Chris - you hate C++ because its powerful. And desktops hide complexity! Time to dig out that old machine code I think, and a few toggle switches for input - 8 enuf?
___________________________________________________________ WIN ONE OF THREE YAHOO! VESPAS - Enter now! - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/features/competitions/vespa.html
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:52:22PM +0000, tom potts wrote:
Chris - you hate C++ because its powerful. And desktops hide complexity! Time to dig out that old machine code I think, and a few toggle switches for input - 8 enuf?
Who said I hate C++? It's my main bread earner. I do mostly, C, C++ and Java nowadays. I was just saying that for low-level comms. type stuff which is mostly sequential in the way it works that a non-OO language makes sense. For other things that I do then C++ and/or Java make sense.
Desktops as such don't hide complexity, they just mask it with a different complexity. A simple desktop may hide complexity but then so may a simple window manager with a different paradigm, how about TWM with a single xterm window on it?
Chris Green wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:52:22PM +0000, tom potts wrote:
Chris - you hate C++ because its powerful. And desktops hide complexity! Time to dig out that old machine code I think, and a few toggle switches for input - 8 enuf?
Who said I hate C++?
It wasn't you it was me, and I don't think I used the word hate but it will do. And I don't hate because it is powerfull, I hate it because it and the OO paradigm are (wrongly) seen as the only correct way to write code and because it does stupid things like information hiding.
Ian
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 13:11 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Desktops as such don't hide complexity, they just mask it with a different complexity. A simple desktop may hide complexity but then so may a simple window manager with a different paradigm, how about TWM with a single xterm window on it?
So are you against a GUI interface in general and the Desktop concept is just part of that paradigm ?
I never understand this way of thinking, you must agree that the WIMP interface opened computing up to people who would have never touched it otherwise. Humans generally relate to something which in itself relates to a physical environment. Although limiting once you venture outside tasks the designers didn't envisage, it gives ordinary people a chance of finding out how to do something without continuously referring to documentation.
I am not saying there isn't a place for terminal windows and text mode only software...there is and it can be (with the help of a decent shell) very very powerful, more so that even the best designed GUI's. But for some tasks it is easier...it is more intuitive and frankly it just makes sense.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 13:11 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Desktops as such don't hide complexity, they just mask it with a different complexity. A simple desktop may hide complexity but then so may a simple window manager with a different paradigm, how about TWM with a single xterm window on it?
So are you against a GUI interface in general and the Desktop concept is just part of that paradigm ?
I like my GUI without an evil desktop - lots of frames, lots of terminals, lots of tabs. Hmmm. tasty.
http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/
That's what I use day to day, it gets out of my way, lets me use the keyboard for everything, makes it easy to add keybindings through it's config files (none of that awful pointy clicky configuration rubbish), and, best of all, it works. There are a few things that I want to change that I haven't quite worked out yet, but I'm working on those - and hopefully I'll have an environment that really does stay the hell out of my way RSN :)
I never understand this way of thinking, you must agree that the WIMP interface opened computing up to people who would have never touched it otherwise. Humans generally relate to something which in itself relates to a physical environment. Although limiting once you venture outside tasks the designers didn't envisage, it gives ordinary people a chance of finding out how to do something without continuously referring to documentation.
Yes - and if you've ever worked in Tech Support, you tend to wish it had never bloody happened!
I am not saying there isn't a place for terminal windows and text mode only software...there is and it can be (with the help of a decent shell) very very powerful, more so that even the best designed GUI's. But for some tasks it is easier...it is more intuitive and frankly it just makes sense.
Yes, there are a few uses for GUIs, for one, it means that you can run a graphical web browser, which given that it's now all about the aesthetics rather than the damned content is a neccessity. As for word processing - just don't get me started - when people learn to use styles rather than fonts, and when all word processors don't suck, then maybe it'll be a better world, until then I'll stick with plain text or LaTeX for things that I need to be able to read. Possibly XML, or even XHTML for somethings, especially if other people are going to want to read them. I use rather a lot of wiki style markup - including for my blog posts, but given that you can read that in any old text editor, I don't see that as a problem either, and the content is not reliant on the layout.
Cheers, - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 19:53 +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
I like my GUI without an evil desktop - lots of frames, lots of terminals, lots of tabs. Hmmm. tasty.
http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/
Hmmmm tiled window manager, wasn't Windows 1.0 like that...are you saying that Billy G had it right on the first shot ?
Seriously though I can see how that would work out pretty well for some tasks like system administration or perhaps development..but I can't see it being a great environment for a non technical user performing general tasks, how are they supposed to know how to launch anything ?
Yes - and if you've ever worked in Tech Support, you tend to wish it had never bloody happened!
Actually I worked for many years in Tech support (at everything from first-line "No that's not a coffee holder" to supporting other IT professionals) and I have never thought that someone shouldn't be allowed access to a computer (excluding a few of the IT professionals)
Of course there are stubborn, incompetent, impatient, frustrated and simply confused users. Sometimes you encounter a user who is a combination of all five. Sometimes they make life very hard for those trying to support them. But I have never ever thought that the solution would be to raise the entry level high enough that the technically less able never get involved.
Just have a good swear about them once you have closed the call, works for me every time :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 19:53 +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
I like my GUI without an evil desktop - lots of frames, lots of terminals, lots of tabs. Hmmm. tasty.
http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/Hmmmm tiled window manager, wasn't Windows 1.0 like that...are you saying that Billy G had it right on the first shot ?
Seriously though I can see how that would work out pretty well for some tasks like system administration or perhaps development..but I can't see it being a great environment for a non technical user performing general tasks, how are they supposed to know how to launch anything ?
Weirdly enough, the first time it starts up, it presents it's man page for you - give the user the basic info on startup, let them figure out the rest - oh, and tell them *how* to get the info quickly (Alt-F1, worryingly enough). For very little effort on the part of the user it can't be learnt.
For system administration and development, it's exactly what you need, though :)
As for windows 1.0... erm... nah - appears to have too much in the way of sitractions... Infact, here's a page full of screenshots of windows...
http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2001/10/a251001windowshistory_screenshots....
Yes - and if you've ever worked in Tech Support, you tend to wish it had never bloody happened!
Actually I worked for many years in Tech support (at everything from first-line "No that's not a coffee holder" to supporting other IT professionals) and I have never thought that someone shouldn't be allowed access to a computer (excluding a few of the IT professionals)
Of course there are stubborn, incompetent, impatient, frustrated and simply confused users. Sometimes you encounter a user who is a combination of all five. Sometimes they make life very hard for those trying to support them. But I have never ever thought that the solution would be to raise the entry level high enough that the technically less able never get involved.
Just have a good swear about them once you have closed the call, works for me every time :-)
Or make it so that they actually get someone in, alter the dynamics, make it so that starting applications is easy but leave the hardware to someone else - don't make them administrators by default, don't make software a point and click operation from the web, and never let Java developers near HTML (OK - that's a side issue, but it fell in to my brain :)
Trying to talk people through the completely broken TCP/IP stack in windows, when it falls over and a reboot doesn't fix it is just plain not fun - then, letting them use substandard operating systems is probably the biggest problem.
Cheers, - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:17:21PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 13:11 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Desktops as such don't hide complexity, they just mask it with a different complexity. A simple desktop may hide complexity but then so may a simple window manager with a different paradigm, how about TWM with a single xterm window on it?
So are you against a GUI interface in general and the Desktop concept is just part of that paradigm ?
No, I'm against the computer pretending that it's something it isn't. Cars very quickly stopped looking like horse drawn carriages without the horse, that was an early approach, they soon developed their own image. The computer seems to be trying to pretend it's something else.
I am not saying there isn't a place for terminal windows and text mode only software...there is and it can be (with the help of a decent shell) very very powerful, more so that even the best designed GUI's. But for some tasks it is easier...it is more intuitive and frankly it just makes sense.
Yes, but not by pretending to be something that it isn't.
Chris Green wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:17:21PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 13:11 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Desktops as such don't hide complexity, they just mask it with a different complexity. A simple desktop may hide complexity but then so may a simple window manager with a different paradigm, how about TWM with a single xterm window on it?
So are you against a GUI interface in general and the Desktop concept is just part of that paradigm ?
No, I'm against the computer pretending that it's something it isn't.
A computer is a tool, a very general purpose tool, a very flexible tool and a very programmeable tool. It's appearance can be anything its various users want it to be. And if some want it to be a GUI with a desktop then it can be.
Ian
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:46:33PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
No, I'm against the computer pretending that it's something it isn't.
A computer is a tool, a very general purpose tool, a very flexible tool and a very programmeable tool. It's appearance can be anything its various users want it to be. And if some want it to be a GUI with a desktop then it can be.
Very nicely put Ian, those were exactly the words I was looking for.
Thanks Adam
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:46:33PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:17:21PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 13:11 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Desktops as such don't hide complexity, they just mask it with a different complexity. A simple desktop may hide complexity but then so may a simple window manager with a different paradigm, how about TWM with a single xterm window on it?
So are you against a GUI interface in general and the Desktop concept is just part of that paradigm ?
No, I'm against the computer pretending that it's something it isn't.
A computer is a tool, a very general purpose tool, a very flexible tool and a very programmeable tool. It's appearance can be anything its various users want it to be. And if some want it to be a GUI with a desktop then it can be.
Yes, but all the other possible approaches seem to be disappearing and, as a result, many, many users are not well served. If the only accessible idiom is a desktop then the user is the poorer.
Chris Green wrote:
No, I'm against the computer pretending that it's something it isn't.
A computer is a tool, a very general purpose tool, a very flexible tool and a very programmeable tool. It's appearance can be anything its various users want it to be. And if some want it to be a GUI with a desktop then it can be.
Yes, but all the other possible approaches seem to be disappearing and, as a result, many, many users are not well served. If the only accessible idiom is a desktop then the user is the poorer.
I see no evidance of that. The console is still available even under windows and if anything, the number of GUI interfaces under Linux is increasing.
Ian
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 03:40:01PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
No, I'm against the computer pretending that it's something it isn't.
A computer is a tool, a very general purpose tool, a very flexible tool and a very programmeable tool. It's appearance can be anything its various users want it to be. And if some want it to be a GUI with a desktop then it can be.
Yes, but all the other possible approaches seem to be disappearing and, as a result, many, many users are not well served. If the only accessible idiom is a desktop then the user is the poorer.
I see no evidance of that. The console is still available even under windows and if anything, the number of GUI interfaces under Linux is increasing.
... but where we came in was my complaint that 'Desktop' appears on my Linux system whether I like it or not.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 03:40:01PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
No, I'm against the computer pretending that it's something it isn't.
A computer is a tool, a very general purpose tool, a very flexible tool and a very programmeable tool. It's appearance can be anything its various users want it to be. And if some want it to be a GUI with a desktop then it can be.
Yes, but all the other possible approaches seem to be disappearing and, as a result, many, many users are not well served. If the only accessible idiom is a desktop then the user is the poorer.
I see no evidance of that. The console is still available even under windows and if anything, the number of GUI interfaces under Linux is increasing.
... but where we came in was my complaint that 'Desktop' appears on my Linux system whether I like it or not.
*YAWN* - no it's not. You *choose* which apps you run, if you don't want "Desktop" then simply don't use anything KDE or GNOME related... infact, just stop using graphical applications - it's the way forwards! If it wasn't for the fact that the web is generally broken, I'd browse it mostly with w3m - I *like* information, I like the keyboard - using the mouse is a last resort, unless messing with graphics - then it's fairly much a neccessity.
If you're running windows, then *yes* you have no choice, you have a Desktop - if you're running linux, it's easily got round. Infact, it's almost trivial except for webbrowsing... but then, if you really don't want a "desktop" option, use something like Dillo and lose half the web because it doesn't support half the current standards (though, find me a bloody web browser that does, go on, I dare you. They all suck, especially when you're trying to use pure XHTML and CSS, and marking things up properly).
If you *really* hate the Desktop link, then stop running X, do everything for the command line, enjoy life.
I have no problem with other people wanting overlapping windows (which I have grown to hate), if someone tries to enforce that on me, however, then I'll get upset - as it stands I'm already upset with OOo because it tries to enforce some stupid policys, and wants the stylist to be a seperate window - that's damned annoying - reminds me though, I need to add a plugin to ion3 so that OOo is less annoying in it.
There's always choice, and if it really upsets you that much, you have the source (I'm assuming) to the apps that you're complaining about.
Thanks, - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:29:25PM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
*YAWN* - no it's not. You *choose* which apps you run, if you don't want "Desktop" then simply don't use anything KDE or GNOME related... infact, just stop using graphical applications - it's the way forwards! If it
This is where we differ/misunderstand. What I'm saying is that GUI is *not* the same as DeskTop. There are lots of other ways of approaching a GUI way of using a computer than the pseudo-office one.
Chris Green wrote:
This is where we differ/misunderstand. What I'm saying is that GUI is *not* the same as DeskTop. There are lots of other ways of approaching a GUI way of using a computer than the pseudo-office one.
Agreed. But you seemed to be claiming it was forced upon you.
Ian
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 06:07:29PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
This is where we differ/misunderstand. What I'm saying is that GUI is *not* the same as DeskTop. There are lots of other ways of approaching a GUI way of using a computer than the pseudo-office one.
Agreed. But you seemed to be claiming it was forced upon you.
It was, by Firefox, instead of a proper directory selection I got:-
Home Desktop Fileysystem
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 06:07:29PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
This is where we differ/misunderstand. What I'm saying is that GUI is *not* the same as DeskTop. There are lots of other ways of approaching a GUI way of using a computer than the pseudo-office one.
Agreed. But you seemed to be claiming it was forced upon you.
It was, by Firefox, instead of a proper directory selection I got:-
Home Desktop Fileysystem
No - no one is forcing you to use Firefox, are they? Are they holding you at gunpoint and saying "use firefox or die, bitch"?
I think you're not quite getting the point here ;)
- -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 07:10:43PM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 06:07:29PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
This is where we differ/misunderstand. What I'm saying is that GUI is *not* the same as DeskTop. There are lots of other ways of approaching a GUI way of using a computer than the pseudo-office one.
Agreed. But you seemed to be claiming it was forced upon you.
It was, by Firefox, instead of a proper directory selection I got:-
Home Desktop FileysystemNo - no one is forcing you to use Firefox, are they? Are they holding you at gunpoint and saying "use firefox or die, bitch"?
But the change is not in Firefox, it's in an underlying almost universally used library, whatever software one uses this paradigm is likely to be forced on you whether you like it or not.
... and I was also saying that it indicates a trend that I'm not happy with, yes, I may be able to avoid it but it becomes more difficult.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 07:22:29PM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
But the change is not in Firefox, it's in an underlying almost universally used library, whatever software one uses this paradigm is likely to be forced on you whether you like it or not.
... and I was also saying that it indicates a trend that I'm not happy with, yes, I may be able to avoid it but it becomes more difficult.
....but but but.... the point is with Free Software that it allows to scratch your itch. If it doesn't do what you like then fix it! change it! mash it up! improve it!
I *prefer* the new way of doing things, it makes things easier for me, if you want to use the old way of doing things then that's fine too!
Thanks Adam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 07:10:43PM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 06:07:29PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
This is where we differ/misunderstand. What I'm saying is that GUI is *not* the same as DeskTop. There are lots of other ways of approaching a GUI way of using a computer than the pseudo-office one.
Agreed. But you seemed to be claiming it was forced upon you.
It was, by Firefox, instead of a proper directory selection I got:-
Home Desktop FileysystemNo - no one is forcing you to use Firefox, are they? Are they holding you at gunpoint and saying "use firefox or die, bitch"?
But the change is not in Firefox, it's in an underlying almost universally used library, whatever software one uses this paradigm is likely to be forced on you whether you like it or not.
... and I was also saying that it indicates a trend that I'm not happy with, yes, I may be able to avoid it but it becomes more difficult.
Right - it's the gtk2 library - so, what distribution do you use? If you ask us nicely maybe we'll recompile you a package without the offensive desktop option. Of course, that assumes that you trust us as much as your favoured distribution. Alternatively, YOU COULD GET THE SOURCE AND DO IT YOURSELF.
Personally, I get really frustrated with the file dialogs in GTK2, but I live with it, as the only app that I used that has these things is firefox, and 99% of the time if I want to download stuff from firefox I right click, copy url and use wget in a terminal.
YMMV. - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
Brett Parker wrote:
Personally, I get really frustrated with the file dialogs in GTK2, but I live with it, as the only app that I used that has these things is firefox, and 99% of the time if I want to download stuff from firefox I right click, copy url and use wget in a terminal.
IMHO gtk file selection dialogs have always been crap. When deciding which gui toolkit for development work I initially chose gtk because it was written in C and I definitely did not want to learn C++. One of the reasons I abandoned it was the poor file dialogs.
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org wrote:
Brett Parker wrote:
Personally, I get really frustrated with the file dialogs in GTK2, but I live with it, as the only app that I used that has these things is firefox, and 99% of the time if I want to download stuff from firefox I right click, copy url and use wget in a terminal.
IMHO gtk file selection dialogs have always been crap. When deciding which gui toolkit for development work I initially chose gtk because it was written in C and I definitely did not want to learn C++. One of the reasons I abandoned it was the poor file dialogs.
GTK2's file dialogs are (programmatically) a lot better than GTKs, personally I don't think I've found a single file selection dialog box that I actually like. I chose GTK origionally because it was one of the better looking toolkits, and there were bindings for multiple languages (gtkmm was always nice for C++ development). That and it appeared to have potential. That was *way* back before Gnome got their hands on it, when it was the origional GTK, back when it stood for GIMP Tool Kit. (Yes, they invented it, that's it's origional purpose, go look round the web if you don't believe me ;)
It appears that I'm wrong in firefox's case, of course they don't use GTK, they use their own toolkit. But I've failed to find the Desktop link other than in the default saveas options, which is easily changed (and actually appears to default to ~ even though it says "Desktop", which is a folder name. Freaked out by this, I am!).
Cheers, - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
The main problem for me with firefox is that it doesn't play ball very well in terms of KDE integration, but it's my problem - I can be criticised fairly for moaning about this, because mozilla is unashamedly a kitchen-sink thing, and it has a perfectly good plugin system for me to scratch my itch with.
It does irk somewhat however considering the fact that my binary firefox does appear to have had things moved around in accordance with the Gnome "how-to-ruin-HCI-in-the-most-completely-broken-and-stupid-ways-we-can-think-of" Guidelines.
Onto what Chris was saying, the whole desktop-wimp thing comes at you from several angles, two of which are using real-life paradigms to ease organisation and understanding for users in the short term, and marrying graphic design concepts/implements with the user interface which (whether anybody likes it or not) offers up things that cannot easily be achieved.
Granted, the root-window with icons thingy has its flaws, but there is at its hub a nugget of good idea, all it takes is the implementation to make something good of it.
It's not essentially a bad idea.
Further - it can be postulated that the Desktop folder as per Microsoft Windows came into being as a result of several, erm, misguided decisions, but has it not at the end of the day worked out well?
imo If you didn't have an actual, separate directory called "Desktop" (or whatever) and instead used the home directory, you would be doomed to use some other, functionally similar grouping of files to decide what was shown on the root window, even if that was just file flags, extensions or preceding dots.
That is, if you didn't want to be "forced" into having every file in the home directory on display at all times, or of having an empty screen instead of a root window.
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I never understand this way of thinking, you must agree that the WIMP interface opened computing up to people who would have never touched it otherwise. Humans generally relate to something which in itself relates to a physical environment. Although limiting once you venture outside tasks the designers didn't envisage, it gives ordinary people a chance of finding out how to do something without continuously referring to documentation.
Heh, you almost say it like it's a good thing :P .
Ian Bell wrote:
Brett Parker wrote:
Personally, I get really frustrated with the file dialogs in GTK2, but I live with it, as the only app that I used that has these things is firefox, and 99% of the time if I want to download stuff from firefox I right click, copy url and use wget in a terminal.
IMHO gtk file selection dialogs have always been crap. When deciding which gui toolkit for development work I initially chose gtk because it was written in C and I definitely did not want to learn C++. One of the reasons I abandoned it was the poor file dialogs.
Ian
It's been pretty important in shaping my opinion, that. Say what you like about kde/qt, but when it comes to file management in general, let alone the standard dialogs, they're years ahead - actually acknowledging the possibility that a GUI user may use a keyboard to drive things, may want to type in the path themselves including filters, find as they type, and so on.
It offends my very soul so much to have such unconfigurable, no-keyboards-allowed GUI that calls / "filesystem" that that one thing alone often has me closing the 'window' in disgust :) .
I'd largely prefer to do everything with a keyboard myself, but the way I look at WIMPs is this - if you're going to do it, do it properly, with style and competence.
Whilst I usually prefer to work in a console, I see no reason to step back in time to w32 or gtk-based desktop environments when OS X is available commercially and KDE is available for free.
Each to their own, as long as, please God, the situation remains thus: everyone using open source software gets to choose exactly what they want running, and whatever you like there's always some competition.
Cheers,
--
Ten
Ten wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
IMHO gtk file selection dialogs have always been crap. When deciding which gui toolkit for development work I initially chose gtk because it was written in C and I definitely did not want to learn C++. One of the reasons I abandoned it was the poor file dialogs.
Ian
It's been pretty important in shaping my opinion, that. Say what you like about kde/qt, but when it comes to file management in general, let alone the standard dialogs, they're years ahead - actually acknowledging the possibility that a GUI user may use a keyboard to drive things, may want to type in the path themselves including filters, find as they type, and so on.
I agree. the kde widget set has always been streets ahead of gtk in terms both of appearance and functionality. But no way am I going over to C++ just to use it.
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org wrote:
Ten wrote:
It's been pretty important in shaping my opinion, that. Say what you like about kde/qt, but when it comes to file management in general, let alone the standard dialogs, they're years ahead - actually acknowledging the possibility that a GUI user may use a keyboard to drive things, may want to type in the path themselves including filters, find as they type, and so on.
I agree. the kde widget set has always been streets ahead of gtk in terms both of appearance and functionality. But no way am I going over to C++ just to use it.
Interesting - I've never liked the look of Qt - and I still don't! I do understand that it is nice from a coding point of view, though (so someone told me, once upon a time, so they could have been talking crap ;)
- -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 12:26:30AM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
Interesting - I've never liked the look of Qt - and I still don't! I do understand that it is nice from a coding point of view, though (so someone told me, once upon a time, so they could have been talking crap ;)
Have to agree with Brett on this one, I'd rather use a command line exclusively (or Windows!) than have to use KDE/Qt style things ;)
Thanks Adam
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 10:18:39AM +0000, Adam Bower wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 12:26:30AM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
Interesting - I've never liked the look of Qt - and I still don't! I do understand that it is nice from a coding point of view, though (so someone told me, once upon a time, so they could have been talking crap ;)
Have to agree with Brett on this one, I'd rather use a command line exclusively (or Windows!) than have to use KDE/Qt style things ;)
I never really understood the need for (or usefulness) of KDE or Gnome, that's why I long ago started using xfce and now, because xcfe seems to be going rather the way of KDE and Gnome I've moved to fvwm2.
Chris Green wrote:
I never really understood the need for (or usefulness) of KDE or Gnome, that's why I long ago started using xfce and now, because xcfe seems to be going rather the way of KDE and Gnome I've moved to fvwm2.
Which the real power of Linux - choice.
Ian
The message 43899CE1.7070905@ukfsn.org from Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org contains these words:
Chris Green wrote:
I never really understood the need for (or usefulness) of KDE or Gnome, that's why I long ago started using xfce and now, because xcfe seems to be going rather the way of KDE and Gnome I've moved to fvwm2.
Which the real power of Linux - choice.
Which would be a lot better if a common root standard could be agreed so that *ALL* apps could be written to work on any distro without any tinkering.
Anthony Anson wrote:
The message 43899CE1.7070905@ukfsn.org from Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org contains these words:
Chris Green wrote:
I never really understood the need for (or usefulness) of KDE or Gnome, that's why I long ago started using xfce and now, because xcfe seems to be going rather the way of KDE and Gnome I've moved to fvwm2.
Which the real power of Linux - choice.
Which would be a lot better if a common root standard could be agreed so that *ALL* apps could be written to work on any distro without any tinkering.
Which will never happen. There will be standrads and some distros and apps will adhere to them. But Linux is too diverse for that ever to be universal.
Ian
The message 4389D644.7050405@ukfsn.org from Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org contains these words:
Anthony Anson wrote:
The message 43899CE1.7070905@ukfsn.org from Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org contains these words:
Chris Green wrote:
I never really understood the need for (or usefulness) of KDE or Gnome, that's why I long ago started using xfce and now, because xcfe seems to be going rather the way of KDE and Gnome I've moved to fvwm2.
Which the real power of Linux - choice.
Which would be a lot better if a common root standard could be agreed so that *ALL* apps could be written to work on any distro without any tinkering.
Which will never happen. There will be standrads and some distros and apps will adhere to them. But Linux is too diverse for that ever to be universal.
I know - but note the 'if' and the 'could'.
It would be good if the writers could try to converge rather than diversify. There are thousands of varieties of apple, but given time, one person could try all of them.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 04:45:34PM +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
Which will never happen. There will be standrads and some distros and apps will adhere to them. But Linux is too diverse for that ever to be universal.
I know - but note the 'if' and the 'could'.
It would be good if the writers could try to converge rather than diversify. There are thousands of varieties of apple, but given time, one person could try all of them.
I don't follow the analogy. There certainly are thousands of varieties of apple and no one variety is right for every use or taste, thus we should try and preserve at least a fair proporttion of them to ensure that the required diversity remains.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:47:45AM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
I never really understood the need for (or usefulness) of KDE or Gnome, that's why I long ago started using xfce and now, because xcfe seems to be going rather the way of KDE and Gnome I've moved to fvwm2.
Which the real power of Linux - choice.
Yes, but the (nearly) standard libraries are beginning to force me to have a 'desktop'.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 12:26:30AM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org wrote:
Ten wrote:
It's been pretty important in shaping my opinion, that. Say what you like about kde/qt, but when it comes to file management in general, let alone the standard dialogs, they're years ahead - actually acknowledging the possibility that a GUI user may use a keyboard to drive things, may want to type in the path themselves including filters, find as they type, and so on.
I agree. the kde widget set has always been streets ahead of gtk in terms both of appearance and functionality. But no way am I going over to C++ just to use it.
Interesting - I've never liked the look of Qt - and I still don't! I do understand that it is nice from a coding point of view, though (so someone told me, once upon a time, so they could have been talking crap ;)
Surely we should be arguing about ease of use (and power) rather than looks. The aim is to give the user that ability to do what they need to do easily and *then*, maybe, make it look pretty.
Chris Green wrote:
Surely we should be arguing about ease of use (and power) rather than looks. The aim is to give the user that ability to do what they need to do easily and *then*, maybe, make it look pretty.
This assumes appearance is not a factor in ease of use or productivity - an erroneous assumption IMHO.
Ian
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:49:41AM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
Surely we should be arguing about ease of use (and power) rather than looks. The aim is to give the user that ability to do what they need to do easily and *then*, maybe, make it look pretty.
This assumes appearance is not a factor in ease of use or productivity
- an erroneous assumption IMHO.
It's *a* factor certainly, but not *the* factor. You could design a beautiful looking GUI interface that was very difficult to use. On the other hand I suspect (in partial agreement with you) that it would be difficult to design an ugly one that is easy to use.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:07:30AM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Surely we should be arguing about ease of use (and power) rather than looks. The aim is to give the user that ability to do what they need to do easily and *then*, maybe, make it look pretty.
Which is sorta the point from the beginning, there are many ways of doing things with people having individual preferences, I already have said that doing things your way or being forced to use KDE (which I was at one point for several months) are not suited to the way I work, get in the way and annoy me. The behaviour that you originally had a whinge about is something I like and works well for *me* I certainly don't want to be dictated to by your choices on how I should work.
This is what Ian and Brett have been saying with having a choice, the whole point of using Free Software is that you have a greater choice, and if you /really/ don't like something then you can fix it or change it. If you don't like the way Linux/Free Software works then you still have the choice of a multitude of different operating systems/environments out there. Brett already pointed out that you installed Firefox of your own free will, and then complained about it because (what it essentially comes down to) you encountered something different/new hadn't read the docs so whinged about it, rather than being productive, looking at how it works and either changing it or using something else.
Thanks Adam
Brett Parker wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org wrote:
Ten wrote:
It's been pretty important in shaping my opinion, that. Say what you like about kde/qt, but when it comes to file management in general, let alone the standard dialogs, they're years ahead - actually acknowledging the possibility that a GUI user may use a keyboard to drive things, may want to type in the path themselves including filters, find as they type, and so on.
I agree. the kde widget set has always been streets ahead of gtk in terms both of appearance and functionality. But no way am I going over to C++ just to use it.
Interesting - I've never liked the look of Qt - and I still don't! I do understand that it is nice from a coding point of view, though (so someone told me, once upon a time, so they could have been talking crap ;)
That just shows how much it is all about personal preferences. I really dislike the look of gtk widget set but like the fact that gtk is coded in C. I really like the look of the Qt widget set but cannot stand C++. So whatever set I chose was going to be a compromise. Eventually my didslike of C++ outweighed my dislke of the gtk widget set (and there were moves afoot to make it prettier) so I chose gtk. Then the ugliness of the dialog boxes and the menu system put me off again.
Now I am a happy Tcl/Tk coder ;-)
Ian
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 11:00:10PM +0000, Ten wrote:
imo If you didn't have an actual, separate directory called "Desktop" (or whatever) and instead used the home directory, you would be doomed to use some other, functionally similar grouping of files to decide what was shown on the root window, even if that was just file flags, extensions or preceding dots.
That is, if you didn't want to be "forced" into having every file in the home directory on display at all times, or of having an empty screen instead of a root window.
Most of the 'things' I have on my screen *aren't* files. Even on my Win2k system there's not a single file to be seen on the 'top' screen and the 'folders' that are there are mostly named for their function rather than the files (if any) that reside within them.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 05:59:22PM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:29:25PM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
*YAWN* - no it's not. You *choose* which apps you run, if you don't want "Desktop" then simply don't use anything KDE or GNOME related... infact, just stop using graphical applications - it's the way forwards! If it
This is where we differ/misunderstand. What I'm saying is that GUI is *not* the same as DeskTop. There are lots of other ways of approaching a GUI way of using a computer than the pseudo-office one.
...but the whole point is that the folder being called "Desktop" is how they are referring to what you refer to as "screen" if they had called it "screen" then nobody would have a blimin clue what was meant ;)
Adam
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 06:35:03PM +0000, Adam Bower wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 05:59:22PM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:29:25PM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
*YAWN* - no it's not. You *choose* which apps you run, if you don't want "Desktop" then simply don't use anything KDE or GNOME related... infact, just stop using graphical applications - it's the way forwards! If it
This is where we differ/misunderstand. What I'm saying is that GUI is *not* the same as DeskTop. There are lots of other ways of approaching a GUI way of using a computer than the pseudo-office one.
...but the whole point is that the folder being called "Desktop" is how they are referring to what you refer to as "screen" if they had called it "screen" then nobody would have a blimin clue what was meant ;)
No, as it happens I do have a Desktop folder in my Linux home directory but it only has xfce configuration files in it. It can't bay any stretch of the imagination be equated with what I see on my screen and (as far as I know) nothing saves files there by default.
Chris Green wrote:
... but where we came in was my complaint that 'Desktop' appears on my Linux system whether I like it or not.
This is simply not true. It is there because of the choice of installation you made. I run Slackware 10.1 and it boots to the command line. From that point on any GUI that runs has the properties I want. After all, there is a huge number to choose from.
Ian
-
Adam Bower -
Anthony Anson -
Brett Parker -
Chris Green -
Ian bell -
Ten -
tom potts -
Wayne Stallwood