Greetings.
What do folks think about:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for clarity...
what do others think?
kevin
Hi Kevin,
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:32:11 -0600 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
What do folks think about:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for clarity...
what do others think?
+1 from me.
Martin
Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:32 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
Greetings.
What do folks think about:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for clarity...
what do others think?
-1.
What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards, Christoph
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:39 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:32 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
Greetings.
What do folks think about:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for clarity...
what do others think?
-1.
What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.
Because if you have several installed, they ALL show up as 'Terminal' in the menu and you have no idea which one you are picking?
I think there are legit reasons to have several installed. Perhaps you use Xfce, but prefer gnome-terminal, or you want them both installed in case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work?
Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal and be done with it.
kevin
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 08:55:05AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: <SNIP>
Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal and be done with it.
<SNIP>
If that is the case, then I will +1 it ... but as long as the project name and the name of the installed executable is in fact "Terminal" I think it would add confusion to change it.
My $0.02
-AdamM
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Vitezslav Humpa vhumpa@redhat.com wrote:
Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal and be done with it.
Hi Kevin,
Do you have any info that the upstream is willing to do that? That would be great.
Yes.
See:
http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce4-dev/2011-June/028921.html
Seems like the idea is moving forward upstream.
kevin
Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:54 -0400 schrieb Vitezslav Humpa:
Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal and be done with it.
Hi Kevin,
Do you have any info that the upstream is willing to do that? That would be great.
Do you really think it is great from a user's POV to have
KDE Address book KDE Archive Manager KDE Calculator KDE File Manager KDE Terminal GNOME Address book GNOME Archive Manager GNOME Calculator GNOME File Manager GNOME Terminal LXDE Address book LXDE Archive Manager LXDE Calculator LXDE File Manager LXDE Terminal Xfce Address book Xfce Archive Manager Xfce Calculator Xfce File Manager Xfce Terminal
This is what it's going to be in long run. People who have different terminals/calculators/whatever installed are definitely the minority and what we are starting here will make the majority have lots of ugly menu entries.
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:48:33 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:54 -0400 schrieb Vitezslav Humpa:
Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal and be done with it.
Hi Kevin,
Do you have any info that the upstream is willing to do that? That would be great.
Do you really think it is great from a user's POV to have
KDE Address book KDE Archive Manager KDE Calculator KDE File Manager KDE Terminal GNOME Address book GNOME Archive Manager GNOME Calculator GNOME File Manager GNOME Terminal LXDE Address book LXDE Archive Manager LXDE Calculator LXDE File Manager LXDE Terminal Xfce Address book Xfce Archive Manager Xfce Calculator Xfce File Manager Xfce Terminal
Yes, I do think that is better than:
Address book Address book Address book Address book ... Terminal Terminal Terminal
This is what it's going to be in long run. People who have different terminals/calculators/whatever installed are definitely the minority and what we are starting here will make the majority have lots of ugly menu entries.
What solution do you propose then?
I think we can just drop this discussion now since upstream looks to want to move Terminal to xfce-terminal and that should fix this case.
kevin
Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:00 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:48:33 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
Do you really think it is great from a user's POV to have
KDE Address book KDE Archive Manager KDE Calculator KDE File Manager KDE Terminal GNOME Address book GNOME Archive Manager GNOME Calculator GNOME File Manager GNOME Terminal LXDE Address book LXDE Archive Manager LXDE Calculator LXDE File Manager LXDE Terminal Xfce Address book Xfce Archive Manager Xfce Calculator Xfce File Manager Xfce Terminal
Yes, I do think that is better than:
Address book Address book Address book Address book ... Terminal Terminal Terminal
Well, most people will just have
Address book ... Terminal
Instead they get KDE Address Book ... KDE Terminal
What solution do you propose then?
1. Don't do anything because it is just a corner case 2. Use OnlyShowIn where it makes sense.
BTW: We are already using OnlyShowIn in quite a few places. If we started renaming things depending on the desktop we should also stop using OnlyShowIn and rename these apps, too. Then we would see the whole extent and how ugly this is.
I think we can just drop this discussion now since upstream looks to want to move Terminal to xfce-terminal and that should fix this case.
While I agree with upstream that both the package and the binary should be named xfce4-terminal I think the menu entry should remain "Terminal" rather than "Xfce4 Terminal".
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 18:48 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Xfce Address book Xfce Archive Manager Xfce Calculator Xfce File Manager Xfce Terminal
This is what it's going to be in long run. People who have different terminals/calculators/whatever installed are definitely the minority and what we are starting here will make the majority have lots of ugly menu entries.
I don't think it's really that simple. There is a specific problem here: Xfce's terminal application is *actually called Terminal*, it's not just listed as that in the menus. It's a bad name for the application, quite simply.
There are approaches that can be used in the case of apps that perform the same purpose and may want to be listed under their purpose and not their name in the system menus; the Name and GenericName fields exist to help with this. But if the name of the app *is* its generic purpose, that's a more serious issue. I don't think you can lump Terminal in with all those others.
Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 10:04 -0700 schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 18:48 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Xfce Address book Xfce Archive Manager Xfce Calculator Xfce File Manager Xfce Terminal
This is what it's going to be in long run. People who have different terminals/calculators/whatever installed are definitely the minority and what we are starting here will make the majority have lots of ugly menu entries.
I don't think it's really that simple. There is a specific problem here: Xfce's terminal application is *actually called Terminal*, it's not just listed as that in the menus. It's a bad name for the application, quite simply.
I fully agree and I am all for renaming the package and the binary. But not the menu entry.
There are approaches that can be used in the case of apps that perform the same purpose and may want to be listed under their purpose and not their name in the system menus; the Name and GenericName fields exist to help with this.
But there is no way to mix Name and GenericName.
But if the name of the app *is* its generic purpose, that's a more serious issue. I don't think you can lump Terminal in with all those others.
I think a terminal is the most generic thing there is. While file managers or address books can be pretty different, terminals are looking all the same and have pretty similar capabilities because they all just run bash.
Terminals are *very* generic, thus they should be allowed to have a generic name in the menu.
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:48:33 +0200 Christoph Wickert wrote:
Do you really think it is great from a user's POV to have
KDE Address book KDE Archive Manager KDE Calculator KDE File Manager KDE Terminal GNOME Address book GNOME Archive Manager GNOME Calculator GNOME File Manager GNOME Terminal LXDE Address book LXDE Archive Manager LXDE Calculator LXDE File Manager LXDE Terminal Xfce Address book Xfce Archive Manager Xfce Calculator Xfce File Manager Xfce Terminal
Well, the best solution is to have "<Name> <Generic Name>" or something like that, sans the problem cases where generic name is part of name.
It's bad to have: Mail Client Mail Client Web Browser Web Browser Terminal Terminal Terminal Archive Manager Archive Manager ...
But IMHO it's good to have: Claws Mail Client Thunderbird Mail Client Midori Web Browser Firefox Web Browser Gnome Terminal Emulator XFCE Terminal Emulator XTerm Terminal Emulator Ark Archive Manager Xarchiver Archive Manager ...
1. There are people who wish to use different terminal than desktop default (it's not "just running xterm in a window with tabs" and it's certainly not running bash everywhere. There are people who use different shells) 2. There are multi-user installations where one user uses KDE, another GNOME and yet another XFCE
How are you going to show both of them sensible menu entry for terminal? ShowOnlyIn will block the first use case, leaving Terminal will result in menu with two or more Terminals in there...
Cheers, Martin
Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 21:24 +0200 schrieb Martin Sourada:
- There are people who wish to use different terminal than desktop default (it's not "just running xterm in a window with tabs" and it's certainly not running bash everywhere. There are people who use different shells)
- There are multi-user installations where one user uses KDE, another GNOME and yet another XFCE
How are you going to show both of them sensible menu entry for terminal? ShowOnlyIn will block the first use case, leaving Terminal will result in menu with two or more Terminals in there...
1 is not a problem as long as we don't change anything. People can install and run what they like 2 is not a problem as long as we don't change anything. People can run any terminal in any environment and they can configure their menu.
There only is a problem when 1 and 2 are combined: In a multi-user install where users are using different desktops and do not want to use the default terminal of that environment. This is 3 conditions combined and I consider this a negligible cornercase that is not worth the hassle.
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:28:42 +0200 Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 21:24 +0200 schrieb Martin Sourada:
- There are people who wish to use different terminal than desktop default (it's not "just running xterm in a window with tabs" and it's certainly not running bash everywhere. There are people who
use different shells) 2. There are multi-user installations where one user uses KDE, another GNOME and yet another XFCE
How are you going to show both of them sensible menu entry for terminal? ShowOnlyIn will block the first use case, leaving Terminal will result in menu with two or more Terminals in there...
1 is not a problem as long as we don't change anything. People can install and run what they like 2 is not a problem as long as we don't change anything. People can run any terminal in any environment and they can configure their menu.
Well, when the configuration utility also displays 2 optically identical entries, it's still hit and miss. But to be fair, I wouldn't probably argue this so long (after all, the only problematic are AFAIK gnome and xfce's terminal emulators, the rest have different names in menus) if it hadn't hit me personally during my switch from Gnome to XFCE...
There only is a problem when 1 and 2 are combined: In a multi-user install where users are using different desktops and do not want to use the default terminal of that environment. This is 3 conditions combined and I consider this a negligible cornercase that is not worth the hassle.
Cannot argue on this front -- I don't have any data concerning the actual percentage of installations fulfilling both 1 and 2 conditions.
Cheers, Martin
Hi, I have been watching this quite a while and I think I found an usable but arduous solution. A mechanism is needed to be developed, recognizing whenever there are 2 or more menuitems with the same Generic name (Terminal) and in that case use DE name (Xfce Terminal).
Miro Hrončok
Jabber: miro@hroncok.cz Telefon: +420777974800
2011/6/23 Martin Sourada martin.sourada@gmail.com:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:48:33 +0200 Christoph Wickert wrote:
Do you really think it is great from a user's POV to have
KDE Address book KDE Archive Manager KDE Calculator KDE File Manager KDE Terminal GNOME Address book GNOME Archive Manager GNOME Calculator GNOME File Manager GNOME Terminal LXDE Address book LXDE Archive Manager LXDE Calculator LXDE File Manager LXDE Terminal Xfce Address book Xfce Archive Manager Xfce Calculator Xfce File Manager Xfce Terminal
Well, the best solution is to have "<Name> <Generic Name>" or something like that, sans the problem cases where generic name is part of name.
It's bad to have: Mail Client Mail Client Web Browser Web Browser Terminal Terminal Terminal Archive Manager Archive Manager ...
But IMHO it's good to have: Claws Mail Client Thunderbird Mail Client Midori Web Browser Firefox Web Browser Gnome Terminal Emulator XFCE Terminal Emulator XTerm Terminal Emulator Ark Archive Manager Xarchiver Archive Manager ...
- There are people who wish to use different terminal than desktop
default (it's not "just running xterm in a window with tabs" and it's certainly not running bash everywhere. There are people who use different shells) 2. There are multi-user installations where one user uses KDE, another GNOME and yet another XFCE
How are you going to show both of them sensible menu entry for terminal? ShowOnlyIn will block the first use case, leaving Terminal will result in menu with two or more Terminals in there...
Cheers, Martin
xfce mailing list xfce@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
My 2 cents (remember what you paid to read it):
I would like to be able to run the following command
rpm -qa xfce*
and see every Xfce application. Nothing left off. I want to know what is part of Xfce and what is not.
So, put me down as a positive vote for the proposal. Every Xfce app should have an "xfce" in from of its name.
Many thanks, -T
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:24:24 -0700 Todd And Margo Chester toddandmargo@gmail.com wrote:
My 2 cents (remember what you paid to read it):
I would like to be able to run the following command
rpm -qa xfce\*and see every Xfce application. Nothing left off. I want to know what is part of Xfce and what is not.
So, put me down as a positive vote for the proposal. Every Xfce app should have an "xfce" in from of its name.
Thats unlikely to ever really happen. ;)
There's a number of packages in the collection that don't start with xfce4, and I suspect upstream is unlikely to rename them all (Thunar, xfdesktop, parole, midori, xfburn, etc).
kevin
Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:55 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:39 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:32 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
Greetings.
What do folks think about:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for clarity...
what do others think?
-1.
What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.
Because if you have several installed, they ALL show up as 'Terminal' in the menu and you have no idea which one you are picking?
I think there are legit reasons to have several installed. Perhaps you use Xfce, but prefer gnome-terminal,
We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which one you choose as long as you only have one installed.
or you want them both installed in case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work?
I doubt average users really have two different programs installed in case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install another terminal. But you cannot just install another email client, you need to configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't have your mail available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt that anybody has installed two mail clients for that unlikely case.
Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal and be done with it.
In that case we should rename the package and the binary, too.
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:39:53 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which one you choose as long as you only have one installed.
Why restrict people to only installing one?
or you want them both installed in case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work?
I doubt average users really have two different programs installed in case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install another terminal. But you cannot just install another email client, you need to configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't have your mail available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt that anybody has installed two mail clients for that unlikely case.
Sure. I agree the case moves further away from reality in apps that are complex and need setup. But for example web browsers, people may need several installed to test how a site they are desiging looks in webkit, etc.
Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal and be done with it.
In that case we should rename the package and the binary, too.
Absolutely.
kevin
Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:04 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:39:53 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which one you choose as long as you only have one installed.
Why restrict people to only installing one?
I am not restricting anybody, I just said that most people will only have one and we will force them to have specific menu entries for very generic items. IMHO this is restriction.
or you want them both installed in case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work?
I doubt average users really have two different programs installed in case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install another terminal. But you cannot just install another email client, you need to configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't have your mail available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt that anybody has installed two mail clients for that unlikely case.
Sure. I agree the case moves further away from reality in apps that are complex and need setup. But for example web browsers, people may need several installed to test how a site they are desiging looks in webkit, etc.
I think web browsers are not generic. If they just embedded webkit or gecko, nobody would install two different browsers based on the same rendering engine.
Terminals on the other hand are way more generic. They just run bash.
Anyway, I am going to stop arguing here, I will (have to) live with upstream's decision.
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 19:58 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I think web browsers are not generic. If they just embedded webkit or gecko, nobody would install two different browsers based on the same rendering engine.
I have two based on Webkit installed right now...=)
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:58, Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:04 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:39:53 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which one you choose as long as you only have one installed.
Why restrict people to only installing one?
I am not restricting anybody, I just said that most people will only have one and we will force them to have specific menu entries for very generic items. IMHO this is restriction.
Currently I have several showing up in my menu's even though I didn't mean to install them (I installed Xfce, and Gnome via the DVD which has given me 2 Terminals). I also ran into people asking me this at SELF last week when they were getting away from Gnome but ending up with multiple Terminals.
I do not know what the solution is.. a) Make an xfce-menu package with the xfce items all showing up there. b) In the grand tradition of Unix jokes make xfce Terminal show up as terminal c) Put in a qualifier xfce-Terminal
On 23 June 2011 18:58, Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
[snip]
I am not restricting anybody, I just said that most people will only have one and we will force them to have specific menu entries for very generic items. IMHO this is restriction.
[snip]
I doubt average users really have two different programs installed in case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install another terminal. But you cannot just install another email client, you need to configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't have your mail available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt that anybody has installed two mail clients for that unlikely case.
[snip]
I think web browsers are not generic. If they just embedded webkit or gecko, nobody would install two different browsers based on the same rendering engine.
My two cents: some people like choice.
Example: On Linux I use three browsers: Firefox, SeaMonkey and Opera (the first two based on the same rendering engine). There are several reasons. Firefox is the one I use most, but I configured it with the most restrictive settings, such as ad blocker, flash blocker, cookie blocker, and white-list JavaScript blocker. I configured SeaMonkey to be somewhat more permissive. The other reason for these two browsers is that on Firefox I use one Yahoo account, and on SeaMonkey a different one. This is not possible with a single browser. Also I use Gmail with SeaMonkey but Google with Firefox, for a bit of privacy. I use Opera mostly because I found it somewhat better with my Hotmail account, and I have no extension or plugins for it, for those cases where I need even less restrictions.
And I have about a dozen terminals installed, though I use four or five on a regular basis. XFCE terminal is for my root shell, with a particular background colour, so that my eyes are conditioned that I know I am root just by the colour. Gnome-terminal is for general purpose uses. LxTerminal is because that is the default for LxPanel, although I don't have a compelling reason to use it. For top/htop I use xterm or aterm as they are faster and configured for smaller size.
At the moment I use only one email client (Thunderbird), but in the past on Windows I used two (Outlook and Thunderbird), each configured to fetch mail from different accounts, and I may still use two clients on Linux, as I am thinking of trying Claws.
With alacarte I modified some of the entries on the menu, such as "Terminal (Gnome)" and "Terminal (XFCE)".
I even use two panels on my desktop (Lx and XFCE) and two monitors (Conky and GkrellM).
I love choice!
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:39 +0200 Christoph Wickert wrote:
What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.
Well, sometimes people want to use other desktop's terminal / calculator / address book / whatever. But well, your proposal is still better than current situation.
One important question though: who will decide which apps get same name and use OnlyShowIn and which not?
Martin
On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 16:59 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:39 +0200 Christoph Wickert wrote:
What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.
Well, sometimes people want to use other desktop's terminal / calculator / address book / whatever. But well, your proposal is still better than current situation.
I agree: OnlyShowIn is also an improvement on the current situation, but I think a rename is still a bit better. As others have said, you might want to use Terminal in GNOME, or gnome-terminal in Xfce. I've used Terminal in GNOME before, when gnome-terminal was broken (though I wound up on lxterminal because Terminal leaked memory at the time...)
-
Adam Miller -
Adam Williamson -
Christoph Wickert -
Kevin Fenzi -
Martin Sourada -
Miro Hrončok -
Piscium -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Todd And Margo Chester -
Vitezslav Humpa