Bizarre KDE Bug

3/13/05 4:57:23 PM

I have the answer...

STOP USING KDE!

Nah, just kidding. I believe you have to edit the "system owned" menu and not your version of it. This then becomes a questionable practice.

You have to do it as root on the KDE GUI login or manually edit this file while in a console mode.

Funny how I never experience thsi in GNOME. But then, "sane defaults" and lack of changable options really sucks for some people. I only have one issue. Havoc.

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #198,374

by altmann

3/13/05 5:20:44 PM

Yabut

Isn't GNOME the one that just released a version where they ripped out the only way of editing their menu short of hand editing files without having a replacement for that functionality ready?

--
Chris Altmann

Post #198,384

3/13/05 6:45:22 PM

You didn't get my meaning of...

My only problem with GNOME is Havoc. Not havoc.

And yes, you are right.

Havoc Pennington.

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #198,379

by cwbrenn

3/13/05 5:41:14 PM

I've had no problems with KDE

until this specific one raised it's strangely unattractive head.

I mean, even in the old days, when I was banging my head against network printer configurations, it was never KDE that was leading me astray.

"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young

Post #198,385

3/13/05 6:46:38 PM

Oh, I know Chris....

I am just the token KDE vs GNOME discussion starter.

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #198,391

by imric

3/13/05 7:23:14 PM

Oh - OK. Gnome sucks.

Well, OK. It's usable. But on a 'marginal' machine (AMD1500 w 768m ram), it's noticably slower than KDE; Gnome is also less easily configured. The 'sane defaults' hedge is just that, a hedge. I never could get the damned thing to browse my SMB shares, either. I had to mount the things by hand, in a terminal session.

Maybe I'll bother with it again when they come out with a new major revision, right now, it's not worth the time.

[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,406

3/13/05 11:35:14 PM

I use GNOME.

But only because I like the layout of it. Everything else about GNOME sucks, the removal of features I used to use... was/is insane.

And I know how to manually edit those files.

And Yes, the hedge is bullshit.

I don;t like KDE for a number of reasons. Gadgets is #1.

blah.blah.blah

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #198,418

3/14/05 2:16:52 AM

No, it's not insane.

It's just that you're a corner case (monstrously adept power-user, AKA a vanishingly small percentage of the user base) and GNOME isn't ever going to optimise for you.

You want configurability out the wazoo? Well, there's KDE[0]. They solve every "should it go in?" debate by making it a preference.

GNOME is optimising for the kinds of users who don't ever need to edit their menus - i.e. the corporate and home user. I don't need to edit my GNOME menu, because it's not arse; however, my Windows box has to have its Start Menu edited because it is. Never mind the fact that it's a broken paradigm to start with[1]. Oh well. We appear to be stuck with it in x86-land, and will be forever because of what Windows does.

The GNOME philosophy is not "make it a preference"; it's "make it not suck the first time out". Personally, I agree with this. I have work to do.

Right now, there are desktop environments that do what you want. Enlightenment, for one. Windowmaker (probably). you could probably get everything you want with Sawfish, too. All can be configured into the nth dimension.

But complaining that a desktop environment designed for regular users doesn't fit your super-power-uber-user needs is ever so slightly silly.

Hey, GNOME 1.4 still exists and there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop you running it :-)

[0] My graphic designer buddy Dan describes using KDE as like "receiving head from a buzzsaw dipped in honey". Yeah, he's a beret-wearer.
[1] I grew up on systems that were document-centric; first RISC-OS on the Acorn platform, then NeWS and Classic Mac OS. Windows was and is a bit of a culture shock to me in this regard.

Post #198,435

by imric

3/14/05 7:05:41 AM

*shakes head sadly*

Nice idea, but people LIKE to customise desktops. It's an 'empowering' thing. If you want to provide sane defaults, that's great. It really is. To make it difficult to change for John Q. Public afterwards is madness. Making that diffcult is not going to win over the 'target audience'. It's a PERSONAL computer.

For business - by all means make it possible to 'lock down' configurability - but it's got to be there (without doing the equivalent of tweaking the registry in Windows) in the first place.

Controlling the 'Gnome experience' is just as annoying as BG controlling the 'Windows experence'.

And it's STILL slow.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,438

3/14/05 7:22:20 AM

/me points at KDE

There ya go. Customise away.

Choice. Wonderful thing.

Post #198,439

by imric

3/14/05 7:27:36 AM

3/14/05 8:44:59 AM

I agree!

And I'm using it. I AM an ex-gnome user, though, and I still go back and check it out every once in a while. I was commenting on why I don't like the current incarnation, and why I think it's on the wrong path. I'm not callng for its elimination, or anything. These are gripes, not 'show-stoppers'.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric March 14, 2005, 07:28:50 AM EST

Edited by imric March 14, 2005, 08:44:59 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #198,446

3/14/05 8:16:54 AM

Except

The things that most users want to customize (themes, fonts, wallpaper, etc.) are easily configurable in GNOME. It's just the things that die-hard geeks care about that have been hidden away.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,453

by imric

3/14/05 8:42:15 AM

3/14/05 8:42:44 AM

Ummm.

Defining your target by saying 'if you care about that, you're a die-hard geek, and we're not targeting you' is kind of silly, don't you agree? I see a LOT of that in comments about Gnome. THAT'S a major reason why I see this whole strategy as a hedge.

Mark my words, if Gnome EVER becomes the desktop of choice, and consumers actually use it, watch for a Gnome UI tweaking tool to become one of the most popular applications.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric March 14, 2005, 08:42:44 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #198,457

3/14/05 9:05:05 AM

I don't think it's silly at all.

GNOME is going for the large market. It's being adopted by the likes of Sun and IBM as a corporate desktop. Unfortunately for people who like to exercise extreme control over their desktop, this means that GNOME won't be targeting them as people whose needs are to be met.

What I do expect to see in the future are tools from said large corporations to assist in the deployment and management of lots and lots of GNOME desktops. Also expect Novell to take a serious interest in this, too; Zenworks for Linux is a rebadged and enhanced Red Carpet Enterprise, so in its current incarnation is primarily a software deployment tool; however, I see no technical reason why its reach could not be extended into applying policy.

Post #198,469

by imric

3/14/05 10:30:18 AM

What's silly

So, you don't see the nature of the silliness, huh? Simply by asking for something means that you aren't targeted, so you might as well forget about a meaningful response; asking for a feature and getting told to go elsewhere because you aren't 'targeted' because you asked is supposed to - what? Get more developers working on the project? Get more users (eyeballs)? Yeah, getting IBM's (or Sun's) backing is a SURE path to widespread desktop acceptance - Can you say WPS?

Obviously, for those that want or criticize the configurability of Gnome found something they liked about it or they wouldn't care enough to ask or criticize. The response of 'you aren't our target anyway, we don't have to listen to that' is sure a way to win friends and influence potential (corporate) users, isn't it. If this hedge argument is continued, I would expect Gnome to eventually go the way of Hurd. An interesting project that isn't much used in the real world. And it doesn't deserve that.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,473

by cwbrenn

3/14/05 10:54:17 AM

I don't think it's a hedge argument.

I think it's an example of bad communication.

The impression I get from the gnome folks -- and I may very well be off by a mile -- is that their new focus is to create a free-software UI for the corporate market. Corporations *really don't like* end users mucking about with their interface beyond a certain level, and corporations really *do* like being able to have a single configuration that requires very little setup that is usable from the start and can be copied to x number of machines all at once.

So gnome is trying to do that, and that's where they're focusing their resources. They have x amount of resources to spend to reach that goal, and diverting some of those resources to develop the other stuff that people outside the corporation like would complicate matters needlessly. So instead of saying "right now we're trying to focus on these features until we reach this goal, and at that point we'll take a look around to see what we can do next" they say instead "sorry, but you're not our target market." Not a very diplomatic response, but honestly, how many diplomatic developers do *you* know? :)

"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young

Post #198,484

by imric

3/14/05 11:17:30 AM

Mebbe.

But that brings us back [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=198435|here].

*evil grin*

"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"

I dunno - ask the Gnome developers?...

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,482

3/14/05 11:15:10 AM

Feel free to ask for whatever you like.

However, unless you pay someone to write it for you, you will have to either make a very convincing case that feature X is worthy of inclusion in GNOME or else write it yourself. Remember, every Linux distribution comes with a powerful configuration tool called "gcc".

Seriously, though, it's hard to justify the effort spent on developing features that will be used by a very, very small minority of the user base, when there are huge, pressing problems that need to be solved (i18n, a11y) that are very demanding on developer time. And yes, getting IBM or Sun to ship GNOME is a sure-fire way to get eyeballs, because these guys are talking about putting Linux in front of tens of thousands of people—ordinary office dwellers—at a time. What developer wouldn't want a piece of that action?

You can ask; you're not the first person to wonder about the configurability of GNOME, and you won't be the last. The simple truth is that for 99% of people, changing simple things like the desktop font, colour and wallpaper is all the configurability they need. These people are the audience for GNOME.

It's a simple waste of time to expend anything other than 1% of the effort on the other 1% of users.

The other problem, of course (I read a thread about this on gnome-desktop-devel the other day) is that the kind of people from whom GNOME wants to solicit input are precisely the kind of people who do not post to mailing lists or use web forums about computers and software. You need to visit, talk to and watch to see what they really want, need and do. This often varies widely from what they'll tell you that they want, need and do :-)

The proof of the pudding is of course in the eating, and there was a project to undo some of the GNOME developer's latest things, the GoneME project. Died through lack of interest.

It's a shame that GNOME doesn't meet your needs. I think that with some work and some more good applications, it'll help bring It Just Works to more people than anything else.

Post #198,494

3/14/05 11:29:47 AM

Re: Feel free to ask for whatever you like.

You need to visit, talk to and watch to see what they really want, need and do. This often varies widely from what they'll tell you that they want, need and do :-)

\r\n\r\n

Which is why usability testing and "market research"/focus groups are two different things, a fact that a certain OSNews columnist would benefit from learning...

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,504

by imric

3/14/05 11:51:47 AM

To be honest, it's not that important to me

I'll just continue to use KDE. It's not as if you choose one, you can't run apps written for the other.

"Seriously, though, it's hard to justify the effort spent on developing features that will be used by a very, very small minority of the user base"

Here's where we diverge, I think. Unless you think that business use doesn't influence personal use and vice-versa, I don't see where this is coming from. Like I said, I see a LARGE chunk of personal users that want highly personalized systems - business might not want that, but then the Gnome developers are actually trying to marginalize Gnome into a niche product. It might be a LARGE niche, but niche it remains.

"And yes, getting IBM or Sun to ship GNOME is a sure-fire way to get eyeballs, because these guys are talking about putting Linux in front of tens of thousands of people\ufffdordinary office dwellers\ufffdat a time"

Are you saying that since larger numbers of "the kind of people who do not post to mailing lists or use web forums about computers and software" are going to be using Gnome, this counts as 'eyeballs'? If they aren't the target audience, and therefore people who's requests are "hard to justify", isn't the argument really a hedge that says 'we don't have to listen to user requests'? (exaggerated, of course). Doesn't the idea that the targeted users don't provide feedback, if we get feedback it's not from our targeted users make the participation of IBM and Sun, or anyone that rolls out large numbers of desktops kind of irrelevant?

"I think that with some work and some more good applications, it'll help bring It Just Works to more people than anything else."

.
You may be right. If that comes about, though, I suspect it won't be because the people are asking for less configurability, but because it is imposed on them from above. And THAT will push them away from Gnome whenever they have a choice.

Look, I'm not trying to impugn Gnome or it's developers, I just think that this is a DEEP tactical error.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,526

3/14/05 12:30:27 PM

To most computer users,

"Highly configurable" means "I can change the colors."

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,679

by static

3/14/05 10:03:28 PM

3/14/05 10:04:03 PM

No it means "I can change the wallpaper."

Most people don't change their colours. Or they pick from one of the standard sets and then go back to the default some days later. I know this because I *do* change my colours. Not only do I get incredulous comments from colleauges, but I am constantly finding applications that - often unconsiously - assume the end-user hasn't changed the system colours.

On the other hand, it is hard to find someone who *hasn't* change their wallpaper. :-)

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Edited by static March 14, 2005, 10:04:03 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #198,857

3/15/05 7:56:13 PM

That's been a big thing in web-design the past few years.

I am constantly finding applications that - often unconsiously - assume the end-user hasn't changed the system colours.

\r\n\r\n

Used to be, once upon a time, that people would specify a font color and never realize it might conflict with something the user had specified for a background, or vice-versa. These days the W3C CSS validator will throw a warning if you specify a foreground color without a background color, or a background without a foreground.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,524

by drewk

3/14/05 12:23:40 PM

Tell that to Microsoft

Everyone knows that they only use 10% of what's in Office. But everyone uses a different 10%, and all together they use it all. Yes, it's horribly bloated. Yes, it cointributes to security problems and ever-increasing hardware requirements.

But if you have 100 users, and each of them uses the same 99%, and each one has a unique requirement for another 1%, you end up with just over half the codebase dedicated to %1 slices of your market.

Don't we all bitch every time we see a website "best viewed in Internet Explorer"? Don't we always say, "Don't they know they're excluding 2/5/10/20% (pick your favorite study) of their potential market?" Why is it when companies choose to focus on 90% of their market they're idiots. But when Gnome's developers focus on 90% of the market they'd like to have they're being sensible?

Now if they were to say they're working on the 90% first, as someone suggested above they should say, I'd agree. But if they really do plan to ignore the 10%-ers I think it's a tactical mistake.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #198,491

3/14/05 11:25:43 AM

I see.

So obviously, by dumbing down the interface and removing so much of the configurability of Mozilla, Firefox is dooming itself to a niche market. I expect that it will soon go the way of the HURD, without ever having obtained substantial market share or attention.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,507

by imric

3/14/05 11:55:56 AM

3/14/05 11:58:54 AM

ROFL - actually, right!

Take extensionsand the availability of say, about:config. It's a good example of what I'm talking about. Simple interface, easily configurable to a fine level, and highly (and easily) extensible.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric March 14, 2005, 11:58:54 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #198,523

3/14/05 12:19:13 PM

Ah yes, all that configurability.

That's why half the features that used to be in the Mozilla suite have had to be re-implemented as Firefox extensions, right?

\r\n\r\n

There's a simple principle here, and you can't seem to wrap your head around it: Interfaces which are good for power-user geeks are generally horrible for average users. The two groups are, to a certain extent, mutually exclusive in their wants and needs.

\r\n\r\n

Which is why Firefox, even with everything that's in about:config, only has a fraction of the features and configuration options of the full Mozilla suite; the feature set was deliberately reduced to the minimum that most users would require, and configuration options were dropped left and right. Now we have a browser that, for most people, does not need to be configured at all; it Just Works, and that's why it's become a household word in less than a year while the old Mozilla suite never managed to be much more than a niche product for power users and Linux geeks.

\r\n\r\n

And GNOME is attempting to do the same thing. In order to be widely used by average users, it has to focus on what average users want: a simple, usable desktop that Just Works out of the box. That means it has to drop an awful lot of the overhead it was carrying around in the form of extraneous features and configuration (and move the remaining "advanced" features into GConf, just as Firefox moved them into about:config), and that means it's not going to be the same ultra-configurable, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink desktop it was in the past.

\r\n\r\n

If you don't like that, either use something else (the apps run fine under Enlightenment, and if that isn't a power-user, ultra-configurable system I don't know what is), or start writing code to put back the stuff you want (there are already some tools out there to do that for Nautilus). Complaining, at this point, serves no useful purpose whatsoever, so why are you still doing it?

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,528

by imric

3/14/05 12:40:52 PM

Ah yes, all that availability.

"That's why half the features that used to be in the Mozilla suite have had to be re-implemented as Firefox extensions, right?"

And more. And they are as easily available to the end-user as your "power user"

"Interfaces which are good for power-user geeks are generally horrible for average users. The two groups are, to a certain extent, mutually exclusive in their wants and needs."

The above proves you wrong. Firefox DOES have simplicity, extensibility, and fine configurability. And it IS attractive to both "power users" and whatever you want to call the 'other kind'. They are most certainly NOT mutually exclusive. While you may liken gconf to about:config, the analogy is false; about:config actually improves the availability of fine-tuning to the user over it's ancestor, Mozilla - moving things to gconf does the opposite for Gnome.

"If you don't like that, either use something else (the apps run fine under Enlightenment, and if that isn't a power-user, ultra-configurable system I don't know what is), or start writing code to put back the stuff you want (there are already some tools out there to do that for Nautilus)."

And you don't see my point embodied in that, do you? People are already frustrated enough to write these things; and that's great - but since it's a result of the removal of functionality, it shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Again, 'sane defaults' doesn't mean those defaults have to be nailed into place, and the claw-hammer hidden.

"Complaining, at this point, serves no useful purpose whatsoever, so why are you still doing it?"

OK - let's make this clear - just because I'm not a Gnome fan-boy, and I comment on what I see as wrong with the current direction gnome development, does not mean I'm complaining about gnome. I don't care enough to complain; I will discuss, though, with those that seem interested in discussing my opinions (hint: opinions are not always positive). I like to discuss things; that's why I come here.

Get it?

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,535

3/14/05 1:08:32 PM

3/14/05 1:10:52 PM

You don't get it.

So the existence of Firefox extensions proves that Firefox is unusable and should have catered to the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink crowd instead?

\r\n\r\n

Another general principle for you: the base package should have a small set of features and limited configurability, with sane settings out of the box.

\r\n\r\n

That's what Firefox does, and you don't complain because people have written useful extensions for the extra things you want it to do. That's what GNOME does, but you complain because no-one's written the extensions yet. Maybe that's something you could do?

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Edited by ubernostrum March 14, 2005, 01:10:52 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #198,545

3/14/05 1:43:10 PM

Huh?

I fail to see the similarity in Gnome removing functionality that people find useful with Firefox changing them over to extensions and allowing everyone to play with the about:config screen.

I was a huge fan of gnome. Was. These changes have left me (trust me...a linux user...not power using geek) cold and wanting a return to the older paradigm where some of these things were user configurable.

And my post against the top of this thread was accurate. I don't use KDE or Gnome anymore. Both have become huge overhead draws and have not given a corresponding growth in functionality.

If I have to configure a desktop...I'm gonna pick something lightweight and simple. Thats why xfce runs on my machines. It does what I need and thats about it.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #198,549

3/14/05 1:59:19 PM

"Removing functionality people find useful"

Apparently no-one here understands how this sort of thing should be managed, so here's a hypothetical case:

\r\n\r\n

Consider Feature X. Feature X has been part of FooDesktop since its inception, and is popular among advanced users. FooDesktop has recently decided to broaden its target audience, however, and so Feature X has come under scrutiny: will it stay in the next version?

\r\n\r\n

The following facts are known:

\r\n\r\n

Research and user feedback has shown that 2% of users of FooDesktop make use of Feature X.
Usability tests found that, of an average sampling of computer users, 70% rated FooDesktop as "too complicated to use" and 95% of those listed Feature X as one of the factors which most confused them.

\r\n\r\n

You are project manager for FooDesktop. What do you do?

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,578

3/14/05 2:57:26 PM

Different Levels of Configuration options.

Upon first login:

Hello, I am your friend initial environment Fairy. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Please be honest, as this is not a "keeping up with the Jones's thing".
Do you like to just sit down and do things?
Are you one whom like to get things done, but have on occasion wanted to tweak the way things work or feel?
Are you or have you ever been termed a "Power User on Steroids" or a seriously keyboard oriented users?
Are you one of *those* people that like a fine grained control-freak oriented way of doing things?
Okay, now that those question are answered honestly, I can produce a desktop for you which will by default possibly really like.

Should I create it or go back and ask questions again?
__Yes, create the initial Desktop for me
__No, I want to redefine my answers, please start over

This would then create a nicely customized, well thought out "Sane Default" for nearly 99.99% of the people out there. Trust me, KDE does this already (well sort of) and So, does WindowsXP and Mac OS-X.

Would it *BE* so hard to do this? I'd be surprised if you asked these questions, or some refined versions, you'd get a great response and find more people will help. Plus, those people that just want something that works... can have that stuff to.

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #198,583

3/14/05 3:25:01 PM

Harder than you think.

Thing is, people can't answer those questions honestly, because they're terrible at gauging their own levels of ability.

The KDE setup wizard thing is the KDE project's way of saying "We cannot agree on a set of sane defaults for our desktop", instead giving people environments that are bad ripoffs of existing environments. What they SHOULD do is go, "This is KDE! Hear it roar!"

If you're going to pretend to be Windows/Mac OS/CDE, you'd better do it with high fidelity, because there's nothing more confusing than something that says it's like Windows but then isn't. Which is of course what happens, because the only thing that's just like Windows is, well, Windows.

Mac OS X does no such thing, and neither does Windows XP. Having installed both of those recently (and having had cause to marvel at the simplicity of the OS X installation on an admittedly more predictable hardware platform) I can speak with a little authority. OS X just does localisation/personalisation, runs a registration wizard, nags you about a .mac account, and that's it. XP does activation, a little personalisation/localisation, and then you're done. Both have tutorial things. Neither run automatically (although they both show you them at first log in).

Post #198,597

3/14/05 5:05:49 PM

Users are stupid.

As Peter already said, users (especially on the first install of a new environment) don't know what they want, and really suck at trying to articulate it; this is why usability tests have to be conducted in person. If there were a way to magically make the users competent enough to answer the questions correctly, we wouldn't have to have this debate.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,636

3/14/05 7:20:02 PM

I wonder...

Jim, are you a GNOME Developer?

[link|http://www.shtuff.us/weblog/66/ignoring-user-requests-isnt-always-a-bad-thing|\ufffdIgnoring\ufffd user requests isn\ufffdt always a bad thing]

I read that, it basically is the same thing you are saying here. I can only believe you have read Havoc's writings on the Subject.

I am not saying it is BAD, I just would like to see a much better external program able to tweak the stuff that 1.4 had in it.

I guess, I didn't mean to start a flamewar, but I see both sides, you see both sides, why for can we not understand the usability issues.

And one other point, I do not consider myself a Geek. It is Uber-Geek to you buddy.

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #198,666

3/14/05 8:44:29 PM

I'm not.

A GNOME developer, that is. But UI and usability work is a large part of what I do for a living, so this stuff interests me. From the perspective of making it accessible to more people, I think the GNOME guys are on the right track, and I respect the fact that they're sticking to it in the face of opposition from their "power users". That isn't easy to do.

\r\n\r\n

And as for external programs to edit stuff, well, that's kind of the point I've been making with the Firefox analogy. Except with GNOME you've got a whole desktop to hook into...

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,668

by imric

3/14/05 9:02:52 PM

Bah. Firefox made configuration tweaking MORE accessable.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,681

by drewk

3/14/05 10:36:56 PM

To expand on that

No one is saying Firefox is more configurable than Gnome is. They're saying Firefox is more configurable than Firefox used to be, and Gnome is less configurable than Gnome used to be. Maybe they're converging on a middle ground, or maybe Firefox has already come up with the perfect interface to combine simplicity with power access.

But the fact is there are configuration options that Gnome still supports, that used to be accessible through a user interface, that are now "hidden" behind a user-unfriendly db-like interface. It is like Microsoft killing off TweakUI and forcing users back into the registry.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #198,824

3/15/05 4:13:38 PM

And I'm saying

That less configurability is often good for usability, and bad for geeks.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,847

3/15/05 6:28:50 PM

I completely disagree with that assertion.

Making something more configurable only adds a component of usability to those who chose to actually use that ability.

Establishing what is being stated in this thread as "sane defaults" simply establishes the baseline usability.

Dumbing down for the masses has already been accomplished. In the end it created an entire subculture devoted to designing an alternative. And as appears to be the case with Gnome development...this subculture (or at least a portion of it) appears quite willing to repeat that history.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #198,854

3/15/05 7:51:42 PM

Let me explain something to you.

When you add features and configurability to a system, you have to decide where to put them. In other words, if you're going to provide Feature X and allow users to configure Feature X, you have to provide controls for it somewhere. Do this often enough and the number of controls and options gets to be a bit unwieldy. At that point usually somebody has the bright idea of just adding an "Advanced" panel on the configuration, and sticking all the extra options in it (or an "Advanced" sub-menu off the main menu), but there are two problems with this:

\r\n\r\n

It doesn't address the root problem (too many features and options to manage) and, inevitably,
The "Advanced" panel/menu becomes hopelessly cluttered.

\r\n\r\n

When you reach this point you have to step back and evaluate your feature set, and ask yourself: what do we really need? Anything you can't justify based on significant demand and significant usage should go. And anything that confuses more people than it helps should go. Firefox did it, GNOME's doing it. It's a fact of development that can't be avoided, and you can complain about "dumbing down" all you like without changing it.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,898

by drewk

3/15/05 11:43:19 PM

Now let *me* explain something to *you*

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying, we don't agree. While I don't know of anyone else here who does usability as their primary job, a lot of us have spent quite a bit of time studying it. You can explain your point however you want, we'll still understand and still disagree.

Let's talk some specifics:

* Why is Screensaver under Advanced, while Network Proxy, PGP Preferences and Remote Desktop are top level?

* How is Printing a System Tool?

* Why doesn't Screen Resolution work in a default installation?

* And if it doesn't work, why is it on the menu?

* Why is the Keyboard settings under Accessibility a non-resizable window that doesn't fit vertically within the viewable area of my 800 x 600 laptop display?

None of these strike me as the type of things designed with usability in mind. But hey, at least they got rid of all those confusing options.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #198,907

3/16/05 1:18:14 AM

Bug. Bug. Bug. Distro Bug. Not a bug. Bug.

Filed 'em? (I should note that the usability-borked "advanced" submenu has gone in 2.10, at least as shipped by Ubuntu).

Having said all that, I've switched to Mac OS X as my primary desktop, so it's all a bit academic to me.

Post #198,943

3/16/05 8:29:19 AM

Re: Let me explain something to you.

When you add features and configurability to a system, you have to decide where to put them.

Our point exactly. Thats where HCI folks like you come in.

To the remaining point of "everybody has screwed this up before so Gnome development was correct in just throwing in the towel and taking that crap out", I continue to disagree. Try and justify it all you like. They are repeating a failed history. It drove me away and has done the same to several other folks around here.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #198,823

3/15/05 4:13:11 PM

Re: Bah. Firefox made configuration tweaking MORE accessabl

To most users, about:config is voodoo as deep as the registry. Or GConf.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,828

by imric

3/15/05 4:27:47 PM

3/15/05 4:31:43 PM

So what?

If fine configuration (tweaking) of Gnome is not something that your sublass of user (luser?) that Gnome is 'targeting' really wants to do, why would they do it? 'Sane Defaults' would take care of that.

Once again, making this hard to do, DOES NOT ADD VALUE to the desktop. Nobody is clamoring for a desktop that is harder to tweak - though they might once have looked for one that is simpler to use. The two concepts are not even vaguely similar. And here's a clue for you - simpler to use, and easier to tweak - can exist in the same product. FIREFOX IS LIVING PROOF OF THIS. It is both simpler to use than it's ancestor, Mozilla, and easier to tweak.

Gnome is simpler to use - maybe, when it works. It is also HARDER to tweak (and fix). Projecting Firefox's success onto Gnome is false for that reason.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric March 15, 2005, 04:31:43 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #198,551

by imric

3/14/05 2:06:53 PM

Ummm. What?

My biggest and most salient point was about:config - which directly concerns the topic being discussed. Extensions make up for some of the deficiencies, true. That's part of what makes firefox more flexible, the ability to choose, download and configure features placed within easy reach of the user, not just your power-user. That's part of being flexible, running and (easily) configuring just the pieces you want to.

On top of that, about:config made fine-tuned configuring more available, while firefox got a simpler base UI at the same time. Meanwhile, firefox lost none of it's popularity. Gnome has made fine-tuning LESS available; time will tell if that makes it more popular, but I think not.

As I have said, repeatedly, I have no problems with 'sane defaults' or simplicity as a base. It's the fact that Gnome is harder to configure than it has to be, harder than it used to be. You think that's a good feature, I think that's a problem. I can't see people beating down the doors for more difficulty in configuration, you do. You think that there is a solid wall between power users and regular users, I see a painted line. I have no problem with locking down a desktop when necessary; that is NOT the same thing as making it a PITA to configure.

And - insist I'm complaining all you like; I'm not. I simply won't use it until it's done. If I think it's done 'wrong', if it's a pain to use, I won't use it at all. I haven't badmouthed Gnome, the developers, or anything else but expressed concern that the direction Gnome is headed will marginalize it. My ONLY complaint about Gnome is that it seems slower to me than KDE; and that's something that I would expect to be remedied over time anyway. IOW, it's not a big concern.

And - BTW, the old saw of 'write it yourself'? I might, if it mattered to me at all. It doesn't, though.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,568

3/14/05 2:36:48 PM

The gconf editor is no harder than about:config

Post #198,571

by imric

3/14/05 2:41:07 PM

3/14/05 2:42:00 PM

And about:config is easier

than what was there before. Which was nothing. 'Nuff said.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric March 14, 2005, 02:42:00 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #198,574

3/14/05 2:46:48 PM

What was there before...

...was a confusing mess.

I can see we've gone circular here, so I'll not beat the bloody horse stain too much more.

The bottom line is that GNOME is now more usable by regular users than it was before. Regular users (i.e. !you and people like you) don't want to configure stuff. At all. Ever. They want to write the memo, send the email, make the document and then go the hell home. Or they want to print the photo, buy junk on eBay, send the email, look at the funny video, and go the hell out to the pub.

Configuring windows into groups with a programmable window manager is, oddly enough, not on these users' radar.

KDE has chosen to plough a different furrow, and that Kontrol Kentre will come back to bite them in the bum, mark my words. It's already like the elephant in the boardroom.

Post #198,581

by imric

3/14/05 3:06:07 PM

One last word (can't resist)

If a user doesn't want to configure, they won't. Configurability does not lessen the value of the desktop. Those clueless users that want only what everybody else has, and no more, they shouldn't be forced to configure. By all means, sane defaults!

But... being forced to do the equivalent of editing the registry to tweak (unless, as has been pointed out, you install some other package that makes it easy to configure but is not part of Gnome) does NOT ad value to the desktop. Making it a PITA to tweak isn't locking it down either (as should be possible, and I've said elsewhere) - it's just a PITA.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,567

3/14/05 2:36:41 PM

Zenworks...

Zenworks has been around much longer than this announcement.

RedCarpet was a base to use. Zenworks is all about making the machine ready for use for said "users" many profiles, and other things are important pieces that are going to be there when it ships. It *IS* more than a Software deployment tool. It is a Software Deployment, OS Deployment, Package Profile, Server Profile, Desktop profile and Policy tool already, especially in the Windows World, it does multicasts and many other "ghost style" things already. It can preload a hidden partition with a default load, where a user can select to "verify" the installations to fix things in Windows right now.

It is far better than SMS ever has been or ever will be.

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #198,569

3/14/05 2:37:32 PM

Does Linux Zenworks do policy, and if so, how?

Post #198,422

3/14/05 2:39:06 AM

What Peter said.

GNOME provides an amazingly usable desktop environment out-of-the box, with no configuration required, which is really what they've been aiming for. If that's not what you want, there are some ways to restore the configurability (mess with GConf keys, use gTweakUI, etc.) but like Peter said, you're really not in their target audience anymore.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,425

by ben_tilly

3/14/05 3:10:21 AM

That's fine but...

I wish that free software developers would stop incorporating Gnome into stuff that doesn't need it.

The fact is that Gnome routinely breaks on incremental upgrades. Of the problems that I've had with Debian, the vast majority are directly attributable to Gnome offering no good upgrade path. (That's OK for a lot of proprietary vendors like Red Hat because there are stable releases of Gnome that they can use, and their users don't expect there to be a good upgrade path.) What makes this really irritating because I'm not trying to run Gnome, I'm just picking applications that I like and some have it as a dependency. Which I discover later when stuff breaks.

And, of course, since I'm not a Gnome target user, any attempt for me to complain is useless. The Gnome developers won't care.

For a random rant related to this particular issue, see [link|http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2005/02/msg01136.html|http://lists.debian..../02/msg01136.html].

Regards,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #198,428

3/14/05 3:16:49 AM

I sympathise with that.

However, GNOME is one of two de facto alternative standard desktop environments, along with KDE.

For an application to garner significant support and credibility, the ability to integrate with one or both of these desktops is important.

I do feel that application developers should, where practical, offer a version of their application that can be installed without support for GNOME/KDE. Abiword does this, for example; you can install it with or without GNOME support.

As use of Linux and UNIX moves into the mainstream, though, I think the trend will be towards applications that either support GNOME/KDE or they don't; the option won't be there, and the applications that do not support one of the two major DEs will become marginalised as developers migrate towards applications with more mindshare and users.

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that GNOME routinely breaks on incremental upgrades—but that's a different discussion.

I thought you'd just be happy with any old DE as long as xterm still worked, anyway, Ben :-)

Post #198,487

by ben_tilly

3/14/05 11:20:28 AM

I'm pickier than you think

Eye candy doesn't motivate me.

Convenience does.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #198,434

3/14/05 6:09:49 AM

GNOME integration

I'm slowly coming around to GNOME again, after about three years on Enlightenment (with occasional forays into various *box WMs)... in all that time I've never had a problem with upgrades or with GNOME apps refusing to run outside GNOME. Maybe this is a distro-specific thing since I've been on various flavors of Red Hat/Fedora for most of that time.

\r\n\r\n

And it's not that the developers don't care about "power users"; they're almost exclusively in that class. But they've got a goal and a target audience in mind, and meeting many of your wants and needs would conflict with that.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,447

3/14/05 8:19:00 AM

To me, GNOME sucks less than most other stuff.

But, there are many things I like about GNOME.

I dist-upgrade every morning, incrementally have zero problems with GNOME during this.

Many things I have come to like about the *NIX desktop have disappeared from GNOME. This really is a huge gripe with me. Yes, I know I can do WTFever I want. But, let us be a realist, I have work todo as well. I also think GNOME sucks less than any other DE.

Of course I could always use XFce or *box or *maker etc... but well, I just want the layout and integration GNOME provides for me. I just wish I could tweak the hell out of it like I could in v1.4.

Devil's Pie is supposedly a means to an end, but it is a bit clumsy.

This isn't really that I dislike KDE, just I prefer GNOME's feel and fit.

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #198,471

by cwbrenn

3/14/05 10:45:11 AM

Coming from OS/2...

... I'm somewhat spoiled. I want to be able to configure anything to look exactly how I want it to, using a graphical user interface to do so...

... at present, no Linux front-end even comes to close to doing this.

That said of them all, KDE is the one I have become most comfortable with over time, and I'm mightily impressed with the sheer volume of applications -- reasonably useful applications, no less -- that the KDE developers keep churning out. Sometimes there is needless duplication, but I'd rather have feast than famine. And with each release the user interface becomes more and more useable, even though oddities (like this damned kmenuedit bug -- I'm not convinced it's purely a kde thing, I think Mepis did something on top of it that's screwing me over) persist.

And I'm very fond of the Konqueror browser -- loads faster than Firefox on my machine, and a lot easier to manage bookmarks. Though I confess I am puzzled as to why it insists on bolding EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF NON-ITALICIZED TEXT on ubersoft.net...

"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young

Post #198,483

by ben_tilly

3/14/05 11:15:13 AM

Maybe doing it every day is the trick

Applications that I've had Gnome-related painful breakage on in the past include fvwm2 and galeon.

It may be that if you're trying to use Gnome in the way that they intend (eg using it for your desktop environment), then you'll have fewer problems.

I dunno.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #198,479

by admin

3/14/05 11:10:55 AM

That's really the part that ticks me off:

you're really not in their target audience anymore.

The reason I liked GNOME so much originally was exactly that it let me set everything exactly the way I wanted, easily.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #198,673

3/14/05 9:32:21 PM

What about those SMB shares?

Hey,

Rather than arguing about what "accessible" means, as the discussion has leaned thus far, perhaps it can be guided back toward the topic you raised - namely, how does one browse SMB shares from Gnome? :-)

Being a fan of the Workplace Shell, I think a good GUI is discoverable. If the user wants to modify things, they should be able to do so. If a programmer wants to make extensions to the shell, there should be documented hooks and a relatively easy way to do so. In OS/2, it was easy to do so with the REXX interpreter that came with the OS. And there were hooks for compiled languages as well. If you wanted to have a different font and bitmap background in each of your folders, you could so so. If you wanted a folder to be a remote FTPable directory, you could make it so. If you wanted gradients in your titlebar before IBM decided to make them available, you could. If you wanted to backup the shell customizations and transfer them to another machine, you could. But it didn't change the fact that the shell worked pretty well out-of-the-box.

My recollection is that early on Gnome was sold as being built on a better framework than KDE, that it was more extensible, more easily programmed using OO methods, etc. The shell designers can't know how users are going to want to use the shell 5 years from now. They should have a mechanism to allow extension and customization of the shell by users who are willing to poke around a bit. They should encourage an enthusiast community so that new programmers will want to work on it. Doing so doesn't mean that Sun or IBM or whoever can't have a standard version with "sane defaults." By deliberately hiding stuff and removing customization tools, as they have apparently done, they're shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO.

Browsing SMB shares is something that a reasonably modern OS shell should do very easily. If Gnome is so cripled these days that it can't, then something is very messed up.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks Gnome is beautiful but hasn't investigated it closely because of the earlier discussions here about the difficulty in customizing it.)

Post #198,686

3/15/05 1:32:23 AM

You can do all of that!

You've got the very thing you need - the source code. If you want rhomboid windows, off you go. If you'd like REXX scripting in GNOME, off you go. That's the whole idea of FOSS. GNOME is extensible by you, with no restrictions except your own ability to do so.

As for browsing SMB shares? Yes. It can.

Not trying something because you've heard you can't "tweak" it or "fine tune" it is silly; give it a go! You might actually like it!

Post #198,717

by imric

3/15/05 6:50:05 AM

Couldn't prove it by me.

And there was no place to tweak settings. So it either worked or didn't.

And you know what?

It didn't. No shares.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,825

3/15/05 4:15:41 PM

Worked out-of-the-box for me.

Double-clicked the "Computer" icon, and there was the local network listed along with the various drives on my computer.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,832

by imric

3/15/05 4:44:58 PM

Which means what?

That you are one of the 'targeted users'?

After all, if it didn't work for me, I must have needed something special, something that required tweaking. Therefore, by the reasoning displayed so far, I wasn't one of the targeted users. Which means it's not a problem, but a feature.

Right?

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,858

3/15/05 7:58:14 PM

Honestly?

SMB is something you either do or don't. If it doesn't work then that's a bug that no configuration in the world would help.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,867

by imric

3/15/05 8:30:10 PM

Uh huh. Yah. This discussion is OVER.

Have fun watching Gnome spiral into darkness.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #198,870

3/15/05 8:46:41 PM

Really?

If SMB is buggy, and you offer configuration as a solution, then all you've gained is a configurable bug. Why not actually [link|http://bugzilla.gnome.org/|report the problem]?

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,875

by boxley

3/15/05 9:15:35 PM

pull the other one

if config works elsewhere but not in gnome, why do you pull the finger on the app? Gnome is now cack, it used to be useful. Now keep the smelling the gnome rose and hoist its praises, we use something that works
billfor us. The lusers will bow down to the gnome while cursing its deficiencies. The rest of us move on.
thanx,
bill

All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #198,908

3/16/05 1:19:10 AM

s/darkness/being the defacto Linux standard DE/

:-)

Post #198,721

3/15/05 7:38:43 AM

Behold! The new BMW Gnome 75!

New! Sweet lines! Sane defaults! New!

It has the seat and steering wheel positioned so that 65% of drivers won't have to adjust them. (What? You're not in the 65%? Well you can unbolt the seat and drill holes in the floor for new mounting points, but such modifications are not recommended. Dimensions are provided in the BMW Gnome 75 Professional Modification Kit, but modifications are not recommended.)

Please do not add an XM radio to your new BMW Gnome 75. We have carefully considered the User Experience (TM) and the iDrive system on the BMW Gnome 75 is not designed to use XM. While adding XM to the new BMW Gnome 75 is possible, please note that modifications are not recommended.

Please do not compare the new BMW Gnome 75 to the previous BMW Gnome 45 model that had electric seats, a tilt and telescope steering column and XM as a factory installed option. That's not a fair comparison because the BWM Gnome 75 is a new model.

While some may like the adjustability and extensibility of the Acura KDE TL, we think you'll like the BMW Gnome 75 much better. Why? Because flexibility is bad.

>:-)

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who tried to install Ubuntu so that he could get more experience Gnome, but it wouldn't work for me though it ran from the live CD.)

Post #198,827

3/15/05 4:18:44 PM

Ah, yes.

When you don't know anything about the field you want to criticize, just make stuff up and pat yourself on the back for being so right about it.

\r\n\r\n

Let me know when you actually want to have a discussion about usability, I'll be here.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,830

3/15/05 4:38:48 PM

Happy to oblige. :-/

Post #198,848

3/15/05 6:30:27 PM

When in doubt, claim superiority.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #198,853

3/15/05 7:49:54 PM

Re: When in doubt, claim superiority.

It's not my fault that the straw man is a fallacy, ya know.

\r\n\r\n

So here's a serious response to his caricature: some people want to get out their tools and special-order stuff from the auto-parts store and spent months or years customizing every detail of their cars. Other people just want to get in their cars and drive.

\r\n\r\n

The former group should be using, at the very least, KDE, though I'd really recommend Enlightenment; they are exactly its target audience. The latter group are the people GNOME is developing for.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,884

by admin

3/15/05 10:00:20 PM

That's a false dichotomy.

I just want to drive the car too. But I also want to be able to QUICKLY choose amongst several options, not spend 8 years configuring the damned thing. I used to be able to do that with GNOME. Now it's an easter egg hunt to find exactly the right obscurely named registry entry to fiddle, if it even exists any more. I've given up to a certain extent because I just want to get my work done, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

One person's "sane defaults" are another person's pain in the ass.

Lots of configurable options don't ruin usability unless the developer creates an unusable configuration application. It's not as if the configuration panel is always there. You have to open it up before your brain (according to you) is numbed by the bewildering array of options. God forbid people might actually fiddle with them. That would NEVER happen. People are sheep who are just be content with the spoon-fed "sane defaults".

Anyone who believes that that sort of user is going to be a desktop Linux user is living in a reality distortion field.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #198,887

3/15/05 10:27:40 PM

Nobody ever said "no configuration"

Just less configuration and more usable configuration.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]

Post #198,889

by admin

3/15/05 10:37:23 PM

Neither did I.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #198,895

3/15/05 11:24:27 PM

We seem to be talking about different things.

(Your tone is rather off-putting at the moment.)

I started participating in this thread by talking about my view on the value of having an extensible desktop that can be easily modified by programmers or users without having to dig out gcc. (Specifically, the Workplace Shell that I was using in 1992.) You are talking about usability and usability testing. The two topics don't necessarily intersect.

My reply to Peter was tongue-in-cheek: 1) Peter has mentioned wanting a BMW as his next car, and b) it was a car analogy, 3) it had a >:-). I guess I should have included The Sign:

[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]

My reading is that part of what was removed from Gnome recently is planned to be [link|http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/docs/faq2.html#q12|restored in 2.12]:

12. How do I edit my GNOME 2 menus?

There is no way to add, edit, or rename GNOME menu items in GNOME 2.10 aside from manually editing the .desktop files themselves. However, deskutils/gnome-menu-editor can be used to deactivate items already in your Applications menu.

Enhanced menu editing is currently planned for GNOME 2.12.

I guess the value of simpler menu editing is recognized among the developers...

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #198,452