Does any Linux have windows xp style accordion menus?

[Amaury Roux]

Does Linux have the concept of simple accordion menus?

A friend of mine has convinced me to move off of Windows XP
(for obvious security reasons) and I don't want to move to
another Windows (I was just fine with XP).

I don't like Windows 8 because the classic cascaded menus
disappeared, and, while I'm sure there is a way to get them
back, I am convinced to try Kubuntu or Centos.

My main dilemma is whether I can create a simple classic
accordion menu on Linux.

You know, the kind where there is a hierarchical set of links
(aka shortcuts) in a particular directory, such that the
menu folds outward as you traverse down its multi-level tree.

Upon first inspection of my friend's Linux, I see only dumb
static single-level menus (not multi-level accordion menus).

I think the classic accordion menus got a bad rap because
they were filled to the brim with junk by programs, but if you
had maintained your own accordion menu OUTSIDE of the program
menu (like I have always done), the menu stays perfectly clean.

So all I'm asking is whether Linux can handle your basic
classic multi-level accordion style (WinXP style) personal menu?

For example:
Browsers->Privacy->Tor
Browsers->General->Firefox
Players->Video->VLC
Players->Audio->Musicbox
Editors->Video->Handbrake
Editors->Audio->Audacity
etc.

Which Linux should I install that can easily create an accordion
style menu (three levels deep should suffice)?

[Amaury Roux]

These menus got munged somehow in transport so I reproduce the
accordion style menus I am asking about.

Browsers->Privacy->Tor

Browsers->General->Firefox

Players->Video->VLC

Players->Audio->Musicbox

Editors->Video->Handbrake

Editors->Audio->Audacity

etc.

Which Linux can make these simple, classic, basic, multi-level
(3 or 4 levels deep is perfect) accordion style menus?

[Darth_Hideous]

On 2014-07-16, Amaury Roux <Ro...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> Does Linux have the concept of simple accordion menus?
>

SNIP

>
> Which Linux should I install that can easily create an accordion
> style menu (three levels deep should suffice)?

Any Linux with KDE as the DM.
Classic Menu ... arrange them as you wish.

--
"Sure, I turned down a drink once. Didn't understand the question."

[Kirk_Von_Rockstein]

On 2014-07-16, Amaury Roux <Ro...@spam.invalid> wrote:

> Amaury Roux wrote, on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:20:50 +0000:
>
>> Does Linux have the concept of simple accordion menus?

<snip>

>> So all I'm asking is whether Linux can handle your basic classic
>> multi-level accordion style (WinXP style) personal menu?
>>
>> For example:
>> Browsers->Privacy->Tor Browsers->General->Firefox Players->Video->VLC
>> Players->Audio->Musicbox Editors->Video->Handbrake
>> Editors->Audio->Audacity etc.
>>
>> Which Linux should I install that can easily create an accordion style
>> menu (three levels deep should suffice)?

<snip>

> Which Linux can make these simple, classic, basic, multi-level
> (3 or 4 levels deep is perfect) accordion style menus?

XFCE, Icewm, Fluxbox, Openbox, Blackbox, JWM and many more.
Not sure about the newer versions of KDE or Gnome as
I have not used them in years.

[BillW50]

Security updates for XP are basically for IE and that is it. As long as
your AV and third party browser supports and keeps updating security
updates, XP will be fine. I plan on using my XP machines for the next 20
years. Although third party support could change that.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center

[William Unruh]

On 2014-07-16, Amaury Roux <Ro...@spam.invalid> wrote:

Any version of Linux.
I am not sure what you are trying to describe, but for example in Magei
(which is what I happen to use) if I click on the mageia icon on the
title bar, I get a list. If I click on one of those items in the list, I
get opening beside it another list of stuff under that, and for some of
them if I click I get a third level, etc. I have no idea if this is what
you call accordion. On some I do not even have to click on an item to
get the next layer but it opens automatically. Etc.

I do not use Windows, XP or anything else, so do not know what you mean.

[Good Guy]

On 17/07/2014 00:55, BillW50 wrote:
>
> I plan on using my XP machines for the next 20 years. Although third
> party support could change that.
>

Doing what in XP? The programs you are using today may not be relevant
in 20 years time. In 20 years time things will be done by by just
thinking about them. You want need any machines to do anything.
Machines will be in Google Glass type equipment that allows your
thoughts to do something. Didn't you watch the NBC news yesterday where
the reporter took a picture of her cameraman by just thinking about him.

[Alias]

Net Runner.

--
Alias

[Good Guy]

See this link:

<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brain-waves-take-picture-with-google-glass-add-on/>

You just have to think about something and the problem is solved!!!!!!!

[Roger Blake]

On 2014-07-17, Good Guy <hello...@example.com> wrote:
> in 20 years time. In 20 years time things will be done by by just
> thinking about them. You want need any machines to do anything.

No doubt people will be lining up to get one of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUa3np4CKC4

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Amaury Roux]

Darth_Hideous wrote, on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:28:44 +0000:

> Any Linux with KDE as the DM.
> Classic Menu ... arrange them as you wish.

Googling for "KDE Classic Menu", it doesn't seem to be the
accordion style. It seems to be a single pane, that changes
(to other single panes), but it doesn't seem to simply
expand like the Windows XP one did quite nicely.

Am I wrong?

[Amaury Roux]

William Unruh wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:06:09 +0000:

> I have no idea if this is what
> you call accordion.

I don't know the official name for the Windows-style
accordion menu, but what I've seen of my friends' KDE
interface is decidedly NOT an accordion style menu.

He has a blue (K) symbol at the bottom left of his screen
which, if you click it, brings up a static box of widgets,
one each for "Favorites" "Applications", "Computer", and
"Recently Used".

Clicking on of these brings up another static pane, of
static icons, that, if you click on them, they'll execute
the desired program. Some of these icons have a secondary
pane (arrowed to the right) which again brings up a static
list, such that the end result is nothing whatsoever like
what Windows XP has for accordion menus.

What I've seen of KDE is a pile of static menus piled upon
another pile of static menus. It's not at all like the
Windows XP accordion menu.

What I'm looking for is the simplicity and ease of use
of the Windows accordion menus, in Linux.

Does it exist?

[Mark Warner]

On 07/16/2014 09:40 PM, Amaury Roux wrote:
>
> What I'm looking for is the simplicity and ease of use
> of the Windows accordion menus, in Linux.
>
> Does it exist?

No, it doesn't exist by default. But as mentioned, the KDE menu in
classic mode gets you halfway there. You can then easily configure it to
your liking.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:47:42 -0400, Mark Warner
<mhwarner.i...@gmail.com> Gave us:

>On 07/16/2014 09:40 PM, Amaury Roux wrote:
>>
>> What I'm looking for is the simplicity and ease of use
>> of the Windows accordion menus, in Linux.
>>
>> Does it exist?
>
>No, it doesn't exist by default. But as mentioned, the KDE menu in
>classic mode gets you halfway there. You can then easily configure it to
>your liking.

"Windows accordion menus"??? WTF is that? There is no such animal.

There are MANY stacked menu motifs about where one menu pops another
sub menu, etc. etc. yada yada yada. None are "accordion style".

No one has ever done menus which open up at angles like oblique views
as the menu "unfolds" into view. THAT would be actual "accordion"
behavior.

[TJ]

On 07/16/2014 09:40 PM, Amaury Roux wrote:

Your description sounds like the "application Launcher" style of menu.
Next time you visit your friend, ask him to right-click on the blue (K)
symbol, and choose "switch to classic style." (Or something similar. the
actual term varies from distro to distro.) See if that is what you're
looking for. And once you've had a look, be sure to thank your friend
for his indulgence.

TJ

[Amaury Roux]

Mark Warner wrote, on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:47:42 -0400:

> No, it doesn't exist by default. But as mentioned, the KDE menu in
> classic mode gets you halfway there. You can then easily configure it to
> your liking.

Is it as simple as creating a directory (of a certain name
and location) and then putting more directories in that
directory with the actual link (shortcut) to the program
at the bottom level?

[Amaury Roux]

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote, on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:17:24 -0700:

> No one has ever done menus which open up at angles like oblique views
> as the menu "unfolds" into view. THAT would be actual "accordion"
> behavior.

It's the classic Windows XP menu.
I called it "accordion" (for lack of a better name).

What do you call it?
Whatever it's called, that's the classic menu that works best
for me.

I just want to reproduce it on linux. That's all.

[Bit Twister]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:49:40 +0000 (UTC), Amaury Roux wrote:
>
> It's the classic Windows XP menu.

That would be Classic Menu Style on KDE desktop manager. Default on some
distribution is Launcher which is what you saw on your friends setup.
You configure classic or launcher by Right clicking the menu icon then
click the Switch to xxxxx to toggle value.

[Darth_Hideous]

Yes.
At your friends computer, right click the blue K, switch to Classic Menu
style.
The menus operate like XP and can be edited,moved,icons picked,named,
renamed,deleted,restored... years of playing here.
:)

[Amaury Roux]

TJ wrote, on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:19:58 -0400:

> Your description sounds like the "application Launcher" style of menu.
> Next time you visit your friend, ask him to right-click on the blue (K)
> symbol, and choose "switch to classic style."

AHAH! That is a very nice trick switching the menus over!
http://oi61.tinypic.com/vomnut.jpg

My friend's KDE menus were initially set, by default, to
Application Launcher Style

We right clicked on the blue K at the bottom left, and selected
Switch to Classic Menu Style

The KDE default menus are a royal mess (just like they are in WinXP!)
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2mzfqso.jpg

But, a quick look showed that they cascaded nicely:
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2qlcvuv.jpg

One question, the background for which is below:
On WinXP, it's not worth trying to keep the "default"
Start Menu clean, simply because it starts highly unorganized
and highly polluted, and, worse yet, if you clean it up, you
still have everything you install further polluting your menu.

So, on WinXP, the easiest way to maintain clean menus is
to simply create a menu directory in the All Users "Start Menu"
directory, and then whatever you put in there will never be
polluted by other programs. So, your menus stay clean for years
on end (mine have been clean for about 10 years running!)

Hence the question.

Is there a directory location in KDE where we can start building
clean classic menus that won't get polluted by the installation of
programs?

(If the question doesn't make sense, just ask & I'll clarify.)

[Amaury Roux]

Bit Twister wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:58:16 +0000:

> That would be Classic Menu Style on KDE desktop manager. Default on some
> distribution is Launcher which is what you saw on your friends setup.
> You configure classic or launcher by Right clicking the menu icon then
> click the Switch to xxxxx to toggle value.

That worked on KDE to make the menus work like XP classic menus!
http://oi61.tinypic.com/vomnut.jpg

I've had clean WinXP menus for about 10 years now, simply because
I put a folder in the WinXP Start Menu directory called "My Menu"
and under that folder are more folders, and under those folders
are the shortcuts (aka symbolic links) to the executables to run.

The strategy is to ignore the default "Programs" menu because it
is nearly impossible to keep clean, because it starts disorganized
and keeps getting disorganized every time you install a program.

So, what I do on WinXP, which has worked for more than a decade,
is create a "My Menu" hierarchy, which I manually populate with
shortcuts of my own naming convention whenever I install a program.

The result is threefold:
1. The menus stay clean and organized for a decade or more!
2. The menus are organized the way I want them to be organized!
3. The menus are named consistently the way I want them named!

Having said all that, I see the EXACT SAME PROBLEM on KDE that I
saw on Windows, which is that the default is a royal mess! :)
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2mzfqso.jpg

But, the good news is that the menus do accordion like WinXP does!
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2qlcvuv.jpg

So, all I need to do is create a SINGLE directory (called "My Menu"
or whatever), which I can then populate with the programs I use
in a hierarchy that makes sense to me.

Starting with the example "Start->Games->Board->Mahjongg" menu,
and then running a "find . -name -print" for "mahjongg", we find
this text file called a "Desktop" file:
/usr/share/applications/mahjongg.desktop

But it doesn't seem to specify the menus.
There is no directory with "menu" and "mahjongg" in it either.

Which of these are the menu directory for that "Mahjongg" shortcut?
/usr/games/gnome-mahjongg
/usr/share/gnome-mahjongg
/usr/share/app-install/desktop/gnome-mahjongg:mahjongg.desktop
/usr/share/app-install/desktop/kmahjongg:kde4__kmahjongg.desktop
/usr/share/app-install/desktop/xmahjongg:xmahjongg.desktop
/usr/share/app-install/icons/gnome-mahjongg.svg
/usr/share/app-install/icons/kmahjongg.svgz
/usr/share/applications/mahjongg.desktop
/usr/share/branding/gnome-mahjongg
/usr/share/branding/gnome-mahjongg/themes
/usr/share/branding/gnome-mahjongg/themes/postmodern.svg
etc

[bad sector]

On 07/16/2014 07:20 PM, Amaury Roux wrote:

> Which Linux should I install that can easily create an accordion
> style menu (three levels deep should suffice)?

Any recent big-10 distro with KDE amongst its offerings will give you in
that KDE window manager more cascaded menus than all versions of windows
ever produced together. In fact (i really don't wanna plug KDE but you
asked) it even has a dedicated menu editor that's about the size of
windows-8 ..except that it works.

http://distrowatch.com

You can even take any of your own user folder trees and drop it onto any
one of any nomber of taskbars anywhere on any one one of up to 20
desktops and it will turn into a cascading menu tree of its own.

Life is hard, it does take a litle getting used to

HTH

[Amaury Roux]

Darth_Hideous wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:59:04 +0000:

> The menus operate like XP and can be edited,moved,icons picked,named,
> renamed,deleted,restored... years of playing here.

One thing I've learned, over the past decade, is to never use
the menus provided by Windows, but to put up a menu right next
to those provided by Windows, which then remains clean & stable.

It's like the dilapidated shed that I have at my house. The
workmen I asked to fix it talked me into leaving it alone,
preferring instead to erect a nice new shed right next to it
instead.

That's what I want to do with the KDE classic menu.
Erect my own menu tree right next to it, called "my_menu".

Is creating that new menu in KDE as simple as Windows, in that
you just create a directory "my_menu" in a certain spot?

[William Unruh]

On 2014-07-17, Amaury Roux <Ro...@spam.invalid> wrote:

Well, you have still not described what you want. You have told us that
the KDE menu is not what you want, but y ou babble on about "accorion"
menus without every describing them.
Note that I would hate to see menus that squeezed in an out and
delivered ugly wailing sounds while they did so.

[mechanic]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 03:23:08 +0000 (UTC), Amaury Roux wrote:

> Having said all that, I see the EXACT SAME PROBLEM on KDE that I
> saw on Windows, which is that the default is a royal mess! :)
> http://oi61.tinypic.com/2mzfqso.jpg

Exactly why Ubuntu abandoned the old Menu structure in favo(u)r of
Unity.

[Edmund]

Funny that you mention a picture.
My new camera doesn't even show up when I connect ( USB ) it on my current
linux flavor. So no way I can download the pictures from it.
Lucky for me my laptop is dual boot with XP, guess what I can download the
pictures and movies perfectly with the old and outdated XP.
I hope linux will get that far too in the next 5 years or so.

Edmund

[Jonathan N. Little]

1) What NEW camera?

2) Any NEW camera uses "USB Mass Storage" mode which is camera agnostic.

3) A media card reader (some so cheap they GIVE them away) will read
your camera's media card or ANY camera's media card and do the transfer
usually faster than the camera interface and doesn't use your camera's
battery.

4) Have experience with many brands and ages of camera's and not come
across a camera yet that does not work. In face since you XPosted this
to Windows7 NG that you may be implying a defect in Linux, yet a friend
with a lousy old 3.1MP Olympus camera whose proprietary CAMEDIA software
was requited to download the SMARTMEDIA (Try finding a reader for that)
only worked in Win98 worked in Ubuntu with Shotwell.



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:36:41 +0000 (UTC)
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Funny that you mention a picture.
> My new camera doesn't even show up when I connect ( USB ) it on my
> current linux flavor. So no way I can download the pictures from it.

Don't want a solution, eh?

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Nice computers don't go down.
Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
"The Barsoom Project"

[Shadow]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 01:26:07 +0100, Good Guy <hello...@example.com>
wrote:

>On 17/07/2014 00:55, BillW50 wrote:
>>
>> I plan on using my XP machines for the next 20 years. Although third
>> party support could change that.
>>

Good luck with the hardware. I still have a win98 box
somewhere on the ranch, but I don't connect it to the net. It still
does exactly what it did 15 years ago - Doom2, card games, Diablo 1.
You could run XP virtually, but then you would be subject to
any backdoors the host OS/Hardware might have.

>
>Doing what in XP? The programs you are using today may not be relevant
>in 20 years time. In 20 years time things will be done by by just
>thinking about them. You want need any machines to do anything.
>Machines will be in Google Glass type equipment that allows your
>thoughts to do something. Didn't you watch the NBC news yesterday where
>the reporter took a picture of her cameraman by just thinking about him.
>

Thank Dog I'll be dead by then. I try to avoid any official
"behavior conditioning" media. When you see through it, you will have
nightmares, unless you are happy to join the sheeple.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[David W. Hodgins]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:36:41 -0400, Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> My new camera doesn't even show up when I connect ( USB ) it on my current
> linux flavor. So no way I can download the pictures from it.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Transfer_Protocol

It's a Microsoft protocol, which is as usual for M$, is designed to
prevent other operating systems from working with those devices,
until the protocol has been reverse engineered, and the appropriate
software written.. To access such a device under linux, you need to
have the right mtp packages.

I haven't followed this thread enough to know which distribution of
linux is on your system. I'm using Mageia 4, and with the following
packages installed ...
$ rpm -qa|grep mtp
kio-mtp-0-0.git20131020.1.mga4
gvfs-mtp-1.18.3-1.mga4
libmtp-debuginfo-1.1.6-2.mga4
kio4-smtp-4.12.5-1.mga4
lib64mtp9-1.1.6-2.mga4
mtpfs-1.1-3.mga4

The program gphoto2 has no problem accessing mtp camera photos.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

[John Smith]

On 7/16/2014 6:20 PM, Amaury Roux wrote:
> Does Linux have the concept of simple accordion menus?

Long time windows user and not sure of what exactly you mean. But I
think Linux Mint or Zorin OS might be what you're looking for. Zorin OS
has a built in "look changer", Windows XP is one of the choices.

[TJ]

On 07/16/2014 11:07 PM, Amaury Roux wrote:

> Is there a directory location in KDE where we can start building
> clean classic menus that won't get polluted by the installation of
> programs?
>
> (If the question doesn't make sense, just ask & I'll clarify.)
>

First, one caveat: All of my recent experience is with the Mageia
distro. Other distros may be different in some details.

In Mageia, if you right-click on the widget to bring up the menu (your
"blue (K)," my bubbling cauldron), you'll see something like, "Edit
Applications." That brings up the menu editor, which will allow you to
restructure the menu pretty much the way you want. If you don't like
where the installer puts a particular new program launcher in the menu,
you can move it. Be aware, though, that if you later remove the app
package, it probably won't find the launcher in it's new location, so
you may have to do your own housekeeping in that case.

One more thing... Try a simple edit first, then try to save the new
menu. If you aren't allowed to do so, the file is probably set up to
belong to root, even though it's in the user's directory. (Mageia does
this, other distros may not.) Simply changing the permissions or
ownership of that file (must be done as root) will take care of that.

If your friend is agreeable, I advise that you ask him to create a new
user, just for you, so you don't muck up his menus and whatever when you
wish to experiment.

TJ

[TJ]

Ah, I see what you want to do. You'd like to have the application
launcher, or a second application launcher, look for YOUR custom-made
file/directory, while leaving the system's file/directory for the system
to play with as it sees fit.

I see no reason why that can't be done, though Linux isn't set up to
make it as easy as you describe for XP. Personally, I've never had a
desire to do anything like that, so I don't know all that would need to
be done to make it work. And I don't see the current classic menu as the
"mess" you describe, either.

At least one config file would need editing, but I have no idea which
one. Probably more than one, to make it do what you want efficiently.
Your request is beyond my ability to help.

TJ

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:36:41 +0000, Edmund wrote:

> My new camera doesn't even show up when I connect ( USB ) it on my current
> linux flavor. So no way I can download the pictures from it.

When Google deprecated USB in favor of MTP, not all Linux flavors
caught up. I think Windows was pretty quick, but Redhat flavors
still, to my knowledge, don't have native MTP drivers.

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:43:26 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:

> To access such a device under linux, you need to
> have the right mtp packages.

The Redhat flavors, I think, are the only ones
currently lacking in native MTP capabilities.

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

op 17/07/14 14:36 schreef Edmund:

You are again behind the times.
Instead of moaning about Linux you should try to use it :)

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:32:58 +0100, mechanic wrote:

>> Having said all that, I see the EXACT SAME PROBLEM on KDE that I
>> saw on Windows, which is that the default is a royal mess!

>> http://oi61.tinypic.com/2mzfqso.jpg
>
> Exactly why Ubuntu abandoned the old Menu structure in favo(u)r of
> Unity.

I don't disagree that *all* Windows & Linux default menus are,
at least out of the box, an organizational disaster.

But ... the Centos & Unity menu solution is the wrong approach.

The problem isn't the mechanics of the menus (there's nothing
wrong with Windows95/XP/7 cascade mechanics.

The problem is that the OS developers are, as a lot, a highly
disorganized bunch, who build workarounds into their lack of
organizations (such as "recently used" or "favorites") just
so they themselves can find their own stuff.

So, instead of creating new menu mechanics, as Unity & Centos
did, the solution should simply be to allow the user to easily
organize their menus, and, to help out, to give them a basic
structure that makes sense.

Of course, the problem there is making sense to the masses.
For some reason, the masses may think "Utility" or "Misc" or
"Internet" are reasonable "drawers" to put things into, so
that's the problem from the start. People ARE disorganized.

I, for one, never use those categories on Windows.
I have "Browsers" and "Newsreaders" and "Terminals" and
"Mailers" and "VOIP", etc., but, again, the point is simply
that the solution to the problem isn't to create a new menu
system.

The solution is simply to organize the existing menus.
Just as we organize our clothes in our closet.

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

op 17/07/14 08:23 schreef Amaury Roux:

No need for making such directories.
You can edit the Classic style KDE menu at will from it's own editor.
For example, you could set a new top entry called Old Menu and dump the
present set up into it.
The you can set up new top items exactly like you described.

KDE is in the desktop world synonymous with configurable.

Just a pity the future KDE5 does at present not have an equivalent for
the Classic Menu.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Konstantin Dimitriadis wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:32:58 +0100, mechanic wrote:
>
>>> >>Having said all that, I see the EXACT SAME PROBLEM on KDE that I
>>> >>saw on Windows, which is that the default is a royal mess!
>>> >> http://oi61.tinypic.com/2mzfqso.jpg
>> >
>> >Exactly why Ubuntu abandoned the old Menu structure in favo(u)r of
>> >Unity.

> I don't disagree that*all* Windows & Linux default menus are,

> at least out of the box, an organizational disaster.
>
> But ... the Centos & Unity menu solution is the wrong approach.
>
> The problem isn't the mechanics of the menus (there's nothing
> wrong with Windows95/XP/7 cascade mechanics.

Cascading windows don't work easily with touch. Since touch on
smartphones and tablets are on the rise is why developers are looking
for alternative mechanics.

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 03:07:45 +0000, Amaury Roux wrote:

> The KDE default menus are a royal mess (just like they are in WinXP!)
> http://oi61.tinypic.com/2mzfqso.jpg

Exactly my point!

The problem with all existing out of the box menus (Windows & Linux)
is not that the mechanics are wrong (well, Centos & Unity got it wrong),
but that the organization is a mirror on the developer's mindset.

In other words, the menu organization, out of the box, is a shambles.

The real solution is to stop thinking like a UNIX/Windows chaotic
development environment, and to think like the brain of a user.

The user doesn't store things in his sock drawer by brand name, for
example, so why does Windows organize almost everything by the
name of the company that makes it?

I would wager there are not more than about a dozen top-level categories
(e.g., browsers, mailers, newsreaders, printers, etc.) and far
fewer lower-level categories, that organize *all* our applications.

Three levels would fit most applications, for example:
editors->photo editors->irfanview,mspaint,kolourpaint,gimp, etc.
yet, you'll never see such organization in any default os
(certainly even less so on Android & iOS).

If anyone wants to hire me to solve the entire crossplatform
menuing system, let me know because it's so very easy to solve
for so many users that I find it unconscionable that the solution
the operating system developers take is to simply develop a new
menu mechanics.

It's the wrong solution to a very simple, but pervasive problem!

[Amaury Roux]

TJ wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:42:09 -0400:

> In Mageia, if you right-click on the widget to bring up the menu (your
> "blue (K)," my bubbling cauldron), you'll see something like, "Edit
> Applications." That brings up the menu editor

Nice. Perfect! Thanks. That also worked on KDE.

So, That's half the problem right there!
http://oi62.tinypic.com/33z7k46.jpg

> Be aware, though, that if you later remove the app
> package, it probably won't find the launcher in it's new
> location, so you may have to do your own housekeeping
> in that case.

The second part of the problem is simply creating
a single additional menu (named, for example, "my_menu").

I've learned, it's not worth the effort to keep the
bathroom clean if the kids keep messing up the toothpaste,
so, I maintain my own bathroom, and let them mess up theirs.

Likewise, with menus. I don't want to fight the Windows
or Linux default menus, which start too disorganized to
fix, and which just get worse from there.

All I need is a single "my_menu" which will accordion
into the subsequent functional categories that I use daily.

So far, I've not been able to make that top-level entry.
I can only make sub-menu entries as shown below ...
http://oi57.tinypic.com/25hzq6u.jpg

[Amaury Roux]

William Unruh wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:06:45 +0000:

> Well, you have still not described what you want. You have told us that

> the KDE menu is not what you want, but you babble on about "accordion"

> menus without every describing them.

I apologize for not having the vocabulary to describe the menus
that I want, other than to say the WinXP classic style menus is
exactly what I want.

Luckily, KDE has a "Switch to Classic Menu Style" which is
exactly what I want.

That's the first half of the two-part problem that everyone has
with menus.

1. A menu mechanics that they like (I like WinXP classic style!)
2. A menu organization that makes sense (all are a disorganized mess
that just gets worse over time).

My simple solution to that second problem is now where I'm
focusing my effort on the "KDE Menu Editor.


All I need is to create a SINGLE menu item (called "my_menu" or
whatever) where the operating system isn't going to mess with it,
nor the applications installer. Just me.

That way my menu hierarchy stays clean, and is easy to organize,
and it contains exactly the organizational structure I desire.

At the moment, I'm working on creating a top-level "my_menu"
but so far, I've only been able to create sub level entries.

[William Unruh]

On 2014-07-17, Amaury Roux <Ro...@spam.invalid> wrote:

> William Unruh wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:06:45 +0000:
>
>> Well, you have still not described what you want. You have told us that
>> the KDE menu is not what you want, but you babble on about "accordion"
>> menus without every describing them.
>
> I apologize for not having the vocabulary to describe the menus
> that I want, other than to say the WinXP classic style menus is
> exactly what I want.

Since I do not use windows I have no idea what you are describing or
what feature of the Windows menus you like.

If you mean that when you click on a multiple item in one menu pane, a
new menu pane comes up without closing the old one and beside the old
one? Then yes, Linux has that. And I agree it is nicer than when the old
menu pane closes and the new one replaces it. If you mean that when you
put the cursor over a menu item with a submenu that submenu opens
automaticlaly beside the current menu pane, etc, then your Linux has
that as well.

>
> Luckily, KDE has a "Switch to Classic Menu Style" which is
> exactly what I want.

Apparenly you have found it.

>
> That's the first half of the two-part problem that everyone has
> with menus.
>
> 1. A menu mechanics that they like (I like WinXP classic style!)
> 2. A menu organization that makes sense (all are a disorganized mess
> that just gets worse over time).

??? My desktop also just gets worse over time.
If you mean that the OS itself inserts items into the menu when you
install a new program (or rather the installation program inserts it)
and you do not like how it is inserted, well, the source code is yours
to play with. Or as you say, you can set up your own menus and insert
items into it as you will and where you will.

[William Unruh]

On 2014-07-17, Konstantin Dimitriadis <dimit...@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 03:07:45 +0000, Amaury Roux wrote:
>
>> The KDE default menus are a royal mess (just like they are in WinXP!)
>> http://oi61.tinypic.com/2mzfqso.jpg
>
> Exactly my point!
>
> The problem with all existing out of the box menus (Windows & Linux)
> is not that the mechanics are wrong (well, Centos & Unity got it wrong),
> but that the organization is a mirror on the developer's mindset.
>
> In other words, the menu organization, out of the box, is a shambles.
>
> The real solution is to stop thinking like a UNIX/Windows chaotic
> development environment, and to think like the brain of a user.

The developers ARE also users, and they are thinking like that user.
Your problem is that you think that you are typical of most other users.
You are not. You have your own peculiarities that others might well
throw their hands up in horror at. The key is configurability-- so you
can if you wish, change things to the way you happen, in your confusion,
to want.

>
> The user doesn't store things in his sock drawer by brand name, for
> example, so why does Windows organize almost everything by the
> name of the company that makes it?

And on most computers you do not have 16 menu items for almost the same
kind of program, while you may well hav 16 pairs of socks, all the same.
So while you might want your underwear to the right of the socks in the
same drawer, others might want them in a different drawer. People's
tastes differ.

>
> I would wager there are not more than about a dozen top-level categories
> (e.g., browsers, mailers, newsreaders, printers, etc.) and far
> fewer lower-level categories, that organize *all* our applications.

Maybe for you. Maybe not for someone else. Get over it. You are not
typical.

>
> Three levels would fit most applications, for example:
> editors->photo editors->irfanview,mspaint,kolourpaint,gimp, etc.
> yet, you'll never see such organization in any default os
> (certainly even less so on Android & iOS).

And here you are trying to impose your own vision of order on everyone
else.

>
> If anyone wants to hire me to solve the entire crossplatform
> menuing system, let me know because it's so very easy to solve
> for so many users that I find it unconscionable that the solution
> the operating system developers take is to simply develop a new
> menu mechanics.

Under Linux you can volunteer. And then you can be a little dictator
imposing your warped view of the world on others.

>
> It's the wrong solution to a very simple, but pervasive problem!

Just what Lenin said about the political situation in Russia.

>

[Amaury Roux]

John Smith wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:18:02 -0500:

> Long time windows user and not sure of what exactly you mean. But I
> think Linux Mint or Zorin OS might be what you're looking for. Zorin OS
> has a built in "look changer", Windows XP is one of the choices.

Luckily, KDE has exactly what I need, thanks to the advice here.
I right clicked on the "blue (K)" to select "Switch to Classic Menu Style".
That gave me the "accordion" style Windows XP "classic" menu.

Then, I right clicked on the "blue (K)" again, to select "Edit Applications".
That brings up the "KDE Menu Editor".

Just as with Windows, the default menu organization is a disaster!
- Debian
- Development
- Education
- Games
- Graphics
- Internet
- Multimedia
- Office
- Science & Math
- Settings
- System
- Utilities
- Lost & Found
- Help

Just as with Windows, it's not even worth cleaning up the messy
default menus, especially since installing programs just adds
to the mess.

The best solution is simply to create a single top-level menu, called
whatever (e.g., "my_menu") & from there, I create my own *functional*
structure that makes sense to me (editors, browsers, mailers, etc.).

As long as an additional menu item can be managed at the top level,
I'll be fine.

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:27:07 +0500, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

> You are again behind the times.
> Instead of moaning about Linux you should try to use it

The funny thing is that Linux is actually AHEAD of Windows
when it comes to interfacing seamlessly with iOS devices!

On Linux, you need install nothing to connect an iOS device
by USB cable. Once connected, the iOS device is mounted
*read/write both ways* so you can copy files back and forth
(such as photos, videos, documents, etc.). You can even access
the private space of smart apps such as VLC, but not the dumb
apps (i.e., restrictive) that are provided by Apple by default.

Contrast that with Windows, where the only viable solution
is to install 900MB of Apple bloatware just so that you can
transfer files *one way*!

So, while Windows is ahead of Linux with MTP for interfacing
with digital cameras and android devices, Linux is well
ahead of Windows when it comes to interfacing with USB iOS
devices!

[Coyo]

The participant Amaury Roux ( Ro...@spam.invalid )
on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 06:20 PM
In [ lq71ci$l8s$1...@news.albasani.net ]
wrote a piece of great literature to alt.os.linux
as follows:

> My main dilemma is whether I can create a simple classic
> accordion menu on Linux.

Yes. Pretty Sure GNOME 2.x, KDE 3.x and several other desktop
environments can be set that way. It's a pretty basic feature. GNOME 3
and KDE 4/5 do NOT have "accordian" menus. KDE 4/5 has "folding menus"
where you select a category, and it slides into the next rung in the
heirarchy. It doesn't have the visual expansion I think you're talking
about.

[TJ]

Something you need to be aware of...

While certain parts of some Linux DTEs(DeskTop Environments) have been
designed to have a look and feel similar to Windows, Linux is NOT
Windows. The basic organization is entirely different. So, procedures
that work rather easily in Windows are likely to not be so easy in
Linux, and vice versa.

That said, there may be an easier way to accomplish what you want in KDE
with Folder View, though most Linux users will cringe in horror. Try
creating a my_menu directory, with sub-directories organized as you want
them, say games, browsers, mail, office, whatever. Nest them if you
want. In the lowest ones, place shortcuts to the various apps you want
to use. Now, put a shortcut to my_menu on the desktop.

When you hover your cursor over the my_menu directory shortcut, you'll
see a "+" and an up arrow. The "+" selects the directory for context
menu operations. The up arrow, only visible with directories,
initializes a cascade of the contents of the directory. Moving your
cursor to a directory in that view will cascade its contents, and so on.
When you finally get to the app you want, clicking on that shortcut
should bring it up.

That may accomplish what you're looking for.

TJ

[Amaury Roux]

TJ wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:52:42 -0400:

> Ah, I see what you want to do. You'd like to have the application
> launcher, or a second application launcher, look for YOUR custom-made
> file/directory, while leaving the system's file/directory for the system
> to play with as it sees fit.

Exactly! You understand me! Thanks!

The reason for the second application launcher is twofold:
1. The default is too disorganized to be worth cleaning up, and,
2. It just gets messier over time (because applications add to it).

So, what has worked for me on Windows since Windows 95 days is
to just create my own second launcher. This second hierarchy stays
clean for years because it's organized EXACTLY the way I want it,
and, because no programs pollute it automagically.

I have no need for "recently used" or "favorites" or any of those
other things that everyone else needs just to find their programs,
simply because mine are always found exactly in the spot I put them.

> I see no reason why that can't be done, though Linux isn't set up to
> make it as easy as you describe for XP.

Bummer. With XP, you just put a folder of any name in a certain
place and that's about it, as it's as easy as humans can make it!

From that top-level folder, the entire hierarchy treated like any
other folder where you can create sub folders & slide shortcuts into
those subfolders at will. As long as you put that top-level folder
in a certain place, it acts exactly like the Windows Start Menu,
only it's not polluted over time, so it works for you for a decade,
and is easily transferred to a new computer without any problems
whatsoever. I've been doing this ever since Windows 95 came out.

> Personally, I've never had a desire to do anything like that, so
> I don't know all that would need to be done to make it work.
> And I don't see the current classic menu as the "mess" you
> describe, either.

Of course, that's a matter of opinion! :)
If I stuck all my socks in a single drawer, most people might find
that just fine. But, I like to have black dress socks separated
from white sport socks separated from my boxer shorts. On most
menus, they stick all the underthings together into "Utilities"
or "System" or, heaven forbid, into "Misc".

> At least one config file would need editing, but I have no idea which
> one. Probably more than one, to make it do what you want efficiently.
> Your request is beyond my ability to help.

Thanks TJ for trying.
What I want is what I'd think everyone would want.

Would you rather walk into closet, and have to re-organize someone
else's pre-existing clutter the way you'd organize it, or would you
rather bring your clothes, one by one, into an empty closet, organizing
it the way you want it organized from the start.

Then, once you've organized your closet, would you want someone else
to just put the washed clothes away where they want to put it (usually
as a big pile dumped on the floor), or would you want to put the clothes
away the way you've organized your closet?

That analogy is why I want only two things (I already have with Windows):
1. To start a menu that I don't have to clean up from the start, and,
2. To have Linux stay away from polluting that menu automagically.

[Edmund]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:06:55 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Edmund wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 01:26:07 +0100, Good Guy wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/07/2014 00:55, BillW50 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I plan on using my XP machines for the next 20 years. Although third
>>>> party support could change that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Doing what in XP? The programs you are using today may not be
>>> relevant in 20 years time. In 20 years time things will be done by by
>>> just thinking about them. You want need any machines to do anything.
>>> Machines will be in Google Glass type equipment that allows your
>>> thoughts to do something. Didn't you watch the NBC news yesterday
>>> where the reporter took a picture of her cameraman by just thinking
>>> about him.
>>
>> Funny that you mention a picture.
>> My new camera doesn't even show up when I connect ( USB ) it on my
>> current linux flavor. So no way I can download the pictures from it.
>> Lucky for me my laptop is dual boot with XP, guess what I can download
>> the pictures and movies perfectly with the old and outdated XP.
>> I hope linux will get that far too in the next 5 years or so.
>>
>>
> 1) What NEW camera?

Doesn't matter but my cameraphone Samsung K zoom

>
> 2) Any NEW camera uses "USB Mass Storage" mode which is camera agnostic.

And?

>
> 3) A media card reader (some so cheap they GIVE them away) will read
> your camera's media card or ANY camera's media card and do the transfer
> usually faster than the camera interface and doesn't use your camera's
> battery.

I didn't ask such a thing and it not handy to get the battery out get the
memory card out and so on.

>
> 4) Have experience with many brands and ages of camera's and not come
> across a camera yet that does not work.

Good for you and your point exactly is?
I have a bunch of USB sticks and some are working under some linux flavors
and some are working under other linux flavors.

Pretty much as I said many times, how you want your linux meal sir,
without salt or without pepper.

> In face since you XPosted this
> to Windows7 NG

Why always so paranoid? I didn't POST anything I just replied!

> that you may be implying a defect in Linux, yet a friend
> with a lousy old 3.1MP Olympus camera whose proprietary CAMEDIA software
> was requited to download the SMARTMEDIA (Try finding a reader for that)
> only worked in Win98 worked in Ubuntu with Shotwell.

Great very nice for him. Now I am waiting for linux to work with ALL MY
stuff and USB sticks.
That shotwell indeed does a little more then UbuntuStudio LTS V 12? , it
sees the camera but it doesn't download.

Ubuntu studio LTS 14.04 does see and download the pictures but refuses to
read USB sticks that work fine in mint.
Mint don't work with the camera and USB sticks that work under US :-)
I am NOT joking, this is a problem going on for several years.

Edmund

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:40:56 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Cascading windows don't work easily with touch. Since touch on
> smartphones and tablets are on the rise is why developers are looking
> for alternative mechanics.

The "touch" aspect is a good point, which I didn't address.
In fact, I hadn't even known that there might be Linux touch
operating systems out there. Are there?

My only "touch" devices are mobile devices, where I maintain a single
desktop page of organized apps. On iOS, it's supremely difficult to
organize, because (a) every single app must have a desktop icon, and,
worse yet, (b) you can't put anything in two places, and, just to make
you miserable, (c) you can only have one level of hierarchy, and, to
irritate you a bit more, (d) you can't change the name of the app
to be consistent with your naming conventions.

On my Android touch device, luckily, the first two organizational
disasters don't exist, so there is only left the lessor organizational
inconveniences that you can only have one level of hierarchy, and,
you can't change the name of the app to be consistent with your naming
conventions.

So, Android touch devices are, in effect, far easier to maintain than
iOS touch devices, while Windows XP classic menus are the par excellence
standard for ease of maintenance and use for mouse-based menus.

Does Linux actually have a touch-based operating system out there?

[Amaury Roux]

Dirk T. Verbeek wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:36:52 +0500:

> You can edit the Classic style KDE menu at will from it's own editor.

I was hoping not to have to mess with the huge mess that is
the default. I wanted to start clean, with my own menu, leaving
the existing mess as is. That way, future installed programs
pollute the existing mess, and they don't touch my clean menu
structure. The only time my menu would be touched is when I edit
it.

> For example, you could set a new top entry called Old Menu
> and dump the present set up into it.
> The you can set up new top items exactly like you described.

That's interesting.
It's the exact opposite approach I was thinking of though.

1. I was hoping to create a new (clean) top-level menu.
2. What you suggest is to move the existing mess into a clean menu
which, in effect, cleans out the existing menus. Right?

> KDE is in the desktop world synonymous with configurable.

I like that! This is why I am going to choose KDE over GNOME
or Unity or Centos menus!

> Just a pity the future KDE5 does at present not have an
> equivalent for the Classic Menu.

Oh oh! Windows 8 tried the same mistake as Coke did, and, now
you're telling me KDE is headlong making the exact same mistake!

They had a good thing going but it was boring.
They all wanted a *NEW LOOK AND FEEL!* (or a new taste).

The problem is/was that there was nothing wrong with the old stuff.
Yea, it worked, so it was boring. Yea, people *think* something is
new and better if it looks *different*.

But, in the case of Windows classic menus, you really can't beat
their usability and utility. The only thing you can (easily) beat
is their immense disorganization. And, the easiest way to do that
is to maintain your own menu, which, after all, changes only slowly
over the decades.

For example, I used to have a directory for CDROM programs, but,
then I had to change the name to CDROM-DVD programs, and then,
a few years later, I had to add BLUERAY to the name.

Point is, the goal is a single menu that:
1. No programs ever pollute, and,
2. I can organize it from scratch.

If I have to create a single (clean) menu, and then pollute it with
the current disorganization, which leaves me a (clean) original menu,
what happens when new programs are installed?

1. Do they pollute the old (moved) menu? ... or ...
2. Do they pollute my new (emptied & re-organized) menu?

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:08:36 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

> The developers ARE also users, and they are thinking like that user.

I understand that you say the developers are users, but, I certainly
hope that no user is as disorganized as what Windows and KDE developers
gave us by way of menus, at least out of the box!

> Your problem is that you think that you are typical of most other users.

I see the kluge of "Recently Used" in KDE, so, that tells me right
away that developers know they and their users can't even find their
own applications without a crutch!

Ask yourself this question:
Q: Why is that crutch there?

It's because people can't find their own stuff.
The problem isn't the menu mechanics.
It's the organization, by default, is a royal mess.

And, it's because they don't give the user an easy way to
organize their own menus, from the start.

I doubt the OP will succeed, not for want of trying, but because KDE
doesn't allow a user-defined menu.

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:48:33 -0500
Konstantin Dimitriadis <dimit...@example.com> wrote:

> Does Linux actually have a touch-based operating system out there?

Yah, Android.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Nice computers don't go down.
Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
"The Barsoom Project"

[William Unruh]

On 2014-07-17, Konstantin Dimitriadis <dimit...@example.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:08:36 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> The developers ARE also users, and they are thinking like that user.
>
> I understand that you say the developers are users, but, I certainly
> hope that no user is as disorganized as what Windows and KDE developers
> gave us by way of menus, at least out of the box!
>
>> Your problem is that you think that you are typical of most other users.
>
> I see the kluge of "Recently Used" in KDE, so, that tells me right
> away that developers know they and their users can't even find their
> own applications without a crutch!
>
> Ask yourself this question:
> Q: Why is that crutch there?

Because the program you used yesterday is highly likely to be the
program you also use today. So that makes it easier. No matter how
organized a menu, it is easier to click on one entry than to unfold a
hierachy of menus to got to the program.

>
> It's because people can't find their own stuff.
> The problem isn't the menu mechanics.
> It's the organization, by default, is a royal mess.
>
> And, it's because they don't give the user an easy way to
> organize their own menus, from the start.

You are looking at the world thought a prejudiced eye. As I said above,
it is not because "people cannot find their own stuff". It makes things
a bit easier, no matter how well organized. Do you hang up the clothes
you are likely to wear tomorrow into the recesses of your closet and the
depths of your drawers? Or do you leave them out to get at quickly
tomorrow?

>
> I doubt the OP will succeed, not for want of trying, but because KDE
> doesn't allow a user-defined menu.

It has been pointed out how to do it, but you do not want to hear.

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

op 17/07/14 22:58 schreef Amaury Roux:

I didn't think of the future 'pollution' by new programs being
installed, a real issue in the way of your goal.

But I'm sure the changes you would make to the existing menu are going
to be saved somewhere and I'd be surprised if this Linux/KDE
configuration file isn't editable or can at least be copied.

Now to find it...

[Martin]

On 07/17/2014 01:25 AM, Amaury Roux wrote:

>
> These menus got munged somehow in transport so I reproduce the
> accordion style menus I am asking about.
> Browsers->Privacy->Tor
>
> Browsers->General->Firefox
>
> Players->Video->VLC
>
> Players->Audio->Musicbox
>
> Editors->Video->Handbrake
>
> Editors->Audio->Audacity
>
> etc.

From that description I believe you are talking about an ordinary
cascading start menu. The term "accordion" has a different meaning in
user interface design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accordion_%28GUI%29


> Which Linux can make these simple, classic, basic, multi-level
> (3 or 4 levels deep is perfect) accordion style menus?
>

I'd say the majority of distributions come with a window manager
displaying those menus. If you have older hardware and if you like the
feel of Windows XP, try Salix:

http://www.salixos.org/

By all means, linux is free of charge, so go forth and try a few more
distros:

http://distrowatch.com/

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:30:26 -0400, TJ wrote:

> While certain parts of some Linux DTEs(DeskTop Environments) have been
> designed to have a look and feel similar to Windows, Linux is NOT
> Windows. The basic organization is entirely different.

No it's not. (IMHO)

At least not with respect to a user launching apps.

How is launching a browser different on Windows than on Linux?
How is launching a newsreader different on Windows than on Linux?
How is reading email different on Windows than on Linux?s

With respect to launching apps, the same organization that works
for Windows will work exactly the same on Linux.

The only difference is the path of the shortcut on Windows is
C:\Program Files\Brand Name\More Brand Names\Executable.exe
e.g., C:\Program Files\Mozilla\Mozilla_Firefox\Firefox.exe

While the symbolic link on Linux resolves to something like:
/usr/bin/some_program_name (e.g., /usr/bin/firefox)

But the menu item for both is the same:
MainMenu->Browser Menu->Firefox

[Jonathan N. Little]

Edmund wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:06:55 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>

>> that you may be implying a defect in Linux, yet a friend
>> with a lousy old 3.1MP Olympus camera whose proprietary CAMEDIA software
>> was requited to download the SMARTMEDIA (Try finding a reader for that)
>> only worked in Win98 worked in Ubuntu with Shotwell.
>
> Great very nice for him. Now I am waiting for linux to work with ALL MY
> stuff and USB sticks.

Now you are saying USB thumbdrive that somehow is OS specific? Really!
Unless you format it as something other than FAT/FAT32/NTSF then
*Windows* will not be able to read it, but not a problem with Linux.

> That shotwell indeed does a little more then UbuntuStudio LTS V 12? , it
> sees the camera but it doesn't download.

Shotwell is just an application, you can install it in the "Studio"
version of Ubuntu. But back yo your camera*PHONE* and not *camera* as
you first penned, IIRC in 12.04 you need to install mtpfs for MTP
support. I created a udev rule to automount my Asus MeMo tablet on my
wife's 12.04 system. In 12.10+ it is not necessary MTP support is OOTB
and works just fine on my 14.04 laptop.

In 12.04 your can install gMTP, a nice GUI app to mount your *phone*:
<https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/precise/gmtp/>

>
> Ubuntu studio LTS 14.04 does see and download the pictures but refuses to
> read USB sticks that work fine in mint.
> Mint don't work with the camera and USB sticks that work under US :-)
> I am NOT joking, this is a problem going on for several years.
>

The only issue I have had with a thumbdrive in Linux was a Dell *512MB*
well used stick, 512MB should clue you into the age, and I think it is
because of a physical hardware issue...I would not put stock in its
reliability.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:48:33 -0500
> Konstantin Dimitriadis <dimit...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Does Linux actually have a touch-based operating system out there?
>
> Yah, Android.

And what Shuttleworth is aiming for with Unity on Ubuntu.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Amaury Roux wrote:
> TJ wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:52:42 -0400:
>
>> Ah, I see what you want to do. You'd like to have the application
>> launcher, or a second application launcher, look for YOUR custom-made
>> file/directory, while leaving the system's file/directory for the system
>> to play with as it sees fit.
>
> Exactly! You understand me! Thanks!
>
> The reason for the second application launcher is twofold:
> 1. The default is too disorganized to be worth cleaning up, and,
> 2. It just gets messier over time (because applications add to it).
>
> So, what has worked for me on Windows since Windows 95 days is
> to just create my own second launcher. This second hierarchy stays
> clean for years because it's organized EXACTLY the way I want it,
> and, because no programs pollute it automagically.
>

I think where is problem here is there is a fundamental difference in
how the DE in Windows vs Linux processing the IU menus. In Windows the
start menus is processed by the file manager Explore and reference
Shortcut files in a nested tree in the filesystem, e.g,
"%APPDATA%\Microsoft/Windows/Start Menu/Programs". But Linux uses a
configuration database for the menu, which for example in GNOME you can
exit with alacarte.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Personally while fixing other people's system I find regardless how easy
it may be, most people *do not* organize *their* stuff on computers,
unless you consider "All your crap in one sack" or "Leave it where it
drops" as an organizational strategy! I have seen enough of Windows XP
Start Menu Scroll-Of-Death or desktop that is the Iowa-Cornfield-Of-Icons!

I have always used a hierarchical system for organizing my stuff over
the years that makes is easy for me to keep track of some 100GB of data.
But most people simply don't. And since is seems impossible to predict
one universal way to organize stuff to suit everybody, developers have
turned to *Search* as the strategy to help people find their stuff. That
is why you are seeing the move away from "Start Menus".

Is Search more efficient than an organize Menu or filesystem? No. But
since most people cannot seem to manage the latter, then developers have
move to employing Search to help the poor beggars.

[Jonathan N. Little]

How the menu information is stored and generated *is* different on Linux
DEs than Windows. So no it is not the same.

[Edmund]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:25:28 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Edmund wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:06:55 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
>>
>>> that you may be implying a defect in Linux, yet a friend with a lousy
>>> old 3.1MP Olympus camera whose proprietary CAMEDIA software was
>>> requited to download the SMARTMEDIA (Try finding a reader for that)
>>> only worked in Win98 worked in Ubuntu with Shotwell.
>>
>> Great very nice for him. Now I am waiting for linux to work with ALL MY
>> stuff and USB sticks.
>
> Now you are saying USB thumbdrive that somehow is OS specific? Really!

Yes like I do several years.

> Unless you format it as something other than FAT/FAT32/NTSF then
> *Windows* will not be able to read it, but not a problem with Linux.

I tell you it is linux which does not read and/or write to it.
If I did mention windows it was only to show that windows CAN read and
write to it.

>
>> That shotwell indeed does a little more then UbuntuStudio LTS V 12? ,
>> it sees the camera but it doesn't download.
>
> Shotwell is just an application, you can install it in the "Studio"
> version of Ubuntu. But back yo your camera*PHONE* and not *camera* as
> you first penned, IIRC in 12.04 you need to install mtpfs for MTP
> support. I created a udev rule to automount my Asus MeMo tablet on my
> wife's 12.04 system. In 12.10+ it is not necessary MTP support is OOTB
> and works just fine on my 14.04 laptop.

Great, I am really happy for you, what about the 2 laptops and 2 desktops
here that - depending on what linux flavor- do NOT read/write to it?

>
> In 12.04 your can install gMTP, a nice GUI app to mount your *phone*:
> <https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/precise/gmtp/>

I take a look at it but does it really explain the USB weirdness? I don't
think so.

>
>
>> Ubuntu studio LTS 14.04 does see and download the pictures but refuses
>> to read USB sticks that work fine in mint.
>> Mint don't work with the camera and USB sticks that work under US :-)
>> I am NOT joking, this is a problem going on for several years.
>>
>>
> The only issue I have had with a thumbdrive in Linux was a Dell *512MB*
> well used stick, 512MB should clue you into the age, and I think it is
> because of a physical hardware issue...I would not put stock in its
> reliability.

Think about the following,
Mint can read stick A B and C
Ubuntu 12.xx Cannot
Ubuntu can read stick D E F G H
Mint can not
Ubuntu 14.04 can read more but not some of which Mint 13 can read.

Explain please.

Edmund

[Edmund]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:27:07 +0500, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

> op 17/07/14 14:36 schreef Edmund:

>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 01:26:07 +0100, Good Guy wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/07/2014 00:55, BillW50 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I plan on using my XP machines for the next 20 years. Although third
>>>> party support could change that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Doing what in XP? The programs you are using today may not be
>>> relevant in 20 years time. In 20 years time things will be done by by
>>> just thinking about them. You want need any machines to do anything.
>>> Machines will be in Google Glass type equipment that allows your
>>> thoughts to do something. Didn't you watch the NBC news yesterday
>>> where the reporter took a picture of her cameraman by just thinking
>>> about him.
>>
>> Funny that you mention a picture.
>> My new camera doesn't even show up when I connect ( USB ) it on my
>> current linux flavor. So no way I can download the pictures from it.
>> Lucky for me my laptop is dual boot with XP, guess what I can download
>> the pictures and movies perfectly with the old and outdated XP.
>> I hope linux will get that far too in the next 5 years or so.
>>

>> Edmund

>>
>>
>>
> You are again behind the times.

> Instead of moaning about Linux you should try to use it :)

How do you imagine I found out it doesn't work einstein?

Edmund

[Jonathan N. Little]

Edmund wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:25:28 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>

>> In 12.04 your can install gMTP, a nice GUI app to mount your *phone*:
>> <https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/precise/gmtp/>
>
> I take a look at it but does it really explain the USB weirdness? I don't
> think so.

Simple. Your *phone* only uses MTP (Media Transfer Protocol) and not UMS
(USB mass storage) protocol for access and Ubuntu versions 12.04 and
prior do not support MTP OOTB (Out Of the Box). So therefore if you want
to access your *phone* with your system running Ubuntu *12.04* you have
to install MTP support. Does that explain your USB weirdness with your
phone?

>>
>>
>>> Ubuntu studio LTS 14.04 does see and download the pictures but refuses
>>> to read USB sticks that work fine in mint.
>>> Mint don't work with the camera and USB sticks that work under US :-)
>>> I am NOT joking, this is a problem going on for several years.
>>>
>>>
>> The only issue I have had with a thumbdrive in Linux was a Dell *512MB*
>> well used stick, 512MB should clue you into the age, and I think it is
>> because of a physical hardware issue...I would not put stock in its
>> reliability.
>
> Think about the following,
> Mint can read stick A B and C
> Ubuntu 12.xx Cannot
> Ubuntu can read stick D E F G H
> Mint can not
> Ubuntu 14.04 can read more but not some of which Mint 13 can read.
>
> Explain please.

What are the USB sticks formatted as?

If standard FAT32 then maybe a physical issue with your USB sockets,
else it would be some voodoo curse because all Linuxes can read and
write to FAT32 for over a decade.

If you formatted them with a POSIX permission supporting filesystem then
your issue is mostly you do not understand "traditional Unix permissions".


<http://www.howtogeek.com/73178/what-file-system-should-i-use-for-my-usb-drive/>

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
> The only issue I have had with a thumbdrive in Linux was a Dell *512MB*
> well used stick, 512MB should clue you into the age, and I think it is
> because of a physical hardware issue...I would not put stock in its
> reliability.

I just double-checked it. It is only 256MB! Dang thing is ancient!

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
>> The only issue I have had with a thumbdrive in Linux was a Dell *512MB*
>> well used stick, 512MB should clue you into the age, and I think it is
>> because of a physical hardware issue...I would not put stock in its
>> reliability.
>
> I just double-checked it. It is only 256MB! Dang thing is ancient!
>

UPDATE: It was so old it was formatted FAT, Just reformatted as FAT32
and it now works just fine in Ubuntu. So no. I have not encountered a
single USB thumbdrive that was not dead[1] that would not work with
Ubuntu with functioning USB sockets.

[1] Because they can and do die suddenly, catastrophically, and without
warning from time to time.

[mechanic]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:06:16 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> I have always used a hierarchical system for organizing my stuff
> over the years that makes is easy for me to keep track of some
> 100GB of data. But most people simply don't. And since is seems
> impossible to predict one universal way to organize stuff to suit
> everybody, developers have turned to *Search* as the strategy to
> help people find their stuff. That is why you are seeing the move
> away from "Start Menus".
>
> Is Search more efficient than an organize Menu or filesystem? No.
> But since most people cannot seem to manage the latter, then
> developers have move to employing Search to help the poor
> beggars.

That seems more or less right as I've said before, and in the days
of 1TB hard disks which people fill with all sorts of images,
videos, files, mail and so on, a reasonable Search facility is
essential. The desktop search tools (X1, Google desktop, Yahoo etc.)
seem to have gone out of favo(u)r but were very useful.

[Amaury Roux]

TJ wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:30:26 -0400:

> That said, there may be an easier way to accomplish what you want in KDE
> with Folder View, though most Linux users will cringe in horror. Try
> creating a my_menu directory, with sub-directories organized as you want
> them, say games, browsers, mail, office, whatever. Nest them if you
> want. In the lowest ones, place shortcuts to the various apps you want
> to use. Now, put a shortcut to my_menu on the desktop.

Thank you for suggesting that "Folder View" method.
Since I already have a batch script for making Windows XP menus,
I just hacked out a shell script for making corresponding Linux menus.

> Try creating a my_menu directory, with sub-directories organized
> as you want them, say games, browsers, mail, office, whatever.

mkdir -p ./my_menu/bittorrent/{deluge,ktorrent,transmission-gtk}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/document/office/{calc,draw,impress}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/editor/audio/{audacity,kmix,amarok}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/editor/converters/{handbrake,xcfa}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/editor/photo/{gimp,kolourpaint,krita,imagemagick}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/editor/text/{vi,vim,gedit,nano}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/editor/video/{vlc,dragon}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/mailer/{thunderbird,zmail,kmail}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/newsreader/{pan,tin,rn}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/peripheral/disc_editor_burner/{brasero,k3b,devede}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/peripheral/nic/{wireshark,stumbler,inssider}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/peripheral/voip/{skype,hangouts}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/terminal/{konsole,terminal}
mkdir -p ./my_menu/web_browser/{tor,firefox,rekong,chrome}

> In the lowest ones, place shortcuts to the various apps
> you want to use.

pushd ./my_menu/bittorrent
for i in *;do rm -rf $i;ln -s `which $i`;done
popd

> Now, put a shortcut to my_menu on the desktop.

$ cd ~/Desktop
$ ln -s ../Templates/my_menu/

[Amaury Roux]

Martin wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:16:11 +0200:

> From that description I believe you are talking about an ordinary
> cascading start menu. The term "accordion" has a different meaning in
> user interface design:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accordion_%28GUI%29

You are correct.
I was using "accordion" when I meant "cascade".
I will use "cascade" moving forward!

Thanks for finding that, because I wasn't sure what to call
the original WinXp classic "cascading" menu.

All I want is a cascading menu on KDE that meets 2 requirements:
a) It's at the top level of my menus, and,
b) Nothing goes inside of it that I don't put there!

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:33:22 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

>>> Does Linux actually have a touch-based operating system out there?
>>
>> Yah, Android.
>
> And what Shuttleworth is aiming for with Unity on Ubuntu.

Well, the common Android launchers are so far from Linux as
to make the two unrecognizable from each other.

For example, most Android launchers only allow desktop menus
to be one folder deep. And, you can't change the name of the
launched item in that folder in all Android launchers that I
know of.

Neither of those restrictions exist on Linux launchers.

So, the Android application launcher is so very restrictive
(as compared to Linux or Windows) as to not be comparable.

[Amaury Roux]

Jonathan N. Little wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:43:27 -0400:

> In Windows the start menu is processed by the file manager

Yes. You are correct. The menus in Windows are merely folders
placed in a certain directory, with normal files inside of those
folders (generally with the lowest level file being a shortcut).

> But Linux uses a configuration database for the menu, which

> for example in GNOME you can edit with alacarte.

Ah. I see. That's a fundamental flaw in the way Linux handles menus.

What I'd want is a folder-based set of menus, with the symbolic
link being at the bottom level. Something like this:

mkdir -p ./my_menu/editor/photo/{gimp,kolourpaint,krita,imagemagick}
pushd ./my_menu/editor/photo/

for i in *;do rm -rf $i;ln -s `which $i`;done
popd

The result would be a symbolic link to the desired executable at
the bottom of every named directory.

That's how I'd do it in Windows, for example (only with a batch
script instead of with that shell script).

However, if Linux uses configurations instead of directories,
the trick will be to "convert" a hierarchy into a "configuration",
if that can be done.

[Good Guy]

"Amaury Roux"  wrote in message news:lq9h30$h2r$7...@news.albasani.net...

 

<snipped>

 

 

If you guys have fallen into love with this particular WINDOWS newsgroup to solve your Linux problems then why not start using Windows 8/8.1 so that you can use another useful newsgroup specifically for Windows 8/8.1 OS.

 

Aren’t there any good Linux newsgroups to solve your problems rather than asking Windows experts to solve Linux problems? 

 

This post contains HTML so if you are irritated by it then the purpose of the post is achieved.

[Amaury Roux]

Yrrah wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:55:54 +0200:

> Perhaps he's looking for this:
> http://cinnamon-spices.linuxmint.com/themes/view/287
> or
> http://www.noobslab.com/2014/01/windows-xp-theme-is-available-for.html
>
> Yrrah

That's a very interesting idea:
$ sudo add-apt-repository ppa:noobslab/themes
$ sudo apt-get update
$ sudo apt-get install win-xp-theme

While that "theme" makes the GUI look like Windows, I really don't
care about the fonts, colors, shapes of folders, border colors, etc.

What I care about are the cascaded menus.
If that theme has easily modified cascaded menus, which can add a top
level item to (which Linux apparently can't); then it might be the
simplest answer for adding Windows XP classic menus to Kubuntu.

Unfortunately, Kubuntu isn't mentioned once in that home page, but
I don't know if the WinXP classic cascaded menus are included.

We installed the XP theme, but haven't rebooted yet to test it out
as we just saw this helpful post.

I couldn't tell from the description

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:33:22 -0400
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:48:33 -0500
> > Konstantin Dimitriadis <dimit...@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Does Linux actually have a touch-based operating system out there?
> >
> > Yah, Android.
>
> And what Shuttleworth is aiming for with Unity on Ubuntu.
>

I completely forgot my Pengpod with the Linaro version of Ubuntu
running on the A10 processor. It mostly does touch just fine on the
Linux side. There are rough spots but mine is old(er) now, too. I'd
imagine they've come a long way since then.

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:43:27 -0400

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Linux uses a configuration database for the menu, which for example
> in GNOME you can exit with alacarte.

I trust you meant, "edit." ;-]

[Amaury Roux]

Coyo wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:24:27 -0500:

> KDE 4/5 has "folding menus"
> where you select a category, and it slides into the next rung in the
> heirarchy. It doesn't have the visual expansion I think you're talking
> about.

I had used the wrong word "accordion"; what I should have used was
"cascade", as in the Windows XP classic cascaded menus.

It turns out that KDE "Application Launcher Style" defaults to what
you call "folding menus"; but, luckily, KDE can be easily switched
to what it calls "Switch to Classic Menu Style".

The problem I'm facing now is that Linux apparently creates menus
not by a folder hierarchy as in Windows, but by a cryptic configuration
file.

So, my first dilemma will be how to create a new top-level line
item (e.g., "my_menu") in that Linux configuration file, so that
I then can create the desired cascade after that line item, e.g.,
my_menu > editors > photo editors > {gimp, kolourpaint, imagemagick}
my_menu > editors > audio editors > {audacity, amarok, kmix}
my_menu > editors > text editors > {vim, gedit, nano}
etc.

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:09:06 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> How the menu information is stored and generated *is* different on Linux
> DEs than Windows. So no it is not the same.

True. But that should be transparent to the user.

So, let's agree on these three points.

A. The user's menu use model on Linux is *exactly the same* as on Windows!
Linux: MENU > BROWSER SECTION > BROWSER SHORTCUT
Windows: MENU > BROWSER SECTION > BROWSER SYMBOLIC LINK

B. The operating system stores those programs in different places.
Linux: Roughly /usr/bin/whatever (i.e., $PATH/whatever)
Windows: Roughly C:\Program Files\Whatever\Whatever.exe

C. The operating system manages menus differently:
Linux: Binary configuration file
Windows: Folder & file hierarchy

So, while (B) and (C) are different, what the user does with menus,
and how the user *organizes* those menus, is *exactly* the same on
Linux as it is on Windows!

In fact, about 95% of the functionality is the same on Windows as
on Linux for what a user does (e.g., browsing, editing, emailing,
etc.) such that the exact same menus should work for both at every
level except the final shortcut/symbolic link.

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:16:22 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

>> I see the kluge of "Recently Used" in KDE, so, that tells me right
>> away that developers know they and their users can't even find their
>> own applications without a crutch!
>>
>> Ask yourself this question:
>> Q: Why is that crutch there?
>
> Because the program you used yesterday is highly likely to be the
> program you also use today. So that makes it easier. No matter how
> organized a menu, it is easier to click on one entry than to unfold a
> hierachy of menus to got to the program.

While what you say is true, there would be no need for "Recently Used"
if everyone knew where they kept their program menus.

It's redundant, and, I, for one, remove the wasted space of
"Recently Used" on both platforms since I set up my menu more
than a decade ago on both platforms, and I use the same menu
for both Linux as for Windows (within reason).

When I move to a new OS, the Windows menus transfer seamlessly.
I have no need for the crutch of "Recently Used".

I agree most people need it. They depend on it.
They couldn't find anything without it.

But, that's only because the default (on both Windows & Linux) is
unusably disorganized. Right problem. Wrong solution.

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:16:22 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

> You are looking at the world thought a prejudiced eye. As I said above,
> it is not because "people cannot find their own stuff". It makes things
> a bit easier, no matter how well organized. Do you hang up the clothes
> you are likely to wear tomorrow into the recesses of your closet and the
> depths of your drawers? Or do you leave them out to get at quickly
> tomorrow?

I remove the "Recently Used" whenever I see it because it's a waste of
valuable desktop space.

Given that, for the past ten years, I always find my browser in
Menu->Browsers->Firefox, why would I ever need to look for the
browser in an additional ever-changing always cluttered special
"Recently Used" hierarchy?

That menu location for the browser has been in the same place for more
than a decade, on multiple machines, and across multiple operating
systems. It's even in the same place (one level deep though) in
my Android phone and on my iOS iPad!

So, for all those operating systems (linux,windows,android,iOS),
the firefox browser is in the same place (where it belongs):
Menu/Desktop > Browsers > Firefox

Given that the menu is the same for all my platforms and for
all my devices, and that it never changes (unless I change it),
I must ask why, on earth, would I ever want or need the browser
to also show up in a self-cluttering ever-changing ad-hoc
"Recently Used" menu selection?

Makes no sense, except that people can't find their stuff.
The "Recently Used" idea is the wrong solution to the right problem.

[Mike Yetto]

While walking through the streets of Soho in the rain
Amaury Roux <Ro...@spam.invalid> wrote...
> That's the first half of the two-part problem that everyone has
> with menus.

> 1. A menu mechanics that they like (I like WinXP classic style!)
> 2. A menu organization that makes sense (all are a disorganized mess
> that just gets worse over time).

> My simple solution to that second problem is now where I'm
> focusing my effort on the "KDE Menu Editor.
>

> All I need is to create a SINGLE menu item (called "my_menu" or
> whatever) where the operating system isn't going to mess with it,
> nor the applications installer. Just me.

You might be referring to Favorites.

> That way my menu hierarchy stays clean, and is easy to organize,
> and it contains exactly the organizational structure I desire.

> At the moment, I'm working on creating a top-level "my_menu"
> but so far, I've only been able to create sub level entries.

Stop using Windows techniques or paradigms and first think about
what's there already.

Mike "anything labeled my_* belongs to me" Yetto
--
"To science, not even the bark of a tree or a drop of pond water
is dull or a handful of dirt banal. They all arouse awe and
wonder."
- Jane Jacobs

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:06:16 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Personally while fixing other people's system I find regardless how easy
> it may be, most people *do not* organize *their* stuff on computers,
> unless you consider "All your crap in one sack" or "Leave it where it
> drops" as an organizational strategy!

I agree!

Fundamentally, neither the OS developers nor the users do any
decent organization whatsoever.

They allow programs to just plop where they land, and files to
do the same. They have absolutely *no idea* where their programs
and files reside, and even less of an idea how to find them.

That's *why* there are all these crutches of "Recently Used"
and the God-awful idea of Windows "libraries" (for data grouping).

That problem is then *compounded* by the operating system providing
a disaster of a menu organization. In Windows, it's essentially flat,
and mostly by brand name when it's not flat, neither of which is
a good approach.

On Linux, they made a half-assed attempt to organize things, but
failed miserably (throwing all the clothes willy nilly into a few
labeled drawers such as "Internet" and "System" and "Utilities").

Compound that problem once more by the fact that every time you
install something, it goes into whatever menu *it* feels like going
into, and you have the prescription for a menu disaster, which is
what all operating systems have become.

It's even worse on the iOS devices, since the icons simply default
to the last added, while on Android, at least most launchers allow
you to not have every single one of your hundred programs forced to
be visible on the desktop.

The problem here is multifold, but *easily* solved (if only someone
would show me how to teach Linux developers this simple truth!):

a. Make it *easy* to create a stable menu that programs won't pollute!
b. Make it *easy* to edit those stable menus that programs don't pollute!
c. Create a logical default hierarchy by *function* that makes sense.

I must admit, on (c) above, the Linux development community has tried,
while the Windows development community hasn't even tried to create
a logical default functional hierarchy that makes sense to the user.

Since I have been working on this problem from when computers first
had windowing environments (Windows 2.1 anyone?), I could easily solve
this problem for the world, if only I had the power to do so.

It would be that easy (and I don't underestimate the difficulty of
coming up with a "universal" default functional hierarchy which would
appeal to "most" users because everyone does the same basic things!).

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:06:16 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> I have seen enough of Windows XP Start Menu Scroll-Of-Death
> or desktop that is the Iowa-Cornfield-Of-Icons!

I agree!

I have seen it also. Very many times.

People can't find their programs.
People can't find their files.

The answer is sooooooo simple, it makes me want to cry sometimes,
when I see all the levels of indirect that the developers then
add to an operating system (witness the horrid concept of libraries)
just so people *can* find their files.

If only I was appointed czar of the solution.
I'd have it solved so quickly you'd never have known it was a problem.
I've been working on the solution for something like two decades now!

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:06:16 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> I have always used a hierarchical system for organizing my stuff over
> the years that makes is easy for me to keep track of some 100GB of data.
> But most people simply don't. And since is seems impossible to predict
> one universal way to organize stuff to suit everybody, developers have
> turned to *Search* as the strategy to help people find their stuff. That
> is why you are seeing the move away from "Start Menus"

Again, I agree.

The menus are *easy* to solve, compared to where people store files!

To reiterate, everyone pretty much does the same functional stuff,
e.g., we all browse the web, we all read & write mail, we all print
and create documents, we all listen to and record videos, etc., so
creating a basic universal menu is really a trivially easy task compared
to creating a basic universal file system.

Again, Linux is way ahead of the Windows guys when they created,
for example, a home directory containing, by default:
Desktop, Downloads, News, Public, Documents, Music, Pictures,
Templates, and Videos

Windows *tried* with "My Pictures", "My Videos", "My Documents",
but the problem here was that most programs polluted the heck out
of those folders.

On Windows, the first thing I ever do when reimaging a system is
wipe out all the "My" garbage. I replace them with "C:\data".

So, after imaging, the first time an "Explorer" window pops up,
I gleefully eradicate all the "My Stuff" links and replace it with
just three links, namely "apps", "data", and "temp".

Likewise, the first time I run any program (e.g., firefox), I ensure
it never automatically chooses the folder in "My Documents". Instead,
I ensure a folder in "data" or "temp" (depending on what makes sense).

So, for example, there is no need for "My Downloads" or "My Pictures".
If it's a temporary thing, such as many downloads are, it goes in
"temp". If it's a long-term thing, then it goes in "C:\data" where
it belongs.

I do agree the hierarchy *under* C:\data is where we can discuss until
the end of time, so, I allow all users to create their own hierarchy.

For me, that includes both type-specific files, and function-specific
files. For example,
c:\data\audio\{e.g., all my personal mp3 files are here organized by ID3 tags}
c:\data\video\{e.g., all my personal video files are here, organized by genre}
c:\data\photo\{e.g., all my photos are here, reverse organized by date}
etc.

The problem comes when it's time to organize files by function!
For each person, that will be where things start to differ wildly.

For example:
c:\data\my job at google\{files for task 1, files for task2, etc.}
c:\data\my home improvement project\{files related to that project}
c:\data\my book I am working on\{files related to a book you're writing}
etc.

If someone asked me how to organize 'their' system, I'd ask them a few
functional questions, and voila! I'd easily organize both their menus
and their file hierarchy for them.

In general, the menus would be nearly the same for everyone; while the
file system would differ based on their functional needs.

BTW, I'm thinking of asking the town to have me teach a class on file
organization at the night schools out here. Do you think people would
attend?

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:06:16 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Is Search more efficient than an organize Menu or filesystem? No. But
> since most people cannot seem to manage the latter, then developers have
> move to employing Search to help the poor beggars.

This statement above is the sad truth!

[Amaury Roux]

Dirk T. Verbeek wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:45:14 +0500:

> I didn't think of the future 'pollution' by new programs being
> installed, a real issue in the way of your goal.

Yes. I have tried to maintain Windows XP menus in the past where
they kept getting polluted by newly installed programs.

So, I solved that maintenance hassle simply by creating a top-level
menu side-by-side with the "Start Menu", but which no programs pollute.

This menu is so stable, I know it by heart as it doesn't change
in a decade except when totally new functionality emerges (for
example, when torrents came out, I had to add a new menu item).

> But I'm sure the changes you would make to the existing menu are going
> to be saved somewhere and I'd be surprised if this Linux/KDE
> configuration file isn't editable or can at least be copied.

I think the changing of the menus is easy.
What seems to be hard is creating a TOP-LEVEL menu on Linux.
(K) > my_menu > ...

[William Unruh]

On 2014-07-17, Konstantin Dimitriadis <dimit...@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:16:22 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>>> I see the kluge of "Recently Used" in KDE, so, that tells me right
>>> away that developers know they and their users can't even find their
>>> own applications without a crutch!
>>>
>>> Ask yourself this question:
>>> Q: Why is that crutch there?
>>
>> Because the program you used yesterday is highly likely to be the
>> program you also use today. So that makes it easier. No matter how
>> organized a menu, it is easier to click on one entry than to unfold a
>> hierachy of menus to got to the program.
>
> While what you say is true, there would be no need for "Recently Used"
> if everyone knew where they kept their program menus.

Sure there would. One click is faster than 4, even if you know which 4
you want to click.

>
> It's redundant, and, I, for one, remove the wasted space of

Yes, it is redundant. As is the English language-- which is why
compression works. Humans use and need reduncancy.

> "Recently Used" on both platforms since I set up my menu more

You are allowed to do what you want. Your problem again is that you
think that just because you have certain peculiarities and pathologies,
everyone should be forced to use your ways around them.

> than a decade ago on both platforms, and I use the same menu
> for both Linux as for Windows (within reason).
>
> When I move to a new OS, the Windows menus transfer seamlessly.
> I have no need for the crutch of "Recently Used".

So? Why are you telling us this? Why do we care what you like or
dislike?

>
> I agree most people need it. They depend on it.
> They couldn't find anything without it.
>
> But, that's only because the default (on both Windows & Linux) is
> unusably disorganized. Right problem. Wrong solution.

No, it is not "only because". Again you see the world though your own
peculiarities.

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:55:07 -0500
Konstantin Dimitriadis <dimit...@example.com> wrote:

> On Linux, they made a half-assed attempt to organize things, but
> failed miserably (throwing all the clothes willy nilly into a few
> labeled drawers such as "Internet" and "System" and "Utilities").
>
> Compound that problem once more by the fact that every time you
> install something, it goes into whatever menu *it* feels like going
> into, and you have the prescription for a menu disaster, which is
> what all operating systems have become.

I was going to argue that, but just yesterday I installed goldendict,
a dictionary package that might replace dict used on the terminal (yeah,
right). It placed a menu item in education, office and other. I'd
probably find it in any of those but three menu items is a bit much.

Now, instead of arguing, I find that you are completely right.

[Amaury Roux]

Mike Yetto wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:41:09 -0400:

> You might be referring to Favorites.

You know, Mike, you just might be a genius without even knowing it.
If I can't make a top-level hierarchy in Linux, maybe I can steal
one? That is, maybe I can re-disposition "Favorites" to be the
hierarchy that I want.

This makes a lot of sense. I don't even have to rename it!

> Stop using Windows techniques or paradigms and first think about
> what's there already.

Actually, the concept of a menu is the same on Windows as it is
on Linux. And, the things we do on Windows are the same as those
things we do on Linux. It's the whole concept of a "desktop pc".

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:57:39 -0500
Konstantin Dimitriadis <dimit...@example.com> wrote:

> If only I was appointed czar of the solution.
> I'd have it solved so quickly you'd never have known it was a problem.
> I've been working on the solution for something like two decades now!

You do know that Linux is a meritocracy and that anyone may contribute,
don't you? If you have a sane and rational solution I'm sure someone
(maybe some dev at Debian) would love to hear of it.

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:21:36 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

> One click is faster than 4, even if you know which 4
> you want to click.

This point is valid just like the inevitable shortcuts
humans take across Harvard Yard are a few steps quicker
than taking the established paved route which has been
there since the 1700s.

But, in the end, if you allow all these shortcuts, you
don't have Harvard Yard anymore. You simply have a mess
of shortcuts that come and go depending /only/ on how
recently they were trodden.

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:29:24 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

> I was going to argue that, but just yesterday I installed goldendict,
> a dictionary package that might replace dict used on the terminal (yeah,
> right). It placed a menu item in education, office and other. I'd
> probably find it in any of those but three menu items is a bit much.

Thanks for understanding.

I don't blame a program for going into the menu *it* feels like
going into, but, as you noted, it might not be going into where
*you* wished it would go.

For me, I had long ago given up trying to maintain the Windows
Start Menu for this very same reason.

So what I do is tell every program to put a shortcut on the desktop
when installing (which almost all will gladly do, whether or not
you asked). And then I simply /move/ that shortcut to where I want
it to go.

What that program does with the default Windows "Program Files" menu
doesn't matter, because I never look there.

[Konstantin Dimitriadis]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:31:37 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

> You do know that Linux is a meritocracy and that anyone may contribute,
> don't you? If you have a sane and rational solution I'm sure someone
> (maybe some dev at Debian) would love to hear of it.

How would that work?

I mean, I already know how I'd organize all the menus in Linux, but,
I would sit down and discuss the merits of the placement decision
with anyone who had good ideas.

Given that, in a week, a small team of us with like minds to help
the user out, would come up with a function-based menu system that
would cover most users.

Then, we would spend, oh, I don't know, maybe a month or three testing
out those menus with randomly chosen users, and then, finally with
specific power users, and, we'd meet again to hone our changes.

What would result would be a definite improvement in the existing
menus on Linux. The problem would be compounded by the fact we have
to plan ahead for new technologies, and that we'd have the old legacy
menus to deal with (legacy being every developers bane).

Who decides these menu things today anyway?

[tigger]

Amaury Roux writted thus

Not exactly sure what you are after, but you can edit the Classic style
dropdown menu list with alacarte...

Add (if missing) the classic drop down menu to the top panel:

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:diesch/testing && sudo apt-get update

sudo apt-get install classicmenu-indicator

Run and set to auto start if required.

Editing required in the above menus:

sudo apt-get install --no-install-recommends alacarte

Run 'alacarte' and edit what you like...



--
Free Dropbox:
http://db.tt/aI6WBZ7w

[John Hasler]

Konstantin Dimitriadis writes:
> Who decides these menu things today anyway?

Talk to the people at freedesktop.org .
--
John Hasler
jha...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[William Unruh]

On 2014-07-17, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:57:39 -0500
> Konstantin Dimitriadis <dimit...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> If only I was appointed czar of the solution.
>> I'd have it solved so quickly you'd never have known it was a problem.
>> I've been working on the solution for something like two decades now!
>
> You do know that Linux is a meritocracy and that anyone may contribute,
> don't you? If you have a sane and rational solution I'm sure someone
> (maybe some dev at Debian) would love to hear of it.

I think he's not interested in contributing. He just wants to force his
desires on everyone else.

>
> Cybe R. Wizard

[Jonathan N. Little]

Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:43:27 -0400
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Linux uses a configuration database for the menu, which for example
>> in GNOME you can exit with alacarte.
>
> I trust you meant, "edit." ;-]

Bad, bad finger. Wandered onto the wrong row again. Typo aside, I think
I am correct with the Windows v Linux.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Jonathan N. Little]

Amaury Roux wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote, on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:43:27 -0400:
>
>> In Windows the start menu is processed by the file manager
>
> Yes. You are correct. The menus in Windows are merely folders
> placed in a certain directory, with normal files inside of those
> folders (generally with the lowest level file being a shortcut).
>
>> But Linux uses a configuration database for the menu, which
>> for example in GNOME you can edit with alacarte.
>
> Ah. I see. That's a fundamental flaw in the way Linux handles menus.

No, just different. Linux is *not* Windows. Linux also does not use a
OS component to act as both file manager AND web browser as a target to
get hacked. So where is the fundamental flaw there?

>
> What I'd want is a folder-based set of menus, with the symbolic
> link being at the bottom level. Something like this:
>
> mkdir -p ./my_menu/editor/photo/{gimp,kolourpaint,krita,imagemagick}
> pushd ./my_menu/editor/photo/
> for i in *;do rm -rf $i;ln -s `which $i`;done
> popd

You are certainly free to develop one. Happy coding! Whether on not you
will convince any Linux users to use it should be interesting.

>
> The result would be a symbolic link to the desired executable at
> the bottom of every named directory.
>
> That's how I'd do it in Windows, for example (only with a batch
> script instead of with that shell script).
>
> However, if Linux uses configurations instead of directories,
> the trick will be to "convert" a hierarchy into a "configuration",
> if that can be done.