LWN: Comments on "GTK+ 2.8.0 released"

dskoll's bug against Evolution. Gnome-vim as an option

jpeter1978 — 2007-02-03T05:24:34+00:00

I find it odd that when someone provides a good argument for their case that everyone just shuts up. Did this thread just get too long and so by the time this statement was made, very few read it? Or was it perhaps that it put all other arguments to shame? BTW dskoll, I don't think there exists a highlighter bright enough to showcase your point, which I wholehearted agree with. Too bad this post and others like it will get lost among all the flame wars.

Gnome culture

GreyWizard — 2005-08-22T19:18:43+00:00

I wonder if you can say the same?

As a matter of fact I can. But this is irrelevant because I supported my position with the work of experts who have studied the relevant problem rigorously. The best you can do for a response is to mutter that you still don't agree? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. This is a question of science, not philosophy. Support your dissent with evidence or pipe down.

[...] fanboys [...]

Here's a tip: when complaining about mean words that are hurting your widdew feewings, it's best to avoid casually peppering the very same sentence with insults.

[...] anyone that dares to actually want their *nix machine to behave like a *nix machine [...]

Exactly where in the Single Unix Specification are keyboard bindings for text entry fields in graphical widgets specified? Oh, wait, I remember: nowhere. Kindly cease trying to dress up your preferences with a veneer of standardization.

[...] claiming that 'no one that is sane' would possibly want that, and therefore that those of us that do don't matter and should just go die (paraphrasing a bit, but it certainly seems accurate to the sentiments expressed) [...]

What you've done is misrepresent, not paraphrase, those sentiments. No one has said or even implied that anyone should die. As I've noted before your sense of proprotion is sorely lacking. Some of the posts against your position have been inappropriate and the one that claimed "nobody that is sane gives a crap" is a good example. In fact, the person who posted that later appologized. (I'm trying to imagine you showing such civility... nope, can't picture it.)

None of that excuses hijacking a simple informative article about a GTK+ release for the purpose of attacking the character of developers who are too busy doing useful work to defend their decisions on every existing internet forum. Nor does it excuse churlish and false statements such as "GNOME doesn't respect users!", "Making Windows keybindings the default keeps unsophisticated users from becoming sophisticated!" and "GNOME eliminates features just because Windows doesn't have them!"

Clearly GNOME and GTK+ lack something you want. Clearly you are unable to engage the developers in a productive dialogue unlike innumerable people in a similar position who file bug reports that get fixed. Clearly you are determined to lay this at the feet of the GNOME and GTK+ developers. That's your problem. To me it's obvious that all those users who do get results know something about humility and interacting with others that you simply haven't grasped.

Gnome culture

Arker — 2005-08-21T04:09:24+00:00

I've been reading usability studies and studying interface design principles for years. I've even done some minor work on the subject myself. I wonder if you can say the same? Or is your expertise limited to making unfounded assumptions and slinging insults?

Of course, there is a fundamental philosophical difference between your SUN experts and myself, but to imply from the fact that I don't agree with them that I'm ignorant of their work isn't very smart, or logical.

As to your characterisation of how the thread got so long, it doesn't seem horribly accurate to me. The posts of the fanboys intent on flaming anyone that dares to actually want their *nix machine to behave like a *nix machine, claiming that 'no one that is sane' would possibly want that, and therefore that those of us that do don't matter and should just go die (paraphrasing a bit, but it certainly seems accurate to the sentiments expressed) surely are at the least as much to blame as anything I have posted. And yours are some of the worst of the lot.

Gnome culture

GreyWizard — 2005-08-21T02:58:27+00:00

I would bet heavily that I'm far more familiar with the field of human interface design than you are, just based on what you've said here.

You would lose. Read the online essays of Jakob Neilson or any other usability expert on this subject. More to the point, read what the team of professional usability experts Sun Microsystems hired to work specifically on GNOME had to say about the very decisions you lament. Proclaiming yourself a master of usability is not enough to dispell the work of people who actually study user behavior.

Configuration controls with large numbers of options arranged in no particular order are a bad thing, yes. The proper solution, however, is not removing all control from the user, but simply better designed mechanisms for accessing them.

Gconf is exactly such a mechanism. No control is removed from the user, but it is placed where experts can easily find it and not where it is likely to confuse those unfamiliar with the system. The problem here is your own ignorance, not GNOME.

At any rate, there's no point in continuing this discussion, you are clearly only here to throw insults and try to provoke an angry response, one which I am not going to give you.

Let's not forget that you and your band of merry men have been posting angry rants on this thread well before I arrived, which is why an innocuous release notice for GTK+ turned into a pointless flamewar in the first place. To quote the editorial in the most recent LWN edition: "[GNOME] has made major progress in the creation of a powerful Linux desktop, and the whole thing is free software. There are limits to how much one should complain about that." Who do you suppose that was addressed to?

You are right about one thing though: there is no point in continuing this discussion. Clearly nothing resembling sense will penetrate your foggy thought process and you're not going to change my mind about software I use every day by whining that GNOME developers aren't bending over backwards to address your self-righteous complaints. Go fill every thread that mentions GTK+ or GNOME with bile if you must but don't be surprised when people with more sense tell you where that really belongs.

Gnome culture

Arker — 2005-08-20T21:55:56+00:00

Whatever else you may think you've accomplished here, you've certainly proven that you are not competent to be lecturing anyone else on manners. Your inability to address my concerns without resorting to repeated, gratuitous insults is duly noted.

I would bet heavily that I'm far more familiar with the field of human interface design than you are, just based on what you've said here. Configuration controls with large numbers of options arranged in no particular order are a bad thing, yes. The proper solution, however, is not removing all control from the user, but simply better designed mechanisms for accessing them. It's not at all an impossible task, it simply requires a bit of knowledge and thought. I'd be happy to teach you the basics of interface design, but clearly you're not willing to learn, and this is not the place.

One of the many troubles with GNOME appears to be that they've read a book on interface design, only half understood it, and then rushed out to redesign their entire system based on a bit of half-digested, half-understood knowledge. So instead of, for instance, engineering an interface that presents their options in a manner that is easy to understand and navigate, they simply start chopping off options until so little is left the poorly designed interface is nonetheless usable.

At any rate, there's no point in continuing this discussion, you are clearly only here to throw insults and try to provoke an angry response, one which I am not going to give you.

Gnome culture

GreyWizard — 2005-08-20T17:31:14+00:00

Setting windows keybindings as the default gives absolutely no benefit to new users.

I never claimed it did. However it does new users no harm (no, making it easier for them to transition to Windows does not count as harm) and it does have a benefit for users migrating from Windows. Go back and read what I actually wrote instead of pretending I wrote what you would prefer to attack.

I think that's an insulting and not necessarily true assumption, [...]

No, actually it's not insulting. You only think otherwise because you're a snob who regards less sophisticated computer users as somehow inferior people. Get over it. As for whether it's true, explain your evidence to the contrary if you have any and stop making spurious claims if you don't. Since you seem keen to twist things I'll remind you that I didn't say all Windows users were less sophisticated, only that the average Windows user is less sophisticated than the average Unix user.

[...] if it weren't for this recently developed fetish with the GNOME people for hiding configuration options, that wouldn't be an issue anyway.

Wrong twice over. Whether configuration options are "hidden" has no bearing on what the default should be. Even if there were a menu option in the control panel for changing the keybindings less sophisticated users will have a harder time finding it than sophisticated users. Furthermore, from the perspective of a sophisticated user the configuration options are not hidden. A moment with Google or the GNOME documentation is enough to find detailed information about how to change.

As for why GNOME developers prefer to minimize the number of visible configuration options, go read a competent book on human computer interaction. People who take a rigorous approach to usability have proven that more options make it harder for unfamiliar users to discover the one they want. Reducing clutter is the kind of thing those who actually respect users do, even if it is sometimes painful. In comparison your ignorance and bellyaching is just not impressive.

When this same toolkit did have such a command, bound to the standard keystroke, in an earlier version, but this was deliberately removed so that it is no longer possible to reconfigure the original functionality, and people that try resolve the issue are simply insulted and told to go away, it makes one wonder. And this does seem to be what's happened.

That's your side of the story. What I see is a group of smart developers working to create software that satisfies the needs of as many users as possible and for the most part doing an excellent job. (An LWN editorial this week expresses that same sentiment.) When a minor feature a handful of arrogant people care about got lost in the shuffle those people started declaring GNOME developer decisions irrational and the project itself worthless and doomed. I see no reason why those developers shouldn't focus their efforts on the needs of larger and more appreciative groups.

Maybe you can resolve your problem by learning some manners and patiently explaining your problem clearly and completely to the relevant maintainers. Until then you're just wasting your time.

Gnome culture

Arker — 2005-08-20T01:08:18+00:00

Indeed. That is a point I made earlier.

Not at all. It's a point you're still not grokking, it seems.

This is an important group, but since they can as easily adopt one keybinding as another they are unlikely to care which one is chosen.

Exactly.

GNOME developers are right to choose with migrating users in mind.

And right there is where you are completely missing the point. Well, this particular subpoint.

Listen carefully. Setting windows keybindings as the default gives absolutely no benefit to new users. Unless you consider making it easier for them to migrate to windows in the future a benefit. We've already agreed, the difficulty for them is the same regardless of which is chosen, so it makes no sense whatsoever for you to turn around, after agreeing on that, and claim that the choice of windows as the default benefits them!

People who use Windows are on average less computer savvy than people who use Unix, so they are likely to have more difficulty discovering how to alter their settings.

I think that's an insulting and not necessarily true assumption, but regardless, if it weren't for this recently developed fetish with the GNOME people for hiding configuration options, that wouldn't be an issue anyway.

Last time I set up KDE, the first thing that came up was a dialogue asking if you wanted the look and feel set more like Windows, Mac, or Unix. Based on the answer to that, it configured a number of things, which you were then free to reconfigure to your hearts content through an easy little gui control panel. This is an approach that shows respect for the user.

Gnome used to show that kind of respect. It was less polished then, for sure, but it was making an obvious and intentional effort to respect the users right to use their computers in the way that they chose - for instance it worked with any Gnome compliant window manager, there was a default but you could go to the control panel and change it at will. There was a real effort to expose as much control as possible to the user over their workspace, and to make those configurations easy to understand and easy to change. By comparison, KDE seemed to be taking the approach Gnome has now, of trying to force-feed the user a very particular setup that the developers had decided was what was best. That, along with the licensing issues, lead me to be a big fan and promoter of Gnome in the beginning.

But now, they've switched places. KDE fixed their licensing problems, while GTK plays around with the LGPL far outside of its intended use. KDE gives the user a great deal of respect, while Gnome is busily doing the opposite, eliminating configuration options left and right, and hiding the ones they don't eliminate in the most obtuse place they can find.

No one is really saying the bindings don't work -- at least no one who isn't simply wrong.

What an incredibly arrogant reply! Are you a gnome dev? You certainly have the attitude down.

If the toolkit doesn't have any provision for binding a key-press to delete from the cursor backwards to the beginning of the line, which it appears not to, that's a serious issue. I think anyone that does much text processing should realise that instantly. When this same toolkit did have such a command, bound to the standard keystroke, in an earlier version, but this was deliberately removed so that it is no longer possible to reconfigure the original functionality, and people that try resolve the issue are simply insulted and told to go away, it makes one wonder. And this does seem to be what's happened.

Hardcoded applications are a different sort of problem with a different sort of solution, but deliberately removing functionality simply because it doesn't exist in windows, and then attacking users that need it for daring to complain, is an entirely different sort of problem.

Gnome culture

GreyWizard — 2005-08-19T21:37:16+00:00

The vast majority of people on this planet have yet to use a computer.

Indeed. That is a point I made earlier. This is an important group, but since they can as easily adopt one keybinding as another they are unlikely to care which one is chosen. GNOME developers are right to choose with migrating users in mind.

The ones that migrate from Windows should have no more difficulty tweaking a configuration setting the other way than we would have tweaking it to support their mode of operation instead so why shouldn't the default be *nix again?

Wrong wrong wrong. People who use Windows are on average less computer savvy than people who use Unix, so they are likely to have more difficulty discovering how to alter their settings. They are also far more numerous so it would be reasonable to make their likely preference the default even if they were equally able to change. Finally, many are still using Windows so making it easier for them to migrate is more useful than genuflecting to cranky people who obsess about compatibility with ancient non-standards.

BUT the fact is, as you would know if you'd read through the comments, the problem is deeper than that. The alternate keybindings DON'T WORK properly, and bug reports filed on the subject are consistently marked 'notabug' and those filing them dismissed in an insulting manner and told they don't matter.

As a matter of fact, I did read the rest of the thread. No one is really saying the bindings don't work -- at least no one who isn't simply wrong. I happen to know they work because I use them. People are actually complainging about things like accidentally closing a window due to typing Ctrl-W when focus is outside a text box for applications like Firefox. The default GNOME key binding for closing a Window seems to be ALT-F4, but many individual applications seem to hard-code Ctrl-W. That's probably worth fixing, but the default should still be what Windows users expect.

I also read the bug report Zarathustra mentioned. This was clearly closed because he didn't bother to explain why the Emacs keybindings didn't satisfy his needs. When the developers decide to make Windows keybindings the default that is not a bug by defenition. That doesn't change just because some surly user says otherwise. Considering the attitude I've seen from you and your fellow travelers on this thread, I'll give the GNOME developers the benefit of the doubt where courtesy is concerned.

Deliberately setting the defaults to a windows style, making it relatively easy for new computer users trained on default GNOME-GTK apps to transition to windows, and relatively difficult for them to transition to traditional *nix apps, is a big deal.

No, actually it's not. A mass exhodus from GNOME to Windows seems more than a little silly. The userbase of GNOME is small compared to that of Windows, which comes installed on almost all new computers. Anyway, deliberately making it more difficult for users who want to leave GNOME for Windows to switch is not exactly admirable. I'd rather focus on getting people to GNOME in the first place and apparently so would the GNOME developers. Nothing about this is likely to change until you convince people like me that what you have to say amounts to something more than an ignorant rant about a sacred nothing.

Gnome culture

Arker — 2005-08-19T20:28:38+00:00

The vast majority of people on this planet have yet to use a computer. The ones that migrate from Windows should have no more difficulty tweaking a configuration setting the other way than we would have tweaking it to support their mode of operation instead so why shouldn't the default be *nix again? - BUT the fact is, as you would know if you'd read through the comments, the problem is deeper than that. The alternate keybindings DON'T WORK properly, and bug reports filed on the subject are consistently marked 'notabug' and those filing them dismissed in an insulting manner and told they don't matter.

Keybindings are not something you can just change back and forth at will without problems, as you imply. These are matters of muscle-memory, for those of us that do serious work with our machines at any rate. It's not comparable to a 'theme' change, but more comparable to switching from QWERTY to Dvorak keymaps. Once one set of commands are mapped to muscle memory and efficient in use, it is definately non-trivial to adjust to an entirely different set of commands, which means that most people are going to want to stay with whatever they originally learned. So yes, providing alternate key-bindings (that work, unlike the situation with GTK) for different users is necessary. But that also means the choice of defaults is a very important one. That means that, above and beyond the problems that make it impossible to actually implement proper keybindings with recent versions of GTK, the choice of default is also an issue. Deliberately setting the defaults to a windows style, making it relatively easy for new computer users trained on default GNOME-GTK apps to transition to windows, and relatively difficult for them to transition to traditional *nix apps, is a big deal.

This is not a matter of 'holy water' or religious conviction, simply of paying attention and pointing out the effect of the decision.

Gnome culture

GreyWizard — 2005-08-19T16:44:53+00:00

A new user can learn *nix keybindings just as easily as Windows keybindings. Think about this.

That's true only of people who have never used computers. Of those who have, around 98% are familiar with Windows or Macintosh. People who don't worship at the Temple of the One True Keybinding have no trouble making users who migrate from the remaining 2% who grew up with Unix tweak a configuration setting so that the rest can have what they're expecting by default. Think about this.

Nonsense. Nothing about a default key binding choice prevents an unsophisticated user from learning about alternatives. In particular the configuration settings that enable Emacs key bindings are well documented. Since GNOME is free software nothing prevents distribution maintainers from changing the default either.

It's a betrayal of GNU, it's a betrayal of the poor souls forced to work with these programs, it's a betrayal of the people that supported and promoted GNOME from the beginning, it's a betrayal of the noble ideals that gave birth to the project.

Whoa! Dude, take a deep breath and come back to earth. GNOME was founded by Miguel de Icaza, a man known for saying things like "Unix sucks" and admiring Microsoft products. GNU is a project to create a free software complete operating system, not to preach keybindings to the heathen masses. Nobody is betrayed by trying to make the platform more inviting to people migrating from popular proprietary alternatives. Put down the holy water and get a sense of proporition.

Gnome culture

Arker — 2005-08-19T07:24:51+00:00

The glaring problem with this assumption is that one set of key-bindings is just as good as another for your 'unsophisticated user' - which means that this rationale has no logical connection to the decisions we're discussing here!

A new user can learn *nix keybindings just as easily as Windows keybindings. Think about this.

So why does GNOME seek to indoctrinate new *nix users with Windows keybindings? What possible motivation is there?

The only real effect of this on the new user is that he'll find it easier to migrate to Windows after learning GNOME, instead of to another *nix based system.

Frankly I think that's doing your unsophisticated userbase a huge disservice, in addition to making the programs incredibly annoying to the more sophisticated user.

There's nothing at all wrong with aiming to make a system that is accessible to the unsophisticated, but there is something VERY wrong with making a system that is designed to keep the unsophisticated from becoming sophisticated. And I think that, in a nutshell, is the reason why GTK and GNOME are drawing so much ire on themselves from within the community. It's a betrayal of GNU, it's a betrayal of the poor souls forced to work with these programs, it's a betrayal of the people that supported and promoted GNOME from the beginning, it's a betrayal of the noble ideals that gave birth to the project.

Gnome culture

GreyWizard — 2005-08-17T19:08:42+00:00

The Gnome project has a long and extensive track record of refusing to accomodate the requests of sophisticated Unix hackers, on the grounds that it is more important to design a system for unsophisticated people who are new to computers or who are familiar only with Windows.

Those unsophisticated people are the overwhelming majority of humanity. They outnumber us by about a million to one. I'm sorry but building a system they can use comfortably seems more important than saving supposedly sophisticated hackers from the inconvenience typing "echo gtk-key-theme-name \"Emacs\" >> ~/.gtk-2.0" into a terminal window. I grew up with Unix. I know it backwards, forwards and sideways but I have no problem using GTK+ and Gnome effectively. So forgive me if your I view your prophesies of doom and gloom for my desktop software of choice with some skepticism.

Let's talk about culture. Given a choice between a Gnome culture populated by smart people who have created the powerful, accessible and visually compelling environment that allows me to focus on getting work done and a cranky bunch of bellyachers bent on dotting the i in "standard" Unix who inflate heresies against their sacred keybindings to epic proportions I'll take the former, thanks.

works in konsole, too

niner — 2005-08-17T08:57:48+00:00

konsole, too sends a SIGINT on Ctrl-c
Has always worked and it would be hard to do anything if it didn't. I'd surely use a different terminal emulator.

The pun compels me...

zakaelri — 2005-08-16T20:52:09+00:00

If you have a DSL connection under Linux, you are almost certainly using free software I wrote to connect to your DSL provider

I run apache off of my DSL... and from here it looks like you've just been served.

Zam!

Just trying to lighten the mood. You all seem to be getting a bit to worked up about all of this ;)

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

Ross — 2005-08-16T16:07:05+00:00

Well, I must be remembering some other terminal application, or am just completely confused. Apologies to everyone becuase it appears GNOME gets this right and that I was spreading misinformation.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

dskoll — 2005-08-16T14:29:33+00:00

Best thing we can do right now to resolve this is either try to get them to refine the themeing engines in general and for keycombos specificly by submitting bug reports and educating them were they need improvement or if your actually usefull: submitting code and patches to improve functionality.

Explain that to the Gnome-vim author. He did submit patches and the Gnome guys ignored him because external editor support doesn't fit into their world vision.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

drag — 2005-08-16T13:54:13+00:00

Hrm..

I don't know about you, but I am a long time Linux user also.

I thought that gnome 1.x sucked. I thought early kde sucked too. I avoided it like the plague.

I used enlightenment, then afterstep, then blackbox, then fluxbox...

It wasn't until 2.4 was when I actually got interested in Gnome and GTK in general and wasn't until 2.6 that I was sold on it. Now I am happy.

Early Gnome 2.x versions and especially 1.x versions were next to worthless for me. They caused me more grief then they helped.

As you pointed out there were never any such thing as traditional Unix bindings.. What the posters were pointing out just happenned to be the key bindings that they grew used to for whatever reason while the rest of the world used something else (including in Unix)..

Hell, I am a afraid to know what Sun thought was standard in CDE!

All this hate..

This is like when they made the switch from Explorer-like interface to the 'Spatial' interface for nautilus. Lots of people were freaking out... It doesn't make sense, Gnome still supports the file explorer interface!! you just have to change the configuration slightly, even after 2-3 official releases later, and with improvements too.

It's not like Gnome doesn't make allowances in configurations. They have the 'emacs' style key buttons, they still have given the program authors and end users to customize it to their heart's content.

I think it's more of instead 'gnome authors are corporate now and don't give a shit', I think it's a lot more far and a lot more accurate to say: 'they are human and don't have everything perfect for everybody'.

Newer versions Gnome specificly and GTK in general is a MASSIVE improvement over older releases.

Now I think it's perfectly acceptable to criticize, but to suggest that they are just corporate whores is just bullshit and not fair at all.

I am a happy user and gratefull for this high quality free software. I have nothing against corporations in general, as long as they are good business citizens, and I have no objections to free software authors making a living for their work.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

RobSeace — 2005-08-16T12:31:47+00:00

xcut
xclip

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

zblaxell — 2005-08-16T08:28:42+00:00

Maybe it's time someone sat down and actually solved the keybinding problem.

Ideally, I'd have keys reserved for various actions, like cut, paste, open, close, etc. Ideally, my word would be law and any application that doesn't close its window when I hit the close-window key will have its window closed for it.

Except those applications where I might want to save something first.

And things like full-screen games, machine emulators, maybe video players, and screen saver/lockers, which should not respond or respond differently.

And those applications where the thing being closed is a tab, not a window.

One major problem to solve is the namespace. Suppose we get VM migration in Linux 2.6.16 and suddenly every application wants a key binding for "migrate this application to another virtual machine". Does the first application to come up with a name win? Is it possible to write an application that can do this before the key binding services is updated? Remember, we didn't always have Internet, multimedia, and full-screen keybindings, so it's reasonable to assume we currently don't have some keybinding that will become terribly useful some time in the future.

There would also doubtlessly be wrinkles in cases such as e.g. popup menus that arise when you select one of many thousands of objects in the application, and the set of items in the popup menu is dynamically generate. Where do I find the universal keybindings then?

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

zblaxell — 2005-08-16T07:51:56+00:00

The "users" you refer to that are upset with GTK and/or GNOME are infinitely small in number compared to

Well, that's all we really need to read right there. It doesn't matter how the sentence ends, we now know We're Not Welcome Here Any More. This is the same line a proprietary software vendor gives when they terminate a popular closed-source product. As soon as those words are uttered, it's time for the users to move to another product.

The funny thing is, I was once in the same room as Miguel when he was proselytizing that improving the desktop (particularly in the area of automated, or at least centralized, configuration) should improve it for dead-end users and sophisticated users alike, e.g. if your grandmother can just click two buttons to make her new WiFi card work, then you can too--and you would want to, because it would be quicker than downloading a patch from sourceforge CVS, adding your card's PCI ID to the driver, and rebuilding your kernel, even if you could do it. This enables even sophisticated hackers to be somewhat more efficient consumers of software, so they can be efficient producers of some other software (except maybe WiFi card drivers). It would be nice to get an exact quote of what Miguel said, if someone has it, from his OLS talk. That talk was what inspired me to download and install GNOME for the first time, and at the time, the applications were feature-rich and well designed, and there were a number of labor-saving conveniences even for a Unix hacker.

Now it seems that the story has changed: GNOME is for dead-end users only, and applications are rediscovering what features they absolutely need one at a time. I spend a lot of time trying to coerce the few remaining GNOME applications I can actually use to behave properly. My threshold for configuration pain in GNOME is falling rapidly, and with few exceptions I now generally substitute 'dpkg --purge' for 'gconf-editor'. I thought the whole point of GNOME in the first place was to avoid having to edit strange configuration files in every application you used--now it seems I have to edit strange configuration files distributed across all of the applications I use and I have to use a specialized non-text editor to do it. Commented X resources files and vi are roughly equivalent to the current state of GNOME, except that vi is useful for other purposes as well.

If you don't like something in the FOSS world, then you've got the source, go ahead and fix it.

Ordinarily this would be the appropriate course of action; however, in the GNOME case, this should not be necessary in the first place, and there are two reasons not to fix GNOME:

Unix users aren't forced onto GNOME desktops because what they were using before is obsolete. Over the decades a lot of useful software has been written, much of it before GNOME ever existed. If you tell a Unix hacker they have to fix your complex but shiny new tools before they can use them productively, they'll usually just drop your shiny new tools in the bin and go back to their time-proven simpler old ones, or even build their own tools to solve their specific problems. Complex, shiny new tools and their makers come and go, but Unix hackers are patient--as a group, they've been waiting for good, useful "desktop" software for more than 30 years, and they can wait decades more, until someone either gets it right or proves that the task really is impossible after all. A few might consider KDE in the meantime.
See the first quote. There's no point in improving GNOME's ability to perform any specific task for any specific user, because GNOME is only interested in improving its ability to perform common tasks for a statistical average user, and considers everything else to be user interface clutter. To get a patch into GNOME you seem to need the patch itself, a compatible license or copyright assignment for the patch, documentation describing the patch, unit tests demonstrating the effectiveness and non-bugginess of the patch, an approval from a usability expert, and a petition with signatures from 10,000 randomly selected people (*) attesting that the patch implements a feature they can't do without (but all 10,000 of these people are assumed to be familiar with gconf-editor). A hacker's limited sanity is more efficiently spent elsewhere, preferably on a project which actually merges clean working code contributions from real live users of the project's code in a timely fashion.

(*) OK, this is a slight exaggeration. Probably only 50 or so people are required, if they are asked about the feature in a double-blind study held under rigorous laboratory conditions, assuming that these people can learn about gconf-editor through Google.

<on-topic-rant>There is nothing, NOTHING, more irritating about being a FOSS developer than selfish and whiny users who demand that YOU spend the time and effort to fix THEIR problems for FREE all while insulting you and all the work you did and gave to the world for nothing in return.

Crap is still crap, even when it's free crap, and usually nobody wants another person's crap unless that person's name is Piero Manzoni.

I gather that the GNOME project:

created the problem in the first place. At one time GNOME and GTK had the features these people want. Now it doesn't. Who accepted the patch into GNOME CVS that broke the previously satisfactory code?
refuses to fix the problem themselves, despite widespread demand for a fix, the relatively high isolation and low complexity of the fix, and the number of developers who seem to have so much of their time available to spend publicly refusing to do the fix.
apparently ignores working patches contributed from developers outside of the project that will fix the problem.

Having done all that, all the GNOME project can legitimately expect to hear from the affected users is "I stopped or want to stop using your project's software because you refuse to fix..." followed by a laundry list of things to fix (or at least accept patches for) before the affected users willingly download, much less install and use, the software again. Complaints of this kind can be frustrating and annoying for the developer, but under no circumstances should they be surprising, because they are just a logical consequence of the GNOME project's previous behavior.

The good news is that if you behave this way in the FOSS world, eventually everyone who really cares about your project will be driven away, and they'll advise all their selfish and whiny friends to stay away too, so the problem is ultimately self-correcting.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

micampe — 2005-08-16T07:44:54+00:00

The absolute worst is that the KDE and GNOME terminal applications don't let you kill running programs because control-C just copies the hightlighted text.

You have to use Control-Shift-C and Control-Shift-V to Copy/Paste text in the Gnome terminal. Control-C will just send SIGINT. Don't know about KDE's.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

avik — 2005-08-16T07:27:58+00:00

I smell a Grumpy Editor's Guide to Linux Key Binding...

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

zblaxell — 2005-08-16T05:35:31+00:00

Now copy your message.... open up evolution, start a new message... now paste your message!

Anyone know of an X application that will print the contents of the X selection on stdout, and copy stdin to the X selection? This would allow me to work around a huge number of highly broken applications (at least, the ones that can accept multi-megabyte "paste" requests).

Unix bindings

zblaxell — 2005-08-16T03:47:16+00:00

A quick survey:

Xaw uses ^A, ^B, ^F, ^D, ^V, M-v, ^E, ^N, ^P as Emacs bindings, ^H as delete, and has no use for ^W or ^U at all. Interestingly enough, ^S and ^R activate text search and replace, which has proven quite handy in some Xaw applications like xpostit.

Tk uses the same bindings, except that it doesn't seem to respond to M-v, ^S, or ^R.

Motif uses...none of these AFAICT--not even ^H--they all seem to insert non-printing characters.

Readline (which is *NOT* an X toolkit) uses the above bindings, except ^S and ^R are incremental searches, plus ^W (delete previous word) and ^U (delete to beginning of line).

epic (a TTY-based IRC client) responds to ^A, ^D, ^E, ^F, ^N, and ^P as in Emacs, but ^B and ^W insert special characters. ^U is delete-entire-line, not delete-to-beginning-of-line. How nice that it supports forward-character but not the symmetrical backward-character!

The Linux kernel TTY driver is usually configured to accept ^H or Del as delete, ^W as delete-previous-word (where "word" means something slightly different from Readline), ^U is delete-entire-line, and ^D is EOF. None of the other bindings mentioned so far (^A, etc) do anything other than insert themselves.

Emacs of course *defines* the meanings of ^A, ^B, ^D, ^E, ^F, ^N, ^P, ^V, etc. Emacs also has keys bound to ^W and ^U, but they mean very different things than they do in Bash, a number of other X applications, and Unix TTYs. These bindings are quite possibly older than Unix.

Several popular applications that originated on or were ported to Unix (e.g. Netscape) do support Readline-like key bindings, despite the fact that they were based on toolkits previously mentioned here (e.g. Motif).

GTK-1 applications supported mostly Bash-like key bindings, but without the search functions. In addition, GTK-1 file open/save dialogs supported filename autocompletion with Tab, which is *really* nice. Modern GTK-2 file open/save dialogs support similar completion, but needing more keystrokes. For several months in GNOME's history, the Tab key just selected the next field.

The application I am using now (Galeon) supports almost none of these bindings, even when typing text into a text widget. I'm not sure why the Galeon developers think I might want ^B to open the bookmarks editor window in the middle of this sentence, but it does.

Personally, I really miss the GTK-1 application bindings, but I'm offended by the GTK *transition* more than the actual binding set at any instant in time. GTK-1 had IMHO the best combination of useful editing primitives with default key bindings, which made GTK-1 applications very attractive to me at the time.

I used to use a lot of GNOME applications, back when GNOME 1.4 was current. For reasons I still don't understand, the GTK and/or GNOME people decided to make sweeping, backward-incompatible changes that removed features from user-visible parts of GTK/GNOME programs, and they called this forward progress. It was almost as bad as being forced to use Windows in terms of features that just disappeared one dist-upgrade. Some of those features have returned, but not all, and many are often buried behind something that looks and feels like the Windows registry editor.

Today, I no longer trust GNOME to provide usable tools as I once did. I used to simply choose from one of the several GNOME 1.4-based alternatives (usually directly from the GNOME menu), and didn't really look for other software if my immediate needs were adequately satisfied. Now it's the other way around--I look everywhere *except* GNOME and/or GTK for various applications, and I apply a small but non-zero negative bias to GNOME or GTK-based candidates where competing implementations exist.

My trust in the GNOME organization was completely destroyed by that organization's behavior in the past. For all I know, next week they'll decide that GTK/GNOME 2.x was a bad idea too, and they'll discard it like they did 1.x. It seems to me that I shouldn't waste my time with their potentially-soon-to-be-unsupported software. I don't know how long it will last, and it seems I cannot rely on the rest of the open-source community to take over if the central GNOME organization fails again.

What really baffles me is that the GNOME maintainers and their apologists don't seem to *get* this. It's not about key bindings, it's about alienating your existing users to benefit users you don't have yet. It reminds me of that fable about the dog, a bone, and the dog's reflection in the river...

Use clipboard, not cut buffer

rqosa — 2005-08-16T03:01:18+00:00

> The only problem here is that I can't find a working web browser that doesn't use GTK.

Konqueror
w3mmee (actually this uses GTK for displaying images, but it doesn't use GTK keybindings)

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

peace — 2005-08-16T02:56:27+00:00

Well, now I can add keybindings to religion and politics as the things never to argue with strangers.

I think RFID tags are the only solution here. You walk up to a computer and it reads a URL off your RFID tag where it downloads your keybindings. If you don't have an RFID tag, then there are'nt any key bindings at all. That way no one can be offended.

Kind Regards

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

bojan — 2005-08-16T02:33:25+00:00

> Evolution

Actually, Evolution 2.2 is so full of bugs that it regularly crashes when used with Exchange connector (e.g. click on "Reply to All" crashed Evo pretty often). With IMAP it crashed occasionaly, but it is still pretty ordinary. So, I'm hoping they are just busy fixing the segfaults and simply didn't have time to do anything else... ;-)

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

dskoll — 2005-08-16T02:19:45+00:00

However, when proprietary software vendors sell me a licence for a piece of software worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and then can't/won't fix segfaults in it, then I get really upset.

Well, that's in a whole other league of evil. :-) I wouldn't dream of accusing the GNOME hackers of being that bad.

But they are pretty arrogant: The Gnome-vim author has working code that does a pretty useful thing, and the Evolution maintainers are refusing to merge it, simply ignoring his (repeated) requests to put his code in the mainline version. For crying out loud: He did all the work! What more do you want? If you don't like his code, at least give him the courtesy of a response.

That's almost (but not quite) as bad as your example.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

Ross — 2005-08-16T01:57:40+00:00

XMMS works for me. I use it becuase is very configurable and has most of
the commonly used controls visible in a small footprint. I'm not sure if
it is a great example of a Unix-like program, but at least it's no emacs or
Netscape.

I do have one complaint, which is that it likes to move windows around by
itself, placing transients at the extents of the root window (not the
visible part of the root window), and that window movement should be
performed modulo the size of the screen (which interacts strangely with
transients outside of the upper left portion of the desktop.

Other programs like xv which have nothing to do with GTK have similar
problems, and other GTK apps don't seem to do this so I think it's an
application problem and not a library bug.

It would be nice to be able to resize the program too (to view longer track
names or take allow adjustment of the footprint in a more continuous form
than mini, normal, double-sized).

Standard text editor

Los__D — 2005-08-16T01:52:16+00:00

That last sentence was very hard to read, eh?

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

bojan — 2005-08-16T01:22:22+00:00

> Thanks for being honest.

You are most welcome.

> I don't believe that for a second, so I can only believe they are willfully turning their backs on UNIX.

Yes, that is surely a valid point of view for a "Unix person". In other words, the glass is half empty. On the other hand, for "Gnome people", the glass may be half full.

> But when their decisions start contaminating other software (like Firefox) that doesn't have a viable alternative, then I get upset.

Well, I don't want to be a smartarse here, but the only real way to address these things is to get involved in the development process of Firefox. I don't have enough knowledge and time to do GUI development, so I had to get over things and eventually got used to "new defaults". I'm sure others will choose differently. And I'm sure you'll make your choices too. At least we all don't have to pay for the darn things, so nobody's robbing us.

However, when proprietary software vendors sell me a licence for a piece of software worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and then can't/won't fix segfaults in it, then I get really upset.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

dskoll — 2005-08-16T01:07:47+00:00

GTK, being primarily a toolkit for Gnome, is not interested in Unix tradition.

Thanks for being honest.

Now tell me: From all I can see, the KDE hackers have more-or-less the same goals as the GNOME hackers --- an easy-to-use graphical desktop. The KDE hackers, somehow, have managed to support UNIXy things like external editors for years now. Are GNOME hackers incapable of it? I don't believe that for a second, so I can only believe they are willfully turning their backs on UNIX. That's fine up to a point, because I don't have to use GNOME. But when their decisions start contaminating other software (like Firefox) that doesn't have a viable alternative, then I get upset.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

njhurst — 2005-08-16T00:30:59+00:00

Yep, and XMMS shows how a good Unix gui should work! I particularly love the subtle interplay between the gtk1 preferences dialog and file window, and the subtle precisely detailed main interface that is configurable and can even pixel double for those times when you can't steer your mouse down to the single pixel buttons.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

bojan — 2005-08-15T23:14:44+00:00

> Nobody bought the argument that code reuse (via invoking an external editor) is a long-standing UNIX tradition that has served us well for decades.

And that is the crux of the matter here. GTK, being primarily a toolkit for Gnome, is not interested in Unix tradition. These people (GTK and Gnome developers) want to build an easy to use desktop system for regular folks, most of which are most likely going to be Windows users converting to Gnome (at least that's who they are targeting with their software). I don't know if this will ever happen, but that's what they appear to be doing.

Obviously, they are upsetting a few people (well, maybe quite a few - time will tell) in the process. At least they have some kind of a plan and they are sticking to it.

We all need to ask ourselves hard questions from time to time and one of them is: "If Unix (whatever that's supposed to mean) is such a great desktop system, why isn't it on everyone's desktop?" I distinctly remember 40 MHz Sparc workstations being delivered to our lab that used to put Windows to shame. Doesn't appear that way any more...

I think Apple will have a few things to say about that (i.e. make it Unix where it works, make it something else where it sucks), KDE people may have their say (not a user, so don't know) and Gnome/GTK folks obviuosly have their own view. I am certainly not going to blame them for trying.

dskoll's bug against Evolution. Gnome-vim as an option

dskoll — 2005-08-15T20:24:28+00:00

Gnome-vim is cool, but I don't use vim, alas. :-( I'm an emacs guy.

The Gnome-vim author's comments are interesting, though:

Having noticed that it still hasn't been committed to CVS, I've sent two polite reminders to fejj asking if there are any further changes I should make, or whether there is anything else I can do to help. So far I haven't received any response.

I guess I'm kind of at a loss for what to do next -- I don't know whether my emails have been spam filtered, whether fejj is ignoring me, or whether he just doesn't consider this patch a high priority. I'll try posting to evolution-patches once more to ask what's up -- hopefully I'll at least get a response.

That speaks volumes.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

bojan — 2005-08-15T20:03:31+00:00

Got me! Now they'll finally have to implement "Unix rules". Whatever that's supposed to mean...

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

bojan — 2005-08-15T19:57:03+00:00

Let me assure you, I cannot speak for the project at all as I haven't written a single line of Gnome code. So, all the comments are my own personal views and not those of the Gnome Foundation.

I think you are reading too much into this. I used Gnome since 1.x and when things started changing (i.e. being simplified), I protested that I miss this or that. The truth is that I don't. I was just used to doing things that way and they are just fine they way they are now.

I was just telling Ross that he's completely free to feel the way he does. It is officially OK. I personally got over it, some people can't because they probably really need those things, which is OK too. But, direction of GTK is dictated by GTK developers, many of which are Gnome folks these days. Nothing "hell-bent" about that, just reality.

Use clipboard, not cut buffer

AJWM — 2005-08-15T18:15:38+00:00

The GTK developers seem to think that Unix == Gnome, and honestly, Al Viro said it best:

judging by the GNOME codebase the people who designed GNOME are culturally incompatible with UNIX.

That's hardly surprising. Remember, Gnu's Not Unix, and it shows.

Now, I happen to like some of the extra flags and options that the GNU tools (talking command line here) provide over standard Unix, on the other hand they do tend to take it to ridiculous extremes. And I really don't like that they expect me to use an EMACS-like info-browser to find out what some of those flags and options do, rather than putting that information in the man page where it belongs.

But what can you expect? RMS grew up on a DECSystem, not a Unix box. Nothing wrong with that, it's just different.

dskoll's bug against Evolution. Gnome-vim as an option

stfn — 2005-08-15T18:13:29+00:00

Just for reference (I was curious) that bug seems to be

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220122

and 3 others are marked as duplicates

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216784
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=234541
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=235504

Also, and this was mentioned elsethread, there's vim-as-a-Gnome-component now

http://www.opensky.ca/~jdhildeb/software/gnome-vim/

but that's just vim and Gnome (which suits me fine), not $EDITOR and all GTK applications as some would like. I'm a little surprised this hasn't come up earlier (maybe it has) in the context of Gnome IDEs.

GTK+ 2.8.0 released

Ross — 2005-08-15T17:47:45+00:00

Sadly all the modern Mozilla/Firefox type browsers use GTK exclusively. If
not for that I wouldn't really care because the only other GTK apps I
regularly use are XMMS and GIMP. I don't do much text entry in either so
they don't bother me. I don't like using KDE apps because they start all
kinds of background daemons and do strange things to the terminal they
started from. I'm open to trying other browsers though.