Fri) by vapier (subscriber, #15768) [Link] "spreading FUD" generally implies purposefully doing so. correcting people who are simply mistaken does not deserve a "shut the hell up".
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 10:44 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] And those of us who don't use GNOME are left out in the cold?
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 11:00 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Just use Epiphany. I really don't understand why anyone would use Firefox with GNOME. I particularly can't understand it why someone, after making that choice, would then complain about FireFox's lack of system integration...
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 21:57 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] From the brief and unpleasant interactions I've had with GNOME developers, I would conclude that they do not like their users.I think they mostly like Microsoft's users, which is where a lot of the discontent comes from. It's a lot easier to keep make-believe users that you don't really have happy than it is to please the ones that are actually using the software. As a result, features are added (and removed) that no-one actually requested.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 1:04 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] *zing* Yow! :-) I must put the parent post in my .sig.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 6:20 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I would definitely agree with that comment, especially in my own pet-peeve case: file-selector widget sorting. GTK/Gnome has the setting to sort folders separately from files fixed in stone (well, in the source code, but it might as well be in granite), with a snarky little comment about how this is the One True Way and it will Always Be That Way. Fortunately, a little snip-snip with the editor, and a recompile, and the One True Way disappears into the ether. :) When I say I want things sorted by last-modified date, that's exactly what I mean, d*** it. It doesn't matter that the last-modified thing is a folder or not--whatever it is, put it at the top (or the bottom, if the sort is reversed)!
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 7:59 UTC (Thu) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link] Could you please post, where I have to change this? Patch or filename+number would be OK. TIA.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 16:53 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] When I patched it out before, it was lines 5644 to 5707 of gtk+-2.10.14/gtk/gtkfilechooserdefault.c. You'll probably be able to see what to cut out and rearrange (essentially, remove the COMPARE_DIRECTORIES macro calls). I'm grabbing 2.12.9 right now, and I'll see if it's the same way--if so, I'll post a diff.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 17:04 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] It is still the same in 2.12.9. Following is a patch. I didn't choose to remove the definition for the COMPARE_DIRECTORIES macro, because it won't make any difference in the generated code, but you can take it out if you want to be extra-neat. --- gtk+-2.12.9-orig/gtk/gtkfilechooserdefault.c 2008-04-24 09:57:46.000000000 -0700
+++ gtk+-2.12.9-modified/gtk/gtkfilechooserdefault.c 2008-04-24 09:59:23.000000000 -0700
@@ -6278,8 +6278,6 @@
GtkTreeIter *b,
gpointer user_data)
{
- COMPARE_DIRECTORIES;
- else
return strcmp (gtk_file_info_get_display_key (info_a), gtk_file_info_get_display_key (info_b));
}
@@ -6290,14 +6288,10 @@
GtkTreeIter *b,
gpointer user_data)
{
- COMPARE_DIRECTORIES;
- else
- {
gint64 size_a = gtk_file_info_get_size (info_a);
gint64 size_b = gtk_file_info_get_size (info_b);
return size_a > size_b ? -1 : (size_a == size_b ? 0 : 1);
- }
}
/* Sort callback for the mtime column */
@@ -6307,14 +6301,10 @@
GtkTreeIter *b,
gpointer user_data)
{
- COMPARE_DIRECTORIES;
- else
- {
GtkFileTime ta = gtk_file_info_get_modification_time (info_a);
GtkFileTime tb = gtk_file_info_get_modification_time (info_b);
return ta > tb ? -1 : (ta == tb ? 0 : 1);
- }
}
/* Callback used when the sort column changes. We cache the sort order for use
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 25, 2008 9:02 UTC (Fri) by regala (subscriber, #15745) [Link] What can be sure is that you people don't like people but yourselves. Read what you wrote, insulting fair developers who try to make a desktop environment for the people not you, you, you. Some project choose a way, a policy, some others, another and so one. So instead of spreading a hell of FUD just you and you and you there, hidden behind the pillar, just speak yourself what you are about to frentically write, and notice you are just among GNOME-haters here. Brain-masturbation isn't it ?
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 2:23 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] I thought "ooh good, I'll do that", went to about:config, and discovered it was already set that way. Hmm. I wonder when I did that? And how long it would have taken me to remember what needed sorting out if it had been silently reset on upgrade? And why anyone would tolerate, even for one second, an environment where that kind of rudeness was not only tolerated but expected...?
Config changes and upgrades Posted Apr 26, 2008 8:42 UTC (Sat) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] Surely you back up your home directory (which contains your Firefox profile on Linux) on upgrades? In any case, very few application upgrades would touch anything in your home directory, so this is something of a non-issue. I do recommend a home Wiki to track this sort of config change, which is particularly useful if you do a fresh install or want to do the same change on other machines.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted May 14, 2008 1:43 UTC (Wed) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] about:config and then set ui.allow_platform_file_picker to false.I'm a bit late, but thanks for that information. I can't stand that file picker and suffered silently for a long time.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 20:58 UTC (Wed) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link] Either you misunderstood him, or the editor was wrong. Nautilus _manages_ the desktop background. That means if you aren't running nautilus or tell nautilus to no manage backgrounds in gnome then you can't change the wallpaper. To change the wallpaper, right click on the desktop, and click "Change Desktop Background". Thats from the Ubuntu Hardy box I'm posting this message from.
Do they actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 22:09 UTC (Wed) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] That means if you aren't running nautilus or tell nautilus to no[t] manage backgrounds in gnome then you can't change the wallpaper. So, to draw an analogy, that's like having to go to the stove in the kitchen to change the channel on the television in the living room. Sorry for being blunt, but I hope that my perspective on this interface may tell others more closely related to GNOME desktop development why it seems like A Bad Idea™. I do wish to thank our editor for his review, and also for taking the time out of his schedule to participate in the discussion.
Do they actually not like their users? Posted Apr 23, 2008 23:33 UTC (Wed) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] I'd actually say it's more akin to turning on your TV so you can change the time on your VCR. That's not the primary use of either piece of equipment, but it reuses the existing relationship among the pieces to great effect. In the case of Nautilus, since it's expected to be there as part of the overall GNOME environment and needs to handle root-window events anyway, having it take over the root window image doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. (That's roughly how Windows does it--it's the Explorer shell that handles it, IIRC.) Just as in my analogy, since a VCR pretty much has to have a TV attached so you can watch a tape, so reusing the TV for on-screen menu display isn't too much of a stretch. Are there VCRs that let you change the time w/out a TV? Of course! But that doesn't make the ones that require a TV for that purpose wrong. It just makes them different. Now as for the silent failure to change the background? That sounds a bug. That level of failure shouldn't be silent. Either a error/warning dialog should come up, or the tab should be greyed out when Nautilus isn't running. Also, disabling Nautilus should give a warning that some functionality will be disabled.
Do they actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 2:28 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > I'd actually say it's more akin to turning on your TV so you can change the time on your VCR. That's not the primary use of either piece of equipment, but it reuses the existing relationship among the pieces to great effect. It's also a huge waste of power and time for what should be a trivial job and one for which UI elements already exist; the only people who benefit from it are the people who are doing the Wrong Thing in the first place (in that case, leaving their TV on all the time). And it's not an optional job (at least not anywhere that has DST or power outages). Moreover, if I saw that, I'd assume the rest of the UI made me work proportionally harder, and I'd go and buy something else. ...So yeah, actually not a bad analogy.
Do they actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 3:20 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] Hmmm... I don't leave my TV on all the time, and yet, I benefit from OSD to program my time on my VCR. I only need to do it twice a year and it only takes a minute or two. Using menus on a screen that are readable and intuitive compared to the tiny buttons and limited feedback pre-OSD VCRs gave me years ago is a UI benefit. You could compare this to right clicking the background vs. having to edit an .xsession file and adding an xsetroot command in the right place pointing to a graphics file of the right format.
Do they actually not like their users? Posted Apr 26, 2008 9:46 UTC (Sat) by hamish (✭ supporter ✭, #6282) [Link] Heh, anticipating this problem, the manufacturers of my VCR built a 5cm QVGA LCD screen into it - So I get the full UI without turning on my TV
VCR setup Posted Apr 24, 2008 9:29 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] It's an optional job if you bought a modern VCR (not that those really exist any more since they're obsolete) and live in a country with decent TV. The VCR will normally auto-tune during setup, thus finding channels with data services, the data services nearly always carry a clock. It can watch the suspect clock for a while, and if it does seem to be a clock, set the time. e.g. 12:01:01 progressing to 12:01:02 suggests a clock, whereas earl; 806 progressing to n36 - ok does not :) And yes, I've definitely owned VCRs able to do this, and yes, they used an on-screen display for their setup thus obliging you, the VCR owner to also have and use a television. No complaints here. I've also used a VCR (my parents) with a 14 day 20 item, semi-repeating programmable timer and no on-screen display and let me just say, you are stone cold crazy if you think that's better. I'd rather buy a new VCR for someone than help them use one of those horrible LCD panel remote controls to try to set up or program the VCR.
VCR setup Posted Apr 24, 2008 13:46 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] And yes, I've definitely owned VCRs able to do this, and yes, they used an on-screen display for their setup thus obliging you, the VCR owner to also have and use a television. No complaints here. I've also used a VCR (my parents) with a 14 day 20 item, semi-repeating programmable timer and no on-screen display and let me just say, you are stone cold crazy if you think that's better. I'd rather buy a new VCR for someone than help them use one of those horrible LCD panel remote controls to try to set up or program the VCR. That's exactly where I'm coming from. :-) And sure, VCRs are by and large obsolete these days, but they're useful as a ready example since nearly everyone's experienced them by now and they're meant to be used by average consumers, not trained experts. And everyone I think knows a family member or relative with "blinking 12:00" syndrome, especially with those older, arcane VCRs. My stepmom's parents used to tape over the clock with black electrical tape back in the 80s, indicating the depth of failure the old, clunky interfaces exhibited.
VCR setup Posted Apr 25, 2008 1:25 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] I did own such a VCR, and yes, it blinked 12:00 most of the time. I just had no use for the clock in it (until I programmed it to record at a time I had to be away).
VCR setup Posted Apr 24, 2008 14:05 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > I've also used a VCR (my parents) with a 14 day 20 item, semi-repeating programmable timer and no on-screen display and let me just say, you are stone cold crazy if you think that's better. Way to move the goalposts. I was talking about a VCR that required you to *set the clock* via a TV. I wasn't talking about a VCR that only permitted you to program it in-depth from the front panel (although arguably "start recording in 2 hours, stop an hour after that" should be as easy to do as setting the time). On the other hand, perhaps you've provided us with a perfect illustration of the binary thought patterns which lead to monstrosities like that originally complained about.
VCR setup Posted Apr 24, 2008 18:18 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] I really don't have a problem setting the time using the TV. I'd reckon the vast majority of VCRs still in service are connected to TVs, and that's my point. VCR manufacturers can safely assume that a TV will be connected to the VCR, and so it can serve as a display when necessary. Ignoring the 14-day timer aspect, it's still easier to set the time with OSD than it is with tiny buttons and minimal feedback on the VCR itself.
VCR setup Posted Apr 25, 2008 2:44 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > I'd reckon the vast majority of VCRs still in service are connected to TVs ...and are those TVs always turned on and ready to go?
VCR setup Posted Apr 25, 2008 2:51 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] Why does it matter? Is my monitor always turned on with my mouse hovering over the wallpaper with my finger on the mouse just waiting to right click?
VCR setup Posted Apr 25, 2008 3:19 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > Why does it matter? Oxygen thief. :P
I forgot one part - the stove would have to be powered on Posted Apr 24, 2008 3:28 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] So, to draw an analogy, that's like having to go to the stove in the kitchen to change the channel on the television in the living room. Furthermore, with respect to our editor's experience, the stove would have to be powered on to change the TV channel. Okay, I'll lay off now. But, I would like to make a general observation about GNOME v. KDE: A friend and fellow grad student with whom I share an office has Ubuntu 7.10 installed on his ThinkPad T61. I'm running Slackware 12 and KDE on a second-hand Dell Latitude C610. His experience using computers prior to Linux was entirely on Macs, whereas my pre-Linux desktop PC experience was all Windows. He prefers GNOME, I prefer KDE. Again, this is merely an observation. Not that I couldn't be persuaded to learn/use GNOME sometime. But before that happens, I'd certainly appreciate knowing that tasks such as changing the desktop wallpaper aren't obfuscated to oblivion.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 8:54 UTC (Thu) by elama (subscriber, #262) [Link] Well, using fedora (8 or 9 doesn't matter) this works just fine. Just use System->Preferences->Look and Feel->Appearance / Background change the background setting, logoff and login again. No problem.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 2:22 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] Changing the cursor blink behaviour is a lot easier than the article makes out. I was able to turn off cursor blink desktop wide by going to System -> Preferences -> Keyboard, then unchecking the "Cursor blinks in text fields" checkbox. I can see how this could be confusing if the user expected it to be a per-app setting, but other than the old gnome-terminal behaviour there isn't much reason to expect it to be per-app.
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 8:54 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] It's good that there's a central preference, but why on earth is this under Keyboard? Surely it should be under Appearance, Behaviour or similar ...
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 9:57 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] Probably because it is related to handling of keyboard input? It also happens to be where Windows and MacOS X put it, and there doesn't seem to be many compelling reasons to be different (save that for places where it matters).
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 26, 2008 13:38 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Perhaps because on Windows and Mac it is off by default, and nobody in their right minds sees a sensible reason to switch it on, so nobody ever tries to find it?
Do the actually not like their users? Posted Apr 24, 2008 6:54 UTC (Thu) by elama (subscriber, #262) [Link] The whole gnome/background discussion reminds me of the "color of the bike shed" phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed). And desktop environments tend to be full of bike sheds... It's not that gnome-developers don't like their users. It's just not that easy to make everybody happy.
The problem of configurability Posted Apr 24, 2008 9:41 UTC (Thu) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link] The GNOME developers made the decision a long time ago to reduce the number of options in their GUI config panels. To a new user having everything exposed makes things very complex, not to mention the problems caused if you don't think carefully about the interaction between those knobs. Personally I'm sanguine about the loss as long as the power users can still access stuff through GConf (which despite my earlier objections to it's Windows like registry approach I've learnt to love). But even then those options do come at a cost from a code maintenance point of view. There is nothing to stop people who want a GUI from developing a PowerGUI like app to tweak these knobs for people that have yet to learn the command line. But to be honest if you want to be a power user I think learning the command line is required reading.
The problem of configurability Posted Apr 24, 2008 9:58 UTC (Thu) by elama (subscriber, #262) [Link] Yes. I agree the gconf approach makes sense. I do have my own set of gnome-settings I care of and so I do have a short script that sets those via gconftool-2. Very fast, very predictable. Only drawback is, that there is no easy option that I'm aware of to check whether a key is valid/used. So if gnome changes certain keys in newer versions you still have to search for correct replacement.
The problem of configurability Posted Apr 24, 2008 12:22 UTC (Thu) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link] It should be possible, gconftool -R will dump possible keys. A mixture of perl and grep and you should be able to test if your key still exists: 13:21 ajb@pitcairn/x86_64 [~] >gconftool-2 -R /desktop/gnome/interface | grep "cursor_blink =" cursor_blink = true 13:21 ajb@pitcairn/x86_64 [~] >echo $? 0 13:21 ajb@pitcairn/x86_64 [~] >gconftool-2 -R /desktop/gnome/interface | grep "removed_key =" 13:21 ajb@pitcairn/x86_64 [~] >echo $? 1
|
|
||||||||||||