Since Fedora is supposed to be "bleeding-edge," I have thought of a few things that may be cool for the future, not just for Fedora but Linux in general:
* How about the ability to install via SRPMS for the specific CPU platform I'm using? In other words, as an advanced install option, allow me to have the installer use the SRPMS instead of the precompiled RPMS, and allow me to define the compiler optimizations for CPU etc. That would be cool. Ok, a slow install, but this isn't a production OS, so why not? I hate having an Athlon-XP running code optimized for a P4. Sure, an install could take days, but it would be an option I'd use. Why? Because I can and it's certainly bleeding-edge.
* How about the ability to clone the configured and working version on my hardrive to be burned on a DVD (dual layer and blue beam makes this possible) for easy portability?
* Someone needs to make X more display hardware friendly.
* Gnome and KDE are nice and such, but even Apple knew how to exploit the display hardware to make a cool interface. So much so that MS is trying to copy and "improve" it for their next release. There's more to a gui now days than skinning. Fedora needs a cooler looking GUI.
* Better documentation of changes that could result in problems with legacy software, and techniques on how to fix them, instead of the usual "we took [this] out" without further explanation.
Can you immagine a day when the Fedora List has nothing but praise instead of a plethora of problems? One can dream....
Rich
On 6/29/05, Richard Kelsch rich@csst.net wrote:
- How about the ability to clone the configured and working version on
my hardrive to be burned on a DVD (dual layer and blue beam makes this possible) for easy portability?
How about something like Solaris' Live Upgrade / Flash Archive functionality. The Solaris sysadms at work are always extolling its virtues -- basically it lets you have a running mirror of your OS on which to install patches, etc., and when you're sure everything is OK, you just have to reboot and voila, upgraded system. Something broke? No problem -- just switch back to the old mirror and you're done. Of course, you can do something similar in Linux with command line tools, but LU has a nice (and apparently functional) front-end.
- Someone needs to make X more display hardware friendly.
This is being actively worked on by several projects...
- Gnome and KDE are nice and such, but even Apple knew how to exploit
the display hardware to make a cool interface. So much so that MS is trying to copy and "improve" it for their next release. There's more to a gui now days than skinning. Fedora needs a cooler looking GUI.
Here, I have to disagree. Of the three operating systems/desktop environments I use daily, GNOME using the Clearlooks theme/engine is by far the cleanest, most attractive one. I actually spend most of my day on a Tiger PowerBook, but the Mac interface, for all it's hardware accelerated smoothness, is a jumble of confusing and fractured UIs: the web browser has a different interface than the mail app, which both have a different interface than the productivity suite, all of which are different than the file browser and the PIM suite! And to top it off, they added a whole new set of UI metaphors when they incorporated Dashboard and Spotlight. The third operating system I use is Solaris 9, which is based on GNOME 2.0.2 -- which gives me an appreciation for how far GNOME has come!!!
One thing I would love to see added to the base FC install, however, is Mono, specifically so Beagle will be installed out-of-the-box. After a few weeks with Spotlight, I became addicted to fast indexed desktop searches, and Beagle scratches the itch for FC4.
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 23:25, Richard Kelsch wrote:
Can you immagine a day when the Fedora List has nothing but praise instead of a plethora of problems? One can dream....
Hundreds complain, while thousands enjoy........ I guess only those with problems show up on a list like this and the happy people hardly ever show up to thank anyone. Perhaps we should be glad to not receive thousands of "thank you" mails in our mailboxes every day.
As long as there's a dream, there's hope...................................:-)
regards, Marcel
On 6/29/05, Richard Kelsch rich@csst.net wrote:
Can you immagine a day when the Fedora List has nothing but praise instead of a plethora of problems? One can dream....
I can't imagine a day when any avenue where people seek technical support will be free of complaints or people looking for help with an issue they're having. Indeed, I can't imagine day when any "online community" doesn't contain at least one vocal person that's unhappy about something.
The guys (...) that build linux , fedora.. etc... they are so fucking GOOD CODING.. that they never heard about "marketing"...worst yet..."normal user"
It'll be so easy for linux os to be "the OS" in earth
The only problem was a "smart"(???) fag that have read a marketing book instead of some assembly one... and all the stupid planet bought windows....
Goddammit! and now I GOT to go back to win.. simply ... because I work with flash... and there is no macromedia linux version of it ... (just waiting until i can compile F4L in fedora4)
I understand that everybody that runs linux, loves (as I do), and fill their needs. But, this selfish way think, gave windows the world...
Fill their needs commentary: There was 7Gb on my HD used after fedora, and I could not hear a mp3! watch a single movie! 2 days to get everything working... can I tell my friends: hey, install linux! you 'll love......I can't! Without this list and the IRC channel.. I will never accomplished my needs.. and was just mp3, burn discs, php editor, videos,
Linux always seeked to be better (AND IT IS for a long time !)
Now is time to read ACCESSBILiTY and USER FRIENDLY books!! : )
Look this nice brazilian project, I got enthusiasmed... but, don't tested it yet, it claims to run linux (based of fedora) and with a windows interface that can run everything.. no wine needed..
www.freedows.com
If microsoft can get the better of linux.. now is linux time (after all, the only thing that windows have is the community [ lot of programs ] )
Sorry.. just wanted to share my feelings : )
Ben Steeves wrote:
On 6/29/05, Richard Kelsch rich@csst.net wrote:
- How about the ability to clone the configured and working version on
my hardrive to be burned on a DVD (dual layer and blue beam makes this possible) for easy portability?
How about something like Solaris' Live Upgrade / Flash Archive functionality. The Solaris sysadms at work are always extolling its virtues -- basically it lets you have a running mirror of your OS on which to install patches, etc., and when you're sure everything is OK, you just have to reboot and voila, upgraded system. Something broke? No problem -- just switch back to the old mirror and you're done. Of course, you can do something similar in Linux with command line tools, but LU has a nice (and apparently functional) front-end.
- Someone needs to make X more display hardware friendly.
This is being actively worked on by several projects...
- Gnome and KDE are nice and such, but even Apple knew how to exploit
the display hardware to make a cool interface. So much so that MS is trying to copy and "improve" it for their next release. There's more to a gui now days than skinning. Fedora needs a cooler looking GUI.
Here, I have to disagree. Of the three operating systems/desktop environments I use daily, GNOME using the Clearlooks theme/engine is by far the cleanest, most attractive one. I actually spend most of my day on a Tiger PowerBook, but the Mac interface, for all it's hardware accelerated smoothness, is a jumble of confusing and fractured UIs: the web browser has a different interface than the mail app, which both have a different interface than the productivity suite, all of which are different than the file browser and the PIM suite! And to top it off, they added a whole new set of UI metaphors when they incorporated Dashboard and Spotlight. The third operating system I use is Solaris 9, which is based on GNOME 2.0.2 -- which gives me an appreciation for how far GNOME has come!!!
Hold on there Nellie! Oh please don't get me wrong about Gnome, Apple, and MS. In fact, I happen to love Gnome and I like how it works...so far. I also happen to like the OS X window manager of Apple. Yes, the Apple gui has flaws, as does Gnome, and MS. I dislike the MS gui, but at least they are making improvements. The Gnome in some ways is very fast, but still has some responsiveness issue too. This is, perhaps, more X related, but an issue nevertheless.
This may annoy the command line or simplicity die-hards out there, but eye candy is desirable in a GUI. Anyone saying to the contrary never enjoyed the movie "Hackers." On MS the company Stardock has the right idea.
For the record, I like Gnome...yes, I like Gnome. However, like any GUI, it can be much better.
One thing I would love to see added to the base FC install, however, is Mono, specifically so Beagle will be installed out-of-the-box. After a few weeks with Spotlight, I became addicted to fast indexed desktop searches, and Beagle scratches the itch for FC4.
Now there's a cool suggestion.
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 18:12 -0700, Richard Kelsch wrote:
This may annoy the command line or simplicity die-hards out there, but eye candy is desirable in a GUI. Anyone saying to the contrary never enjoyed the movie "Hackers."
Well, I've never seen that movie, but anyway... I disagree that eye candy is desirable in a UI.
Eye candy looks cool. I've had various pieces of eye candy on various platforms over the years. I've eventually removed them all. My experience is that what looks cool and what is usable is usually not the same. Give me a nice clean UI without the candy, thanks. Eye candy might make for cool screenshots to upload to some website, but if I'm going to spend a significant amount of time using a machine, usability trumps aesthetics every time.
Function over form, ya know...
Afterall,
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?"
don't know wro wrote that.. but rocks
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On 6/29/05, Richard Kelsch rich@csst.net wrote:
I can't imagine a day when any avenue where people seek technical support will be free of complaints or people looking for help with an issue they're having. Indeed, I can't imagine day when any "online community" doesn't contain at least one vocal person that's unhappy about something.
It's the unhappy ones who spark improvement. Think on it, if you're happy with what is, do you seek change?
It was the unhappy ones who left Britain for the Americas, for Australia, for NZ and so on to seek a better life.
. m a r c o s a u g u s t o wrote:
It'll be so easy for linux os to be "the OS" in earth
That would not be good. We need the diversity of alternatives, of competition. What happened to IE after MS "won" the browser war? Nothing. It's only now, after Firefox et al have had tabs for years that MS is thinking of maybe adding this feature sometime.
On 6/29/05, . m a r c o s a u g u s t o chadart@gmail.com wrote:
Afterall,
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?"
don't know wro wrote that.. but rocks
Wasn't it ESR? (Eric Raymond)
. m a r c o s a u g u s t o wrote:
Linux always seeked to be better (AND IT IS for a long time !)
Now is time to read ACCESSBILiTY and USER FRIENDLY books!! : )
Look this nice brazilian project, I got enthusiasmed... but, don't tested it yet, it claims to run linux (based of fedora) and with a windows interface that can run everything.. no wine needed..
www.freedows.com
If microsoft can get the better of linux.. now is linux time (after all, the only thing that windows have is the community [ lot of programs ] )
It is great that Fedora is a base for an OS that brazilians can use to base an OS which can run many programs. The website translated well into English via mozilla features. It does however look similar to www.lindows.com which was based on Debian.
WordPerfect from Canada was developing an OS that could run either Linux or Windows programs years back. I thought that would have taken off and was looking forward to its deployment. It seems possible to make a full featured OS which incorporates programs compiled on different platforms, without complying to standards set out regarding certain compilers or runtime translators, we will always have incompatible platforms. Greedy companies that intentionally change protocols, sabatoge companies such as Netscape and WordPerfect are probably not good models to use for complete cross-platform integrations. Linux does not seem to be held by standards as much as other OSes, this is good for progress. Compare the US television standard which held television to a 1930s standard. I am not really interested in a platform that is 100 percent capable of running any desired program. I see more efficient compilers and more efficient source code to be desirable. I see less efficient source code becoming halted with compilers that only allow successful compilation to set standards. Of course, this more stringent standard makes large projects like KDE and xorg-x11 subject to a lot of needed code cleanup. I'm sure that this will take a long time to complete. Until the code can be cleaned up in its massive size, breakage will be seen. For other platforms, I see projects like openoffice.org to be the best solution. It makes it easier to wean yourself off of applications that are mainstream. I can only guess which way we will head with Linux. It is tough to give people all programs desired with laws that threaten lawsuits against companies or individuals for using a program. You need to draw the line somewhere. Linux isn't hampered much by creativity. Programs are out there, but due to laws, it is shied away from.
Some good points, but cursing usually dstracts others from the attention line.
Jim
Sorry.. just wanted to share my feelings : )
On 6/29/05, Richard Kelsch rich@csst.net wrote:
Hold on there Nellie! Oh please don't get me wrong about Gnome, Apple, and MS. In fact, I happen to love Gnome and I like how it works...so far. I also happen to like the OS X window manager of Apple. Yes, the Apple gui has flaws, as does Gnome, and MS. I dislike the MS gui, but at least they are making improvements. The Gnome in some ways is very fast, but still has some responsiveness issue too. This is, perhaps, more X related, but an issue nevertheless.
You're confusing performance with interface -- if you take away the tons of optimizations and the excellent compositor that Aqua has, you're left with a very sloppy, ragtag interface. The "window manager" is more anemic than even Metacity, which people accuse (wrongfully, IMHO) of being underpowered. The OS X finder is broken in several different ways, the Dock and the Menu Bar are poor substitutions for GNOME panels, there are several *different* window toolkits which produce different looking apps depending on which one you use. Are they pretty? Sure. Are they consistent? Not at all. GNOME, if you stick to using GNOME apps, is at least visually consistent, and a lot of thought and testing has gone into making it usable. There's definitely room for improvement: X support for clipboards and drag and drop still needs to be rationalized, for example, but really, it's not much worse than Aqua's.
I agree with you that GNOME and X in general need optimization and modernization -- and they're getting it from several different fronts right now (see the xgl project, the luminocity branch of metacity, etc... to get really excited about the future, read this: http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/xrendering). But it's important to realize that that there are two completely orthogonal aspects of a desktop user interface: the usability interface itself (of which GNOME is the best I've ever used) and the performance (in which, as you say, Aqua is the winner so far). You might argue they're not 100% orthogonal, and they're probably not, but without going to extremes in either, I think it's valid.
This may annoy the command line or simplicity die-hards out there, but eye candy is desirable in a GUI. Anyone saying to the contrary never enjoyed the movie "Hackers." On MS the company Stardock has the right idea.
Eye candy has its place (and isn't directly related to either usability or performance, except in how it enhances or detracts from either)... some of it can be functional, some of it is just pretty, but a lot of it just gets in the way. Not that I think it shouldn't be available -- but it's not the sole reason to pick a user interface. Use OS X for more than a few weeks and I guarantee you'll get annoyed with some of the eye candy. And there's no way to turn most of it off!!!
I originally decided to magnify on your post because you seemed to be holding OS X up as the gold standard by which all other UIs should be judged. I just wanted to give you the perspective of someone who uses OS X daily :-)
. m a r c o s a u g u s t o wrote:
The guys (...) that build linux , fedora.. etc... they are so fucking GOOD CODING..
this statement didn't really make sense to me
that they never heard about "marketing"...worst yet..."normal user"
they have hear about marketing and normal users, they watch tv and browse cnn.com
It'll be so easy for linux os to be "the OS" in earth
It would be so easy. But not a good thing. There should be moderation in everything.
The only problem was a "smart"(???) fag that have read a marketing book instead of some assembly one... and all the stupid planet bought windows....
Sorry, not a fag fan either. I never personally bought a copy of Windows. What's so wrong with all the planet buying Windows? As long as I am not forced to buy Windows. And it's fair to say most of the planet pirates Windows.
Goddammit! and now I GOT to go back to win.. simply ... because I work with flash... and there is no macromedia linux version of it ...
I hear you here. Macromedia's Linux stance just sucks plain and simple. But that's what you get with closed source apps. As good as the product is, it's theres to do what they like with it. And they choose not to port it to Linux.
(just waiting until i can compile F4L in fedora4)
I understand that everybody that runs linux, loves (as I do), and fill their needs. But, this selfish way think, gave windows the world...
Windows can keep the world for all I care. I am more that satisifed to be a part of this relatively smal group of users who enjoy Fedora.
Fill their needs commentary: There was 7Gb on my HD used after fedora, and I could not hear a mp3! watch a single movie!
7GB huh, you must have installed alot of apps. Just so you know, you can't hear an mp3 because of the Fedora's policies, not becuase it's linux. You're just exaggeratign about the movie.
2 days to get everything working
That doesn't say much for your competency. Just add 2-3 repos to yum, fire of a one liner yum command, take a walk, come back, everything should be up. Of course I choose to break down the one liner into a series of simpler commands. Or you could just write a script to do the work, or ask someone to write you one.
... can I tell my friends:
Yes you can, but I advise against it. Just show it to them working, let them play with it.
hey, install linux! you 'll love......I can't! Without this list and the IRC channel.. I will never accomplished my needs.. and was just mp3, burn discs, php editor, videos,
You're really going overboard with this whole mp3 thing. It's really not that hard. Burning disk is easier in FC that in any windows i've used. Php editing: too numerous to mention. Videos? What about them?
Linux always seeked to be better (AND IT IS for a long time !)
Now is time to read ACCESSBILiTY and USER FRIENDLY books!! : )
Might you have some time to spare?
Look this nice brazilian project, I got enthusiasmed... but, don't tested it yet, it claims to run linux (based of fedora) and with a windows interface that can run everything.. no wine needed..
www.freedows.com
If microsoft can get the better of linux.. now is linux time (after all, the only thing that windows have is the community [ lot of programs ] )
Sorry.. just wanted to share my feelings : )
No problem.
--- ". m a r c o s a u g u s t o" <chadchadartigmail> wrote:
AfteAfterall "In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?"
don't know wro wrote that.. but rocks
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhredhat To unsuunsubscribe
httphttpww.wwwhredhat/mailman/listlistinfoora-list
You do! Otherwise there would be less/no motivation to improve Linux. Non-Tech users still have a very hard time with it. My Dad tried it and gave up... :-(
Am Mittwoch, den 29.06.2005, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Richard Kelsch:
Since Fedora is supposed to be "bleeding-edge," I have thought of a few things that may be cool for the future, not just for Fedora but Linux in general:
- How about the ability to install via SRPMS for the specific CPU
platform I'm using? In other words, as an advanced install option, allow me to have the installer use the SRPMS instead of the precompiled RPMS, and allow me to define the compiler optimizations for CPU etc. That would be cool. Ok, a slow install, but this isn't a production OS, so why not? I hate having an Athlon-XP running code optimized for a P4. Sure, an install could take days, but it would be an option I'd use. Why? Because I can and it's certainly bleeding-edge.
Kewl open your editor and start to code.
- How about the ability to clone the configured and working version on
my hardrive to be burned on a DVD (dual layer and blue beam makes this possible) for easy portability?
Well, a tip for you: Open your editor and start to code.
- Someone needs to make X more display hardware friendly.
Hmm, what about starting coding?
- Gnome and KDE are nice and such, but even Apple knew how to exploit
the display hardware to make a cool interface. So much so that MS is trying to copy and "improve" it for their next release. There's more to a gui now days than skinning. Fedora needs a cooler looking GUI.
Well, port the MacOS stuff to linux.
- Better documentation of changes that could result in problems with
legacy software, and techniques on how to fix them, instead of the usual "we took [this] out" without further explanation.
Guess what, open your editor and start writing documentation.
Can you immagine a day when the Fedora List has nothing but praise instead of a plethora of problems? One can dream....
Sure, thats when every one who has wishes is sitting at his desk and is doing something to get the stuff done.
Rich
Richard Kelsch kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika torstai, 30. kesäkuuta 2005 00:25):
I hate having an Athlon-XP running code optimized for a P4. Sure, an install could take days, but it would be an option I'd use.
Looks like Gentoo Linux ( http://www.gentoo.org/ ) is the right distro for you.
- Someone needs to make X more display hardware friendly.
The display hardware manufacturers are the only ones with the information needed for this, and they aren't interested in sharing the knowledge.
John Summerfied wrote:
. m a r c o s a u g u s t o wrote:
It'll be so easy for linux os to be "the OS" in earth
That would not be good. We need the diversity of alternatives, of competition. What happened to IE after MS "won" the browser war? Nothing. It's only now, after Firefox et al have had tabs for years that MS is thinking of maybe adding this feature sometime.
I agree with the sentiment about diversity. No one size fits all. I like the way Firefox is more adaptable than IE. More of the features can be "customized". But you know something? Not all features even deserve to exist. IMO, tabbed browsing is one of them. Not the best feature ever dreamed up. I'd like all the features to be configurable, even disableable. It would be nice NOT TO HAVE TABS AT ALL.
So, it seems to me, that your own prejudices are showing a little bit. IMO, IE is better than Firefox in this respect. OTOH, Firefox does allow one, sort of, to turn tabs off.
However, I can specify the "default search engine" to be either "Google" or "Ask Jeeves", but I cannot specify "none". I can specify where to open the search tab, but I cannot specify "no search tab".
As a more general comment, it seems to me that all options which are configurable should be disableable. For example, I have a mouse with a wheel, and the wheel is also "clickable". I find that I can configure the third button to do any of several things, but "nothing" is not one of them.
I'm not trying to dump on Firefox. I like it. It's more configurable than IE. But IMO not configurable enough. I find that I'm frequently accidentally doing things with the mouse because I can't just disable "features".
I recall back in the bad old days when I used to use TOPS 10 on the old DEC KAL 10 architecture. We had an editor TECO, somewhat like vi, which would do "something" no matter what keys you typed in. The fellows used to type in their girlfriend's names just to see what it would do to their files. When every possible combination of key presses (I include the mouse here) is bound to something, then all kinds of typing errors result in inadvertent actions.
I say, as a general principle, if it can be configured at all, then there is a reason: different people like/prefer different behavior. One of the behaviors should be "do nothing".
Mike
Stefan Held wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 29.06.2005, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Richard Kelsch:
Since Fedora is supposed to be "bleeding-edge," I have thought of a few things that may be cool for the future, not just for Fedora but Linux in general:
- How about the ability to install via SRPMS for the specific CPU
platform I'm using? In other words, as an advanced install option, allow me to have the installer use the SRPMS instead of the precompiled RPMS, and allow me to define the compiler optimizations for CPU etc. That would be cool. Ok, a slow install, but this isn't a production OS, so why not? I hate having an Athlon-XP running code optimized for a P4. Sure, an install could take days, but it would be an option I'd use. Why? Because I can and it's certainly bleeding-edge.
Kewl open your editor and start to code.
Start coding is not a good response to people that comes with suggestions. Everybody know that GNU/Linux is free software and that it is possible to contribute. However, the person who gives us the suggestion may not have the skill, or time to do it himself. That doesn't mean that his idea is bad. (I'm talking about ideas in general. I have no oppinion on the SRPM issue). By posting he may get somebody else interested, or he might expand our knowledge on how Linux is used, so why should they not post.
By giving answers like "Start coding" we discourage newbies or non tech savy user from giving suggestions. It is very important to pick up oppinion from such users as you as a programmer often get blind to how ordinary users, as secretarys and such, use their computers and what problems they have. Just ansvering start codig, doesn't add anything useful.
Regards Uno Engborg
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 09:19, Mike McCarty wrote:
I agree with the sentiment about diversity. No one size fits all. I like the way Firefox is more adaptable than IE. More of the features can be "customized". But you know something? Not all features even deserve to exist. IMO, tabbed browsing is one of them. Not the best feature ever dreamed up. I'd like all the features to be configurable, even disableable. It would be nice NOT TO HAVE TABS AT ALL.
Yes, I've never understood why anyone, given a decent windowing system, would want any application to separately hide stuff that you should be able to view and manipulate independently. The only advantage I can see to hiding things behind tabs is that it gives you a way to close an application and all the windows it controls in one step. Is there some way to close all firefox (or OOo or any other application's) windows if they were opened separately?
Mike McCarty wrote:
I agree with the sentiment about diversity. No one size fits all. I like the way Firefox is more adaptable than IE. More of the features can be "customized". But you know something? Not all features even deserve to exist. IMO, tabbed browsing is one of them. Not the best feature ever dreamed up. I'd like all the features to be configurable, even disableable. It would be nice NOT TO HAVE TABS AT ALL.
I myself LOVE tabs in my browser. I believe that tabbed browsing is one of the best features ever developed in a browser. I also use tabbed consoles extensively on my machine. Why would I want multiple windows of the same application taking up system resources when I can tab them and navigate faster with less system strain? Not to mention that when I want the console or browser out of the way to do something else, I don't have to minimize multiple windows, just one.
So, it seems to me, that your own prejudices are showing a little bit.
<flame on>
Really? And yours aren't? Customization allows us to change the software to meet our specific wants and prejudices.
(snip)
I find that I'm frequently accidentally doing things with the mouse because I can't just disable "features".
And I bet you would prefer your car ran on rails so that you'd stop running into things after you disable that stupid steering wheel.
<flame off>
All that said, I do agree that turning features off should also be an option. If you don't like tabs, you should be able to turn them off. If you don't want to click with your middle button, you should be able to turn it off. If you can program and can donate the time, you should consider helping add those options to those projects.
Have a great day!
Mike McEldowney wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I agree with the sentiment about diversity. No one size fits all. I like the way Firefox is more adaptable than IE. More of the features can be "customized". But you know something? Not all features even deserve to exist. IMO, tabbed browsing is one of them. Not the best feature ever dreamed up. I'd like all the features to be configurable, even disableable. It would be nice NOT TO HAVE TABS AT ALL.
I myself LOVE tabs in my browser. I believe that tabbed browsing is one of the best features ever developed in a browser. I also use tabbed consoles extensively on my machine. Why would I want multiple windows of the same application taking up system resources when I can tab them and navigate faster with less system strain? Not to mention that when I want the console or browser out of the way to do something else, I don't have to minimize multiple windows, just one.
Did you read what I wrote? I am asking for more ability to customize. And why should having multiple instances of an application running take up more resources? I happen not to like tabbed browsing. You do. Fine. How about a system that allows features to be disabled? Is that too much to ask?
So, it seems to me, that your own prejudices are showing a little bit.
<flame on>
Really? And yours aren't? Customization allows us to change the software to meet our specific wants and prejudices.
I didn't say that mine weren't. Of course mine are.
(snip)
I find that I'm frequently accidentally doing things with the mouse because I can't just disable "features".
And I bet you would prefer your car ran on rails so that you'd stop running into things after you disable that stupid steering wheel.
Flames definitely not needed, appreciated, or useful.
<flame off>
All that said, I do agree that turning features off should also be an option. If you don't like tabs, you should be able to turn them off. If you don't want to click with your middle button, you should be able to turn it off. If you can program and can donate the time, you should consider helping add those options to those projects.
Hum. So. You flame me, but agree.
Have a great day!
The sentiment seems a little hollow, given your tone.
Mike
On 6/30/05, Mike McCarty mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Did you read what I wrote? I am asking for more ability to customize. And why should having multiple instances of an application running take up more resources? I happen not to like tabbed browsing. You do. Fine. How about a system that allows features to be disabled? Is that too much to ask?
No, which is why there's already an extension (probably several extensions) that can totally disable tabbed browsing. There's also several extensions for making more out of tabbed browsing that FIrefox does by default. The point is that there's already a framework in place in Firefox for configuring its behavior -- even behavior the designers didn't originally anticipate. Asking for another method to do essentially the same thing is just adding to code bloat and inefficiency. And that's already the trademark of a different OS.
Mike McCarty wrote:
John Summerfied wrote:
. m a r c o s a u g u s t o wrote:
It'll be so easy for linux os to be "the OS" in earth
That would not be good. We need the diversity of alternatives, of competition. What happened to IE after MS "won" the browser war? Nothing. It's only now, after Firefox et al have had tabs for years that MS is thinking of maybe adding this feature sometime.
I agree with the sentiment about diversity. No one size fits all. I like the way Firefox is more adaptable than IE. More of the features can be "customized". But you know something? Not all features even deserve to exist. IMO, tabbed browsing is one of them. Not the best feature ever dreamed up. I'd like all the features to be configurable, even disableable. It would be nice NOT TO HAVE TABS AT ALL.
So, it seems to me, that your own prejudices are showing a little bit. IMO, IE is better than Firefox in this respect. OTOH, Firefox does allow one, sort of, to turn tabs off.
Nothing forces you to use them. OTOH I regularly (most days) read www.theregister.co.uk (www.theregister.com and www.theregister.ca for North Americans). open the home page, then middle-click all the interesting items.
I then start reading the first to load, middle-click any interesting links and so on until I'm done.
Right now I have 42 windows open spread over 18 desktops, several browsers have several tabs - one has 15, but I often have more, and most konsoles also have several.
However, I can specify the "default search engine" to be either "Google" or "Ask Jeeves", but I cannot specify "none". I can specify where to open the search tab, but I cannot specify "no search tab".
The search tab is the first thing I turn off.
You can have endless fun stuffing round with the Mozilla family of browsers in about:config. Probably, you can even get no search engine.
As a more general comment, it seems to me that all options which are configurable should be disableable. For example, I have a mouse with a wheel, and the wheel is also "clickable". I find that I can configure the third button to do any of several things, but "nothing" is not one of them.
I could certainly make it do nothing in some contexts, but I don't see how that would be useful.
For example, I use KDE, If I middle-click the desktop, the default behaviour is to open a window list. I _can_ change that to do nothing.
If you feel strongly that you should be able to turn off selected mouse clicks, by all means file a bug report and be prepared to argue your case.
I'm not trying to dump on Firefox. I like it. It's more configurable than IE. But IMO not configurable enough. I find that I'm frequently accidentally doing things with the mouse because I can't just disable "features".
If you have special accessibility requirements, I suggest you take it up with the developers of your preferred desktop. Probably, if you can make a good case you will get a sympathetic hearing.
One thing I would love to see added to the base FC install, however, is Mono, specifically so Beagle will be installed out-of-the-box. After a few weeks with Spotlight, I became addicted to fast indexed desktop searches, and Beagle scratches the itch for FC4.
Now there's a cool suggestion.
Unfortunatelly, given the way RedHat thinks about this issue, it won't happen in the near future.
Nick
Ben Steeves wrote:
On 6/30/05, Mike McCarty mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Did you read what I wrote? I am asking for more ability to customize. And why should having multiple instances of an application running take up more resources? I happen not to like tabbed browsing. You do. Fine. How about a system that allows features to be disabled? Is that too much to ask?
No, which is why there's already an extension (probably several extensions) that can totally disable tabbed browsing. There's also several extensions for making more out of tabbed browsing that FIrefox does by default. The point is that there's already a framework in place in Firefox for configuring its behavior -- even behavior the designers didn't originally anticipate. Asking for another method to do essentially the same thing is just adding to code bloat and inefficiency. And that's already the trademark of a different OS.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was making no objection to Firefox. I like it. And tabbing can (almost) be turned off. I was making a general statement about configurability. If one is going to the trouble to make a certain feature configurable, then it is little additional trouble to make one of the configuration items be "disabled". I most assuredly was not asking for "another method to do essentially the same thing". In fact, that's what tabbed browsing is. I already have a window manager on my system. Why another?
Anyway, most of the options in FireFox have a "disable" as an option. For example, what they call "smart browsing", which I detest. But it is nicely configurable. If enabled, many options, and can be disabled. Perfect! But just down the same option page is "Internet Search", which CANNOT BE TURNED OFF. I happen not to like that feature, but I live with it.
Also look at the configuration Edit->Preferences->Advanced->Mouse Wheel Tell me where one can disable that? Every combination of mouse wheel with something is required to do something.
I find that, when scrolling with the mouse scroll wheel, I often inadvertently press it down, and get an action. I'd like to disable that "button", but I haven't been able to find where to do that. Gnome has a Preferences->Mouse->Buttons, but I see no way to disable the wheel button, or even set what it does, from that location. I suppose that somewhere there is a way to configure that. I just don't know where it is.
As another example of the type of "limited imagination" in configuration options, consider the use of HTML in e-mail messages. The reader I use (Thunderbird) allows me to set the preferences of the recipients of e-mail I send. I can set it to "HTML", "Plain Text", or to "Both" (essentially, anyway). But I can't set my own preference. Interesting. There is no way for me to say "I prefer never to send HTML". Why? I can tell it automatically to convert the HTML it composes to plain text, but I can't compose plain text. I also can't specify a separate editor for it to use. Why not? Why must I be forced to learn a new editor for every tool I use? I have an editor. I like it. Why can't I just use it? I can select from various layouts for the windows, but I cannot just position the windows in my mailer.
These comments are directed at code developers and maintainers. If they are adding a new "feature", and think it needs to be "configurable", then most of the hard part is already done. Just add one more option to disable it entirely, and the world becomes a wonderful place. One man's meat is another man's poison, as they say. Developers recognize this when they add configuration options. One more option to disable is not much.
Speaking of code bloat, I find that it is not the hallmark of "another OS" at all. It is a general feature of all software today. "Garbage expands to fill all available space" is a general maxim. You might prefer the word "clutter". Another synonym is "software".
I consider Emacs to be a prime example of code bloat. Why should a text editor be over 4 megabytes in size? I suppose you don't blame Bill Gates for Emacs.
And Linux won't boot off of floppy anymore.
I am contiually amazed at the amounts of memory/disc/cpu cycles developers take for granted these days. In fact, many seem never even to consider such issues at all.
But I digress from Fedora issues.
Anyone have any advice for my
xterm: unable to parse color: e6e6e6 xterm: unable to parse color: 000000
problems I mentioned the other day?
Mike
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 11:24:56AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Fine. How about a system that allows features to be disabled? Is that too much to ask?
Given that nothing actually forces you to use tabs, how would you suggest disabling them ?
Emmanuel
They take up space on the already rather cluttered display. I have nearly managed to make them go away in any case.
The real subject matter is not tabbed browsing, anyway.
Mike
Brian Mury wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 18:12 -0700, Richard Kelsch wrote:
This may annoy the command line or simplicity die-hards out there, but eye candy is desirable in a GUI. Anyone saying to the contrary never enjoyed the movie "Hackers."
Well, I've never seen that movie, but anyway... I disagree that eye candy is desirable in a UI.
Eye candy looks cool. I've had various pieces of eye candy on various platforms over the years. I've eventually removed them all. My experience is that what looks cool and what is usable is usually not the same. Give me a nice clean UI without the candy, thanks. Eye candy might make for cool screenshots to upload to some website, but if I'm going to spend a significant amount of time using a machine, usability trumps aesthetics every time.
Function over form, ya know...
You can have function and form, and I think it should be something people can turn off or on. Good eye candy, implemented properly should not detract from functionality, and should, in fact, increase functionality as not all eye-candy is for special effects, but can be part of function. For example, the simple bouncing icon of a program loading in Apple's Aqua is, in my opinion, eye candy improving functionality. It shows me the system registered my run request and is attempting to start the application. What does Gnome do? It sits there as if nothing happened, and some time later the app pops up. Of course I don't think Aqua is a gold standard, as it sucks in many ways, but I do like that part of it.
Besides, I think for those (the 1 or 3 of you out there) with a wife or girlfriend, the "function over form" claim may just get argued over quite vehemently by them. You can have both without sacrificing the other. Also, the "function over form" perspective is one of the reasons why Linux is not marketable to the average computer user; and never will be until programmers finally get together with artists and designers. Both would be surprised what the end result can do.
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 13:14 -0700, Richard Kelsch wrote:
Function over form, ya know...
Good eye candy, implemented properly should not detract from functionality,
That's sometimes true, and sometimes not true.
I find that eye candy, by it's very nature, can distract from the useability.
and should, in fact, increase functionality as not all eye-candy is for special effects, but can be part of function. For example, the simple bouncing icon of a program loading in Apple's Aqua is, in my opinion, eye candy improving functionality.
I would call that a feature, or functionality; I wouldn't call it eye candy! :-) And BTW, would be a good feature for Gnome.
I think for those (the 1 or 3 of you out there) with a wife or girlfriend
Uh... girl-what???
until programmers finally get together with artists and designers. Both would be surprised what the end result can do.
I think it's possible to have something that looks good without falling under the "eye candy" classification.
Anyway, I don't think eye candy is necessarily bad; I think it's often a (not always) a tradeoff between form and function, and I personally prefer function. No reason not to have eye candy available, especially if I can turn it off when it starts distracting/annoying me.
Stefan Held wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 29.06.2005, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Richard Kelsch:
Since Fedora is supposed to be "bleeding-edge," I have thought of a few things that may be cool for the future, not just for Fedora but Linux in general:
- How about the ability to install via SRPMS for the specific CPU
platform I'm using? In other words, as an advanced install option, allow me to have the installer use the SRPMS instead of the precompiled RPMS, and allow me to define the compiler optimizations for CPU etc. That would be cool. Ok, a slow install, but this isn't a production OS, so why not? I hate having an Athlon-XP running code optimized for a P4. Sure, an install could take days, but it would be an option I'd use. Why? Because I can and it's certainly bleeding-edge.
Kewl open your editor and start to code.
Microsoft doesn't tell that to their users, and look at where they are in the market. Besides, I thought Linux programmers liked to hear new ideas. Just because I thought of it doesn't mean I need to code it. Just because one can program, doesn't mean they can have the best ideas. I think history has shown this. Way back in the 1970s a couple of friends revolutionized technology by having the balls to think of each person being able to have their own personal computer. One guy came up with a lot of ideas and his buddy, being the hardware and coding genius, implemented those ideas in their garage. I'll give you a hint, both were named "Steve." Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to innovate.
- How about the ability to clone the configured and working version on
my hardrive to be burned on a DVD (dual layer and blue beam makes this possible) for easy portability?
Well, a tip for you: Open your editor and start to code.
A tip for you: There are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tastey as the real thing. Something to consider.
- Someone needs to make X more display hardware friendly.
Hmm, what about starting coding?
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and if you are, then try another line of work.
- Gnome and KDE are nice and such, but even Apple knew how to exploit
the display hardware to make a cool interface. So much so that MS is trying to copy and "improve" it for their next release. There's more to a gui now days than skinning. Fedora needs a cooler looking GUI.
Well, port the MacOS stuff to linux.
No, why not make something better instead of copying someone else's work like MS does?
- Better documentation of changes that could result in problems with
legacy software, and techniques on how to fix them, instead of the usual "we took [this] out" without further explanation.
Guess what, open your editor and start writing documentation.
I have a much more intelligent idea. Why don't the people that broke it write docs on how to fix it, otherwise how is anyone to know how and write docs on it? I know thinking may hurt for you, but give it a try.
Can you immagine a day when the Fedora List has nothing but praise instead of a plethora of problems? One can dream....
Sure, thats when every one who has wishes is sitting at his desk and is doing something to get the stuff done.
Are you saying you're too incompetent? I don't think the Fedora crew is incompetent. I think, like all human beings, they can make mistakes and learn from them. There are many different types of Linux users out there. I don't and never will, consider myself a OS coder. It's better left to those that get off on those things. The intelligent ones can look to others for ideas without the ego trip of whining "why don't you do it yourself?"
All of the major auto makers wouldn't exist today if they just told people to shut up and build their own car. Henry Ford only got away with it until he had competition. So next time you hear someone conplain about their car, you be sure to stand up proudly and tell them to design and build their own car their way. You can feel like you accomplished something, confident in knowing you bettered the automotive industry. I think those in the auto companies want to know what people want so they can make a better car. What the engineers think is better doesn't necessarily translate to the user. Remember that and you won't look luck such and idiot next time someone offers an idea.
Rich
On 6/30/05, Richard Kelsch rich@csst.net wrote:
Also, the "function over form" perspective is one of the reasons why Linux is not marketable to the average computer user; and never will be until programmers finally get together with artists and designers. Both would be surprised what the end result can do.
You mean like this? http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/
Not everyone who works on GNOME (specifically, or Open Source / Free Software in general) is a hardcore coder. There are designers, graphic artists, usability experts, and yes, even documentation writers.
Just because you can't code is no reason not to get involved. I do get irritated when people respond to feature requests with "get coding" -- it's arrogant, silly, and in most cases rarely uttered by actual project coders. Making a feature request (a good one, not just saying "Why does project X suck so much? Fix it!", but something with use cases, user stories, the lot) is just as valid a form of participation as sitting down and checking out the code.
IMHO. YMMV.
Brian Mury wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 13:14 -0700, Richard Kelsch wrote:
Function over form, ya know...
Good eye candy, implemented properly should not detract from functionality,
That's sometimes true, and sometimes not true.
I find that eye candy, by it's very nature, can distract from the useability.
Well, then perhaps my idea of "eye candy" is different than yours. I suppose (I'm guessing, sorry if I missed the mark) your definition of "eye candy" is special effects for the sole purpose of wowing the viewer. In that definition I agree with your assesments. However, I should have been more specific. "Well designed graphics, special effects,etc. designed to help or inform the user" was what I meant by "eye candy." The icon "throbber" of Aqua was a great example of this. Also, I wouldn't mind animated icons that reacted differently depending on what's hapenning to them as an improvement to the Aqua throbber. Mouse overs, app initializing, crashed app, running app, etc. all can be achieved with some good graphical effects without detracting from speed and usability. Configurability is the key here.
and should, in fact, increase functionality as not all eye-candy is for special effects, but can be part of function. For example, the simple bouncing icon of a program loading in Apple's Aqua is, in my opinion, eye candy improving functionality.
I would call that a feature, or functionality; I wouldn't call it eye candy! :-) And BTW, would be a good feature for Gnome.
It's eye candy because on a Mac it usually looks nice too.
I think for those (the 1 or 3 of you out there) with a wife or girlfriend
Uh... girl-what???
until programmers finally get together with artists and designers. Both would be surprised what the end result can do.
I think it's possible to have something that looks good without falling under the "eye candy" classification.
Agreed, provided one agrees on its definition :-)
Anyway, I don't think eye candy is necessarily bad; I think it's often a (not always) a tradeoff between form and function, and I personally prefer function. No reason not to have eye candy available, especially if I can turn it off when it starts distracting/annoying me.
Different definitions apply here as well. From what I think is your perspective, I agree.
Ben Steeves wrote:
On 6/30/05, Richard Kelsch rich@csst.net wrote:
Also, the "function over form" perspective is one of the reasons why Linux is not marketable to the average computer user; and never will be until programmers finally get together with artists and designers. Both would be surprised what the end result can do.
You mean like this? http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/
Not everyone who works on GNOME (specifically, or Open Source / Free Software in general) is a hardcore coder. There are designers, graphic artists, usability experts, and yes, even documentation writers.
Just because you can't code is no reason not to get involved. I do get irritated when people respond to feature requests with "get coding" -- it's arrogant, silly, and in most cases rarely uttered by actual project coders. Making a feature request (a good one, not just saying "Why does project X suck so much? Fix it!", but something with use cases, user stories, the lot) is just as valid a form of participation as sitting down and checking out the code.
IMHO. YMMV.
You Ben, are a very intelligent man.
Richard Kelsch wrote:
Stefan Held wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 29.06.2005, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Richard Kelsch:
Since Fedora is supposed to be "bleeding-edge," I have thought of a few things that may be cool for the future, not just for Fedora but Linux in general:
- How about the ability to install via SRPMS for the specific CPU
platform I'm using? In other words, as an advanced install option, allow me to have the installer use the SRPMS instead of the precompiled RPMS, and allow me to define the compiler optimizations for CPU etc. That would be cool. Ok, a slow install, but this isn't a production OS, so why not? I hate having an Athlon-XP running code optimized for a P4. Sure, an install could take days, but it would be an option I'd use. Why? Because I can and it's certainly bleeding-edge.
Kewl open your editor and start to code.
Microsoft doesn't tell that to their users, and look at where they are in the market. Besides, I thought Linux programmers liked to hear new ideas. Just because I thought of it doesn't mean I need to code it. Just because one can program, doesn't mean they can have the best ideas. I think history has shown this. Way back in the 1970s a couple of friends revolutionized technology by having the balls to think of each person being able to have their own personal computer. One guy came up with a lot of ideas and his buddy, being the hardware and coding genius, implemented those ideas in their garage. I'll give you a hint, both were named "Steve." Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to innovate.
- How about the ability to clone the configured and working version on
my hardrive to be burned on a DVD (dual layer and blue beam makes this possible) for easy portability?
Well, a tip for you: Open your editor and start to code.
A tip for you: There are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tastey as the real thing. Something to consider.
- Someone needs to make X more display hardware friendly.
Hmm, what about starting coding?
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and if you are, then try another line of work.
- Gnome and KDE are nice and such, but even Apple knew how to exploit
the display hardware to make a cool interface. So much so that MS is trying to copy and "improve" it for their next release. There's more to a gui now days than skinning. Fedora needs a cooler looking GUI.
Well, port the MacOS stuff to linux.
No, why not make something better instead of copying someone else's work like MS does?
- Better documentation of changes that could result in problems with
legacy software, and techniques on how to fix them, instead of the usual "we took [this] out" without further explanation.
Guess what, open your editor and start writing documentation.
I have a much more intelligent idea. Why don't the people that broke it write docs on how to fix it, otherwise how is anyone to know how and write docs on it? I know thinking may hurt for you, but give it a try.
Can you immagine a day when the Fedora List has nothing but praise instead of a plethora of problems? One can dream....
Sure, thats when every one who has wishes is sitting at his desk and is doing something to get the stuff done.
Are you saying you're too incompetent? I don't think the Fedora crew is incompetent. I think, like all human beings, they can make mistakes and learn from them. There are many different types of Linux users out there. I don't and never will, consider myself a OS coder. It's better left to those that get off on those things. The intelligent ones can look to others for ideas without the ego trip of whining "why don't you do it yourself?"
All of the major auto makers wouldn't exist today if they just told people to shut up and build their own car. Henry Ford only got away with it until he had competition. So next time you hear someone conplain about their car, you be sure to stand up proudly and tell them to design and build their own car their way. You can feel like you accomplished something, confident in knowing you bettered the automotive industry. I think those in the auto companies want to know what people want so they can make a better car. What the engineers think is better doesn't necessarily translate to the user. Remember that and you won't look luck such and idiot next time someone offers an idea.
Rich
You'd think I'd stop thinking faster than I type. Ahem, let's try this again... "Remember that, and you won't look like such an idiot next time someone offers an idea." Much better, perhaps this was his weakness?
Rich
Richard Kelsch wrote:
Richard Kelsch wrote:
[snip]
Are you saying you're too incompetent? I don't think the Fedora crew is incompetent. I think, like all human beings, they can make mistakes and learn from them. There are many different types of Linux users out there. I don't and never will, consider myself a OS coder. It's better left to those that get off on those things. The intelligent ones can look to others for ideas without the ego trip of whining "why don't you do it yourself?"
All of the major auto makers wouldn't exist today if they just told people to shut up and build their own car. Henry Ford only got away with it until he had competition. So next time you hear someone conplain about their car, you be sure to stand up proudly and tell them to design and build their own car their way. You can feel like you accomplished something, confident in knowing you bettered the automotive industry. I think those in the auto companies want to know what people want so they can make a better car. What the engineers think is better doesn't necessarily translate to the user. Remember that and you won't look luck such and idiot next time someone offers an idea.
Rich
You'd think I'd stop thinking faster than I type. Ahem, let's try this again... "Remember that, and you won't look like such an idiot next time someone offers an idea." Much better, perhaps this was his weakness?
Rich
I appreciate your time answering this arrogant fellow. I started to, but then decided he just wasn't worth it.
Mike
-
. m a r c o s a u g u s t o -
Arthur Pemberton -
Ben Steeves -
Brian Mury -
BRUCE STANLEY -
Christofer C. Bell -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Jim Cornette -
John Summerfield -
korgull -
Les Mikesell -
Markku Kolkka -
Mike McCarty -
Mike McEldowney -
Nick Jones -
Richard Kelsch -
Stefan Held -
Uno Engborg