I run Gnome, and have a strong if irrational allergy to KDE in general; but there are several apps (such as Konqueror for man pages, and K3B) that I use so much that I make sure to get them even if I have to install all of KDE to do it. I might well use, or at least try, several more, if I didn't have to interrupt what I'm concentrating on ..
But for as long as I can remember, there have been two kinds of entries in the Main menu: ones that will tell you what they are or do if you hover the cursor over them -- and ones that belong to KDE.
Why the lacuna? Do KDE developers, like Apple developers, presume that *everyone* already knows?
Do they, like the poet Stefan George, want entanglements of "barbed wire against the uncalled" [Stacheldraht wider Unberufene] around their demesnes?
Do they offer descriptions, which Fedora (a/o Fedora/Gnome) then suppresses?? To whom ought one address a request for them??
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:36:37 +0000 (UTC) BeartoothHOS wrote:
Do they offer descriptions, which Fedora (a/o Fedora/Gnome) then suppresses?? To whom ought one address a request for them??
As far as I know, all the descriptions for things are in the .desktop file entries stashed in /usr/share/applications/
Just picking a couple at random, I see that fedora-inkscape has a batch of "Comment" entries in many different languages and kalarm does not have any "Comment" entries at all, so I'd tend to suspect that is the difference.
Whatever packages owns the .desktop file would be the place to complain I guess. You can find the owner via:
rpm -q -f /usr/share/applications/kde4/kalarm.desktop
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 15:53:36 Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:36:37 +0000 (UTC)
BeartoothHOS wrote:
Do they offer descriptions, which Fedora (a/o Fedora/Gnome) then suppresses?? To whom ought one address a request for them??
Just picking a couple at random, I see that fedora-inkscape has a batch of "Comment" entries in many different languages and kalarm does not have any "Comment" entries at all, so I'd tend to suspect that is the difference.
When I open the KDE launcher, I typically see
name (description)
format for mostly all entries. Description is useful when you want to know what is xmms, while name is useful when you want to know _which_ audio player utility is going to be started when you click on the item. The actual format and behavior can be configured somewhere within the launcher settings, and I see that approx. 90% menu items have good, informative descriptions.
For example, in the Utilities menu there is a
KAlarm (Personal Alarm Scheduler)
entry. So I would think that the problem is not why KDE devs do not provide descriptions, but rather why Gnome devs do not display them properly.
I guess you should file a bug against Gnome launcher (or whatever they call it).
HTH, :-) Marko
BeartoothHOS wrote:
But for as long as I can remember, there have been two kinds of entries in the Main menu: ones that will tell you what they are or do if you hover the cursor over them -- and ones that belong to KDE.
Why the lacuna? Do KDE developers, like Apple developers, presume that *everyone* already knows?
You *ass*ume much here, pointing fingers and blame.
It goes both ways. For example, Gnome doesn't support the GenericName part of the desktop-spec, where-as KDE in general doesn't offer Comment keys.
Sad part is that GenericName isn't an optional part of the spec.
-- Rex
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:37:02 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
BeartoothHOS wrote:
But for as long as I can remember, there have been two kinds of entries in the Main menu: ones that will tell you what they are or do if you hover the cursor over them -- and ones that belong to KDE.
Why the lacuna? Do KDE developers, like Apple developers, presume that *everyone* already knows?
You *ass*ume much here, pointing fingers and blame.
Puns are pointless here -- especially old cold dried-up ones.
You are reading an interpretation into my words which had not occurred to me, and which I disavow.
My whole point was not to assign blame -- for all I know, some people may *like* the way things are, and consider praise due.
I *asked* several questions (not just the one you quote out of context), all leading to the same basic thing which I don't know and want to : where best to raise the issue.
That was and is a real question.
*Why* do I get so much more info about Gnome apps than KDE ones, *who* could change that, and *where* can I make the request and expect it to be on topic?
You might have noted that I went out of my way to praise certain KDE apps, and to explain that I would like to find others, if they exist, which I would like as well.
It goes both ways. For example, Gnome doesn't support the GenericName part of the desktop-spec, whereas KDE in general doesn't offer Comment keys.
I have no idea what that jargon refers to. Why are you throwing it at me? What does it have to do with the issue?
Sad part is that GenericName isn't an optional part of the spec.
Btw, it is true that I happen to be one of those who despise and detest the Apple interface as much as I do the M$ one -- if that discomfits you, so be it -- but the fact is altogether beside the point of my post. Apple, and the sneers of its admirers against the uninitiated, was a mere example, as was Stefan George. Are you going to take umbrage at my mention of him??
On Wednesday 30 December 2009 18:26:53 BeartoothHOS wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:37:02 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
It goes both ways. For example, Gnome doesn't support the GenericName part of the desktop-spec, whereas KDE in general doesn't offer Comment keys.
I have no idea what that jargon refers to. Why are you throwing it at me? What does it have to do with the issue?
Not that I am an expert, but I guess the "GenericName" and "Comment" are fields inside the app.desktop files that are used to provide the information such as description when you hover the pointer in the menu. There is a standardized specification for these, which both KDE and Gnome (and other DE's) should follow. So if I understood what Rex said, KDE fills in the description in the GenericName field, while Gnome prefers the Comment field.
And all would be well if both KDE and Gnome would read the data from *both* fields and then decide which one to show to the user. But KDE disregards the Comment field, while Gnome disregards the GenericName field. If the other one happens to be empty, you have no description when you hover the pointer.
Sad part is that GenericName isn't an optional part of the spec.
Now, I understood this part as follows. The specification standard says that the Comment field is optional and may be left out (or left blank). So KDE does not do much wrong when disregarding this field. However GenericName field should be obligatory (per spec.) and Gnome *does* do wrong when it disregards it.
So essentially, this is a bug in Gnome, and you should report it against Gnome. What is sad is the fact that Gnome does not follow the agreed spec.
Btw, it is true that I happen to be one of those who despise and detest the Apple interface
Finally, all this has absolutely nothing to do with Apple, AFAICS.
HTH, :-) Marko
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Not that I am an expert, but I guess the "GenericName" and "Comment" are fields inside the app.desktop files that are used to provide the information such as description when you hover the pointer in the menu. There is a standardized specification for these, which both KDE and Gnome (and other DE's) should follow. So if I understood what Rex said, KDE fills in the description in the GenericName field, while Gnome prefers the Comment field.
Aha! Makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
And all would be well if both KDE and Gnome would read the data from *both* fields and then decide which one to show to the user. But KDE disregards the Comment field, while Gnome disregards the GenericName field. If the other one happens to be empty, you have no description when you hover the pointer.
And the people who can actually write code never notice, of course, because they do know what everything is, like a pilot in a cockpit.
Sad part is that GenericName isn't an optional part of the spec.
Now, I understood this part as follows. The specification standard says that the Comment field is optional and may be left out (or left blank). So KDE does not do much wrong when disregarding this field. However GenericName field should be obligatory (per spec.) and Gnome *does* do wrong when it disregards it.
So essentially, this is a bug in Gnome, and you should report it against Gnome. What is sad is the fact that Gnome does not follow the agreed spec.
After some searching, I found the gnome bugzilla, and put in for an account. I'll reference this thread when I post there -- however little the hope of action.
Btw, it is true that I happen to be one of those who despise and detest the Apple interface
Finally, all this has absolutely nothing to do with Apple, AFAICS.
Nor I; but on rereading Rex Dieter before my reply, I picked up an intimation that it might be more my aspersion on Apple than the thread topic that he objected to. So I thought, probably wrongly, it might be the lesser evil to mention it once more. The Germans have an apposite saying: "Wie man's auch macht, ist es verkehrt." [Roughly, whatever you do is wrong.] <sigh>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:14:09 -0500, I Beartooth Comcast wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
[...]
So essentially, this is a bug in Gnome, and you should report it against Gnome. What is sad is the fact that Gnome does not follow the agreed spec.
After some searching, I found the gnome bugzilla, and put in for an account. I'll reference this thread when I post there -- however little the hope of action.
Fwiw, it is now
Bug 605817 - bug/feature request : Main Menu lacuna
at bugzilla.gnome.org
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:11 AM, BeartoothHOS beartooth@comcast.net wrote:
Bug 605817 - bug/feature request : Main Menu lacuna
at bugzilla.gnome.org
You can make a URL directly to the bug:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=605817
Just so you know.
BeartoothHOS wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:37:02 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
BeartoothHOS wrote:
But for as long as I can remember, there have been two kinds of entries in the Main menu: ones that will tell you what they are or do if you hover the cursor over them -- and ones that belong to KDE.
Why the lacuna? Do KDE developers, like Apple developers, presume that *everyone* already knows?
You *ass*ume much here, pointing fingers and blame.
Puns are pointless here -- especially old cold dried-up ones.
You are reading an interpretation into my words which had not occurred to me, and which I disavow.
"Do KDE developers, like Apple developers, presume that everyone already knows? "
Sounds like a blanket statement about intentions to me. Stick to facts then, please, if you don't want a reaction.
*Why* do I get so much more info about Gnome apps than KDE ones, *who* could change that, and *where* can I make the request and expect it to be on topic?
OK, simply put: on gnome you get more info about gnome apps. On kde, you get more info about kde apps.
It goes both ways. For example, Gnome doesn't support the GenericName part of the desktop-spec, whereas KDE in general doesn't offer Comment keys.
I have no idea what that jargon refers to. Why are you throwing it at me? What does it have to do with the issue?
Gnome shows Comment= keys on hover, KDE shows GenericName entries in the menus. Gnome ignores and doesn't use GenericName anywhere. KDE doesn't use Commment= keys (for the most part).
Does that help?
Now, imo, KDE at least embraces the desktop-spec here, and I'll take any bugs wrt missing Comment= keys in .desktop files, and help fix it. I've been virtually begging fedora/gnome developers to do the same for supporting GenericName= keys for quite awhile, with little success to date.
-- Rex
*Why* do I get so much more info about Gnome apps than KDE ones, *who* could change that, and *where* can I make the request and expect it to be on topic?
All this technical mumbo-jumbo aside. Basically, it's because GNOME treats the KDE apps unfairly.
Yes, it's lame. Yes, it's a known problem in GNOME, and they're working (talking about working?) on it.
No, there's nothing you can do - aside from helping - that will make anyone move faster to solve it.
Rex Dieter:
It goes both ways. For example, Gnome doesn't support the GenericName part of the desktop-spec, whereas KDE in general doesn't offer Comment keys.
BeartoothHOS:
I have no idea what that jargon refers to.
If you look at various something-or-other.desktop files, you can get a grasp of what the contents of them are supposed to do. Just looking at one or two of them mightn't help. Unfortunately, various applications mis-use them (not just some of the desktop environments that read them, but also some of the applications providing their .desktop files).
Name= really should contain the actual name of the program.
GenericName= should have a name that generically describes the item, but could apply to any other program that does the same task.
Comment= should have a useful comment providing info about the item.
An example:
Name=Firefox GenericName=Web browser Comment=Browse the internet and read web pages
And your window manager could make a menu out of the provided data, showing some or all of that as you see fit. You should be able to imagine how that might be presented, with the name in the menu, and the rest in a pop-up, for example. Or perhaps, the application name plus the generic name in the menu, and the comment in a pop up.
Some people only want the names, as that's all they need. Unfamiliar users may need the whole lot, particularly with some the weirdly named applications, or when there are more than one application that can do the same thing. And perhaps on a system with only a small set of programs, one per task, it's more appropriate to show unfamiliar users just "web browser" rather than mention the program name, at all.
But users should have the option about that, somewhere. We have other options about how the menus are displayed, in a control panel, but they omit a useful thing like that (show name and/or generic name and/or comments).
A bad example (taken from Fedora 11): /usr/share/applications/redhat-audio-player.desktop Name=Audio Player Comment=Play Ogg Vorbis and other audio files
*That* name should really be the generic name, because that's what it is ("audio player" is a generic description). In this case, there actually isn't a generic name section in the file. And the "name" should say XMMS, to let the user know they'll be starting up XMMS, rather than something else.
*That* desktop file isn't a generic start my user's preferred audio player file, it's a start the xmms program desktop file. A desktop file for something like that (where the user has picked their preferred applications, or the installation has preset default ones), could be something like:
(Not actually have a Name= section) GenericName=Audio player Comment=Play audio files with default/preferred programme
A whiz-bang desktop interface could insert the name of the actual program into the comment or name section, customising it in a user-friendly manner.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:36 AM, BeartoothHOS beartooth@comcast.net wrote:
I run Gnome, and have a strong if irrational allergy to KDE in general; but there are several apps (such as Konqueror for man pages, and K3B) that I use so much that I make sure to get them even if I have to install all of KDE to do it. I might well use, or at least try, several more, if I didn't have to interrupt what I'm concentrating on ..
But for as long as I can remember, there have been two kinds of entries in the Main menu: ones that will tell you what they are or do if you hover the cursor over them -- and ones that belong to KDE.
Why the lacuna? Do KDE developers, like Apple developers, presume that *everyone* already knows?
_____
I wouldn't say that. But I find myself needing an app or feature based on KDE while using the GNOME env. Frequently, the small differences will make you lean toward one and not the other. Some texts I've read claim that KDE is more aimed at the 'power user', whatever that means.
~af
-
Alan Evans -
Aldo Foot -
Beartooth -
Beartooth
-
Jud Craft -
Marko Vojinovic -
Rex Dieter -
Tim -
Tom Horsley