IBM To Linux Desktop Developers: 'Stop Copying Windows' (InformationWeek) [LWN.net]

IBM To Linux Desktop Developers: 'Stop Copying Windows' (InformationWeek)

Posted Aug 8, 2008 0:48 UTC (Fri) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587)
In reply to: IBM To Linux Desktop Developers: 'Stop Copying Windows' (InformationWeek) by nix
Parent article: IBM To Linux Desktop Developers: 'Stop Copying Windows' (InformationWeek)

IMHO, it seems both desktops can't get it right. Gnome is oversimplified, while the options in KDE are tripping over themselves. A stab in the right direction might be to have "Advanced" tab(s) in both Gnome and KDE. Whether this is an "advanced config" on/off switch that is global or local to a particular application is another matter. Gnome folks may point out that this introduces "unnecessary complexity" and "more code paths to check". However, going too sparse also reduces usability -- e.g. digging through gconf-editor to find and enable an option (which are often not well described) can be rather painful.

(Log in to post comments)

IBM To Linux Desktop Developers: 'Stop Copying Windows' (InformationWeek)

Posted Aug 9, 2008 19:46 UTC (Sat) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link]

While I don't actually object to the idea of an "advanced" tab, I neither want nor need all
the settings in my face at all times.  One of the things I like about FVWM is that it's "set
and forget".  On those rare occasions (once every few years) when I actually want to change a
setting, I fire up my text editor.  The rest of the time, the settings are "out of sight, out
of mind", which is how I like it.  If it's something you only use every few years, what's the
point of even an "advanced settings" tab cluttering up the screen?  It's just one more random
thing distracting you from actually getting some work done.

While I'm not a fan of either Gnome or KDE, I find Gnome's approach far more promising.  Gnome
seems like something that could be turned into a decent desktop environment with a bit of
work; KDE doesn't.

So I don't think that "digging through gconf-editor to find and enable an option" is a bad
thing.  I think it's ideal, as long as those options are things I don't want to muck with all
the time, which, for the most part, they seem to be, from what I've seen.  Granted, the system
needs better documentation (unlike FVWM, which is extensively documented), but that's a common
complaint for FLOSS systems.

IBM To Linux Desktop Developers: 'Stop Copying Windows' (InformationWeek)

Posted Aug 21, 2008 9:14 UTC (Thu) by Pocharngo (subscriber, #11839) [Link]

"On those rare occasions (once every few years) when I actually want to change a
setting, I fire up my text editor.  The rest of the time, the settings are "out of sight, out
of mind", which is how I like it.  If it's something you only use every few years, what's the
point of even an "advanced settings" tab cluttering up the screen?  It's just one more random
thing distracting you from actually getting some work done."

I disagree. I am afraid you overestimate many of us Linux newbies/ex-Windows converts. Most of
us have no idea of how to edit a configuration file, particularly if we do not have a clear
idea of what is possible to achieve. Even with good documentation files/Help systems, this
will be too much for most people with my background. With an "Advanced" button, at least we
can experiment without too much hassle. Or get an idea of what to ask the resident geek about.
:-)