Working with Linux on a PC
Snit
disclaimers:
* I spend a couple hours with it playing, with both Ubuntu: Warty and
Gnoppix - there is *no* doubt that there is still oodles and oodles to learn
- I am just talking about what I found, not about Linux in general.
* I used LiveCD's: while these are a very cool way to get a feel for Linux,
I have no idea what compromises are made to fit all they fit onto one CD.
* Speed is not an issue - one, I was using LiveCD's and not a HD install,
and two, my PC is quite old.
* I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to suggest to
students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of the complaints
below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to less technical
folks.
* Using FireStarter all ISO's worked without a hitch.
Ok, I started with Ubunto: Warty and then played with Gnoppix. Some notes
and thoughts from using both of them for a short time:
Booting:
1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and does
not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
2) Moves to a "pretty" graphical progress bar.
3) Back to an ugly gray checked screen with a big X as the mouse pointer.
4) Back to an OS 9ish look of icons showing what they are loading... cute.
Booted:
5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
feature if they wanted).
6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot was
visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About" screen.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
programs.
7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to that.
8) Lots of programs - still impressed with how much they put on a CD. Even
has Attaxx... I love that game. Wish I were better at it. :)
9) I can "restore" a maximized window by dragging the title bar down, but
can not maximize a window by dragging the title bar up... which is what I
understood from what I had read in COLA / CSMA.
10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
Mac, too.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just seems
flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there are themes
with no borders which when you have one window over another there is
absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other begins. This is
the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the fonts did not look
very smooth.
12) Because there is no transparency, it is harder to see when you drag a
file into a folder. On OS X not only is the dragged item transparent, but
the folder icon changes to show it is open. I also saw nothing like spring
loaded folders - a huge plus for OS X in my book (though novices do not use
it a whole lot).
13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders - all
seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would open!
They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then disappear.
I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them, so it is not
as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work. Rebooted and tried
again and got the same issue.
14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select all"
instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an "Apple II"
screen saver, who can really complain. :)
15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the middle
button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
most important points - applications work. That is the reason people use
computers, not to play with themes...
16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there is
no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu. That is
just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good thing.
17) General dialogs are done "right", meaning they have "Save" and "Discard"
as buttons, not "Yes" and "No" or whatever. This is better than XP and what
OS X tends to have.
18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It was
listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for either.
19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other goodies...
Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the same at the
level of usage I played with.
20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
details:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
Compare this with OS X and XP:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
Only OS X gets it right.
Wish I could be more positive about Linux. Again, remember that these are
LiveCD's and first impressions - but GNOME is just not impressing me. I
will play with KDE later, and hope that it is at least more modern looking
and feeling.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Liam Slider
> Well, I now have played with Linux on my PC. Let's start with the
> disclaimers:
>
> * I spend a couple hours with it playing, with both Ubuntu: Warty and
> Gnoppix - there is *no* doubt that there is still oodles and oodles to learn
> - I am just talking about what I found, not about Linux in general.
>
> * I used LiveCD's: while these are a very cool way to get a feel for Linux,
> I have no idea what compromises are made to fit all they fit onto one CD.
>
> * Speed is not an issue - one, I was using LiveCD's and not a HD install,
> and two, my PC is quite old.
>
> * I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to suggest to
> students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of the complaints
> below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to less technical
> folks.
>
> * Using FireStarter all ISO's worked without a hitch.
>
> Ok, I started with Ubunto: Warty and then played with Gnoppix. Some notes
> and thoughts from using both of them for a short time:
>
> Booting:
>
> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and does
> not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
On my box, I get a bios screen, then moves to the bootloader (which is
graphical), followed by #2.
But then I'm running Mandrake.
>
> 2) Moves to a "pretty" graphical progress bar.
Yes, pretty standard.
>
> 3) Back to an ugly gray checked screen with a big X as the mouse
> pointer.
That's X11 starting up. Sort of essential if you want, you know, the GUI
on Linux. X11 has to be started before the DE can be loaded.
>
> 4) Back to an OS 9ish look of icons showing what they are loading...
> cute.
>
> Booted:
>
> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace
> that feature if they wanted).
Yes, that's possible of course.
>
> 6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot
> was visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
> boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About"
> screen.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>
> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
> programs.
The intent there, is that when you open up a graphic, that you feel it's
just another part of what you're currently working in. No intrusion, no
feeling like you've started up another application, just that you've
opened another window...this time with a picture in it.
>
> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to
> that.
That sounds like a speed/configuration issue. Especially if you're using
LiveCDs.
>
> 8) Lots of programs - still impressed with how much they put on a CD.
> Even has Attaxx... I love that game. Wish I were better at it. :)
Oh yeah, I'm always impressed by Live CDs.
>
> 9) I can "restore" a maximized window by dragging the title bar down,
> but can not maximize a window by dragging the title bar up... which is
> what I understood from what I had read in COLA / CSMA.
That's odd. I can certainly do that here. I just *did* it in fact.
>
> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes
> no sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version
> on the Mac, too.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>
> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened
> the dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>
> 11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is
> really not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it
> just seems flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but
> there are themes with no borders which when you have one window over
> another there is absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the
> other begins. This is the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs
> the fonts did not look very smooth.
LiveCDs often do get the short end of the stick when it comes to themes.
If you want to look at some cool GNOME themes you could try out, go take a
look at www.gnome-look.org you'll find plenty of really nice themes,
iconsets, and wallpapers there.
And I've certainly seen transparencies with GNOME.
As for the fonts, perhaps you are used to looking at the way OSX displays
fonts...which is different. And not necessarily better. Of course, I'm not
using those distros so they may lack good included fonts...
<snip>
>
> 14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
> random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select
> all" instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an
> "Apple II" screen saver, who can really complain. :)
Yeah the screensavers are great!
>
> 15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the
> middle button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>
> Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
> most important points - applications work. That is the reason people
> use computers, not to play with themes...
Indeed.
>
> 16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
> compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there
> is no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu.
> That is just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good
> thing.
Yes, that's the important part...it's free. And as I point out all the
time, there *are* commercial Office suites for Linux as well, if Open
Office isn't up to anyone's particular taste.
>
> 17) General dialogs are done "right", meaning they have "Save" and
> "Discard" as buttons, not "Yes" and "No" or whatever. This is better
> than XP and what OS X tends to have.
>
> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It
> was listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for
> either.
Driver issue?
>
> 19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other
> goodies... Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the
> same at the level of usage I played with.
>
> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
> details:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
>
> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>
> Only OS X gets it right.
This issue I can mostly address. While Eye of Gnome and Evolution are
pure, 100% GNOME compliant applications, most of the others are not.
Firefox has it's own dialogs, as does Open Office...simple as that. Now
GIMP on the other hand, it is a GNOME application, but it was felt they
had certain needs on their open and save dialogs...hence they are not 100%
consistant with the first two.
But still....you have a mixture of compliant, and non-compliant apps as
the issue. Open Office tries to integrate well with GNOME (and KDE), but
they demand their own design. And Firefox...well...is Firefox.
> Wish I could be more positive about Linux. Again, remember that these
> are LiveCD's and first impressions - but GNOME is just not impressing
> me. I will play with KDE later, and hope that it is at least more
> modern looking and feeling.
I thought you were *fairly* positive about Linux...but then suddenly
started hating on account of a couple of app's having different save
dialogs... It's not all that bad. Heck, I've seen worse. :-)
Snit
pan.2005.03.07....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/6/05 5:22 PM:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 15:01:34 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Well, I now have played with Linux on my PC. Let's start with the
>> disclaimers:
>>
>> * I spend a couple hours with it playing, with both Ubuntu: Warty and
>> Gnoppix - there is *no* doubt that there is still oodles and oodles to learn
>> - I am just talking about what I found, not about Linux in general.
>>
>> * I used LiveCD's: while these are a very cool way to get a feel for Linux,
>> I have no idea what compromises are made to fit all they fit onto one CD.
>>
>> * Speed is not an issue - one, I was using LiveCD's and not a HD install,
>> and two, my PC is quite old.
>>
>> * I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to suggest to
>> students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of the complaints
>> below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to less technical
>> folks.
>>
>> * Using FireStarter all ISO's worked without a hitch.
>>
>> Ok, I started with Ubunto: Warty and then played with Gnoppix. Some notes
>> and thoughts from using both of them for a short time:
>>
>> Booting:
>>
>> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and does
>> not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
>
> On my box, I get a bios screen, then moves to the bootloader (which is
> graphical), followed by #2.
>
> But then I'm running Mandrake.
Not a big issue, but would certainly be an improvement.
>>
>> 2) Moves to a "pretty" graphical progress bar.
>
> Yes, pretty standard.
Well, nothing super cool about it, but what do I want, dancing penguins
marching across the screen? :)
>>
>> 3) Back to an ugly gray checked screen with a big X as the mouse
>> pointer.
>
> That's X11 starting up. Sort of essential if you want, you know, the GUI
> on Linux. X11 has to be started before the DE can be loaded.
Aha... still ugly. :)
>>
>> 4) Back to an OS 9ish look of icons showing what they are loading...
>> cute.
>>
>> Booted:
>>
>> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace
>> that feature if they wanted).
>
> Yes, that's possible of course.
Would have been shocked if it were not.
>>
>> 6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot
>> was visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
>> boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About"
>> screen.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>>
>> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
>> programs.
>
> The intent there, is that when you open up a graphic, that you feel it's
> just another part of what you're currently working in. No intrusion, no
> feeling like you've started up another application, just that you've
> opened another window...this time with a picture in it.
But you are getting everything you would get on any other OS... other than
the name of the program you are opening. No other program I noticed even in
Linux did this.
>>
>> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
>> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to
>> that.
>
> That sounds like a speed/configuration issue. Especially if you're using
> LiveCDs.
No doubt it would be faster on newer hardware and likely with a "real"
install, but shouldn't the background be buffered? I could understand some
of the jumpiness that OS X used to have real bad in 10.1, but this seems to
be anything but modern.
>>
>> 8) Lots of programs - still impressed with how much they put on a CD.
>> Even has Attaxx... I love that game. Wish I were better at it. :)
>
> Oh yeah, I'm always impressed by Live CDs.
I am in awe of what they get on there... no complaints at all on that one.
Can only imagine what LiveDVD's will offer when they become popular.
>>
>> 9) I can "restore" a maximized window by dragging the title bar down,
>> but can not maximize a window by dragging the title bar up... which is
>> what I understood from what I had read in COLA / CSMA.
>
> That's odd. I can certainly do that here. I just *did* it in fact.
Just tried on Gnoppix... no can do. Looked in the "Windows" desktop
preference and did not see anything to configure this - though I do like
that you can do window shading... that is a cool feature.
While playing here I right clicked on the titlebar... same menu as you get
when you click the left most iconic menu (just like Windows). The icon in
the menu does not match the icon on the window. Seems to be another
boo-boo. Using the default theme for Gnoppix.
>>
>> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
>> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes
>> no sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version
>> on the Mac, too.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>
>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened
>> the dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>>
>> 11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is
>> really not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it
>> just seems flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but
>> there are themes with no borders which when you have one window over
>> another there is absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the
>> other begins. This is the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs
>> the fonts did not look very smooth.
>
> LiveCDs often do get the short end of the stick when it comes to themes.
>
> If you want to look at some cool GNOME themes you could try out, go take a
> look at www.gnome-look.org you'll find plenty of really nice themes,
> iconsets, and wallpapers there.
>
> And I've certainly seen transparencies with GNOME.
>
>
> As for the fonts, perhaps you are used to looking at the way OSX displays
> fonts...which is different. And not necessarily better. Of course, I'm not
> using those distros so they may lack good included fonts...
There might be some of that.. I do not doubt it. They do have black on gray
menus by default - something that is just not well thought out for a general
population. Had a kid over at the house today - early teen - she looked at
what I was doing and said it was amazingly ugly. She then looked at my Mac
(in the same room) and said the screen saver was "awesome". I moved the
mouse and showed her the icons and the dock - not even in magnify mode - she
though it looked cool and was something she would use. Linux did not draw
her in at all. She has barely used my Mac, and mostly uses Windows.
>
> <snip>
>>
>> 14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
>> random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select
>> all" instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an
>> "Apple II" screen saver, who can really complain. :)
>
> Yeah the screensavers are great!
Hard to complain there...
>>
>> 15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the
>> middle button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>>
>> Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
>> most important points - applications work. That is the reason people
>> use computers, not to play with themes...
>
> Indeed.
>>
>> 16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
>> compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there
>> is no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu.
>> That is just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good
>> thing.
>
> Yes, that's the important part...it's free. And as I point out all the
> time, there *are* commercial Office suites for Linux as well, if Open
> Office isn't up to anyone's particular taste.
While I do this comparison I am trying to keep that in mind - you can get a
Linux box cheaper than a Mac... and update the OS for free... a very cool
thing in deed.
>>
>> 17) General dialogs are done "right", meaning they have "Save" and
>> "Discard" as buttons, not "Yes" and "No" or whatever. This is better
>> than XP and what OS X tends to have.
>>
>> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It
>> was listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for
>> either.
>
> Driver issue?
Gnoppix auto-recognized the printer - even the type. When I went to print,
though, nothing happened. It is being shared from my Mac, so there may be
some issue with Apple's emulation of Windows sharing.
>>
>> 19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other
>> goodies... Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the
>> same at the level of usage I played with.
>>
>> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
>> details:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
>>
>> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>>
>> Only OS X gets it right.
>
> This issue I can mostly address. While Eye of Gnome and Evolution are
> pure, 100% GNOME compliant applications, most of the others are not.
But they are included with the distro. I can see the ones that have
"standard" dialogs... and actually like the dialog - other than the low
contrast coloring.
> Firefox has it's own dialogs, as does Open Office...simple as that. Now
> GIMP on the other hand, it is a GNOME application, but it was felt they
> had certain needs on their open and save dialogs...hence they are not 100%
> consistant with the first two.
Compare that to Photoshop on a Mac:
Plenty of customization, yet still very much like the standard OS X ones.
OS X handles this better than XP or Linux, from what I can see. You can
point to many reasons, but the fact is for a user, OS X (and its apps) is
simply more consistent.
>
> But still....you have a mixture of compliant, and non-compliant apps as
> the issue. Open Office tries to integrate well with GNOME (and KDE), but
> they demand their own design. And Firefox...well...is Firefox.
>
>> Wish I could be more positive about Linux. Again, remember that these
>> are LiveCD's and first impressions - but GNOME is just not impressing
>> me. I will play with KDE later, and hope that it is at least more
>> modern looking and feeling.
>
> I thought you were *fairly* positive about Linux...but then suddenly
> started hating on account of a couple of app's having different save
> dialogs... It's not all that bad. Heck, I've seen worse. :-)
LOL... while the save dialogs are certainly an issue, and are indicative of
overall consistency / ease of use to at least some extent, they are
certainly not a deal breaker.
Still, I would find it rare to suggest Linux to the non-techy students and
clients I see after playing here. Just does not have a polished, modern
look - even though I have no doubt about it having a modern back end and
being excellent for many tasks / reasons (servers, techy folks,
*free*...etc.)
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Well, I now have played with Linux on my PC.
Goodie for you. Now why don't you leave CSMA and go troll exclusively in
the linux groups, or haven't you figured out how to do that?
~garbage snipped
--
reguarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Tim
Freeride
> Just does not have a polished, modern
> look
I personal think both Gnome and KDE are much more polished and modern than
anything Microsoft has. Both are so much more customizable and have 10
times that bells and whistles. Can't speak for OS X and won't till they
port it over to x86.
Johannes Bauer
Hash: SHA1
Freeride wrote:
> Can't speak for OS X and won't till they
> port it over to x86.
Why should they? So people pirate it just like they do now with Windows?
So they lose their last monopoly, a proprietary OS which only runs on a
proprietary platform? Apple would be pretty damn stupid to do that.
Greetings,
Johannes
- --
PLEASE verify my signature. Some forging troll is claiming to be me.
My GPG key id is 0xCC727E2E (dated 2004-11-03). You can get it from
wwwkeys.pgp.net or random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de.
Also: Messages from "Comcast Online" are ALWAYS forged.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCK8EoCseFG8xyfi4RAtT0AJ47PKZjbQCQNWbaHlbmn+RSWxPEwwCfZ+4x
8bCcSCgdDPVWd8f5Dy4XejM=
=muko
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
pan.2005.03.07....@maillinux.org on 3/6/05 7:41 PM:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:44:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Just does not have a polished, modern look
>
> I personal think both Gnome and KDE are much more polished and modern than
> anything Microsoft has.
Can not speak about KDE, as I have not played with it, but Gnome just does
not impress me at all. I listed some of the reasons before, but here is a
list - some of this may be configurable, but I did not see how... I would
love to hear if there are "fixes":
* Dragged icons are not transparent - making it harder to move into a folder
* Folder icons do not change to open folder icons as you drag over them - a
cool feature in OS X (not XP)
* No shadowing - everything looks flat
* Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
* Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they keep
their resized status when moved to a folder
* Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
* Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I know
this can be changed)
* No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
* Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
* Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind windows
* Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
* Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
* No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
* No folder actions (OS X has this)
* Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
I do like the badges you can put on icons - that is sorta cool.
> Both are so much more customizable and have 10 times that bells and whistles.
Customizable - yes. More bells and whistles - perhaps. Something I would
suggest to most users - no.
> Can't speak for OS X and won't till they port it over to x86.
Not likely to happen...
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
_________________________________________
Linønut
> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and does
> not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
This is a lame complaint. Very lame.
> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
> feature if they wanted).
Try another window manager.
> 6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot was
> visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
> boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About" screen.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>
> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
> programs.
What the HELL are you babbling about?
> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to that.
You just said you're running it on low-end hardware. You can make many
user-interface adjustments to speed things up.
> 9) I can "restore" a maximized window by dragging the title bar down, but
> can not maximize a window by dragging the title bar up... which is what I
> understood from what I had read in COLA / CSMA.
?????
> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
> Mac, too.
Set up NTP.
> 11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
> not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just seems
> flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there are themes
> with no borders which when you have one window over another there is
> absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other begins. This is
> the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the fonts did not look
> very smooth.
Try another window manager or user interface.
I grow fatigued with this post.
--
When was the last time you thought about
Microsoft, except in frustration or anger?
-- Michael S. Malone, Silicon Insider
Snit
ioGdnWbYTLp...@comcast.com on 3/6/05 8:48 PM:
> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and does
>> not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
>
> This is a lame complaint. Very lame.
You are welcome to disagree. The facts are not in question though we
disagree on the importance of the facts. Fair enough?
>
>> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
>> feature if they wanted).
>
> Try another window manager.
I mention a *good* thing and you suggest I try another window manager? Are
you looking to have people have bad experiences with Linux?
>
>> 6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot was
>> visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
>> boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About" screen.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>>
>> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
>> programs.
>
> What the HELL are you babbling about?
Not sure what I can do to make it more clear. The name of the program is
not in the title bar, as shown in the picture.
>
>> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
>> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to that.
>
> You just said you're running it on low-end hardware. You can make many
> user-interface adjustments to speed things up.
It appears that the screen is not buffered - as it is on XP and OS X. Is
that correct?
>
>> 9) I can "restore" a maximized window by dragging the title bar down, but
>> can not maximize a window by dragging the title bar up... which is what I
>> understood from what I had read in COLA / CSMA.
>
> ?????
At the top of every window in the GNOME themes I show in the images there
are three icons - the right most closes the window, the one two over
minimizes it, and the one in the middle toggles maximization.
Another way to un-maximize a window is to drag its title bar down. I had
been told that dragging it up would maximize. I found that to not be the
case and was reporting it.
Does that help with your confusion?
>
>> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
>> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
>> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
>> Mac, too.
>
> Set up NTP.
Sure - but that does not explain the error.
>
>> 11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
>> not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just seems
>> flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there are themes
>> with no borders which when you have one window over another there is
>> absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other begins. This is
>> the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the fonts did not look
>> very smooth.
>
> Try another window manager or user interface.
>
> I grow fatigued with this post.
That is your choice - to be honest I was not finding your commentary
enlightening or amusing, so I think we are both happier that you cut your
response short. Thank you.
JEDIDIAH
> "Linønut" <lin?n...@bone.com> wrote in post
> ioGdnWbYTLp...@comcast.com on 3/6/05 8:48 PM:
>
>> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and does
>>> not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
>>
>> This is a lame complaint. Very lame.
>
> You are welcome to disagree. The facts are not in question though we
> disagree on the importance of the facts. Fair enough?
>>
>>> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>>> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
>>> feature if they wanted).
>>
>> Try another window manager.
>
> I mention a *good* thing and you suggest I try another window manager? Are
> you looking to have people have bad experiences with Linux?
The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should be.
You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
[deletia]
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Snit
slrnd2nm3...@localhost.localdomain on 3/6/05 9:32 PM:
> On 2005-03-07, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "Linųnut" <lin?n...@bone.com> wrote in post
>> ioGdnWbYTLp...@comcast.com on 3/6/05 8:48 PM:
>>
>>> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>
>>>> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and
>>>> does
>>>> not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
>>>
>>> This is a lame complaint. Very lame.
>>
>> You are welcome to disagree. The facts are not in question though we
>> disagree on the importance of the facts. Fair enough?
>>>
>>>> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>>>> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
>>>> feature if they wanted).
>>>
>>> Try another window manager.
>>
>> I mention a *good* thing and you suggest I try another window manager? Are
>> you looking to have people have bad experiences with Linux?
>
> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should be.
> You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose for
looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who are looking
to get away from XP.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
rapskat
fault at address <BE51275D.7894%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
follows .vbs
>> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
>> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should be.
>> You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
>
> Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose for
> looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who are looking
> to get away from XP.
Linux is completely different from either OS X or Windows in that you can
*choose* a distro that that particularly suits your needs, wants and
preferences.
I'm not sure you are really in the best position to be evaluating Linux
for persons coming from Windows. First off, you do not use Windows
yourself, nor do you even use a PC. Now had you said you were evaluating
Linux as an alternative to Mac users, then you'd have a point.
Truthfully, I think the only person that can effectively evaluate whether
or not Linux is suitable for them is themselves.
What you should do is just hand them a LiveCD and let them try it for
themselves. There are plenty to choose from, certainly more than are
currently available for a Mac.
--
rapskat - 00:21:46 up 1 day, 20:38, 7 users, load average: 0.13, 0.20, 0.19
Look afar and see the end from the beginning.
Snit
pan.2005.03.07....@rapskat.com on 3/6/05 10:29 PM:
> begin Error log for Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:32:13 -0700 - Snit caused a page
> fault at address <BE51275D.7894%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
> follows .vbs
>
>>> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
>>> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should be.
>>> You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
>>
>> Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose for
>> looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who are looking
>> to get away from XP.
>
> Linux is completely different from either OS X or Windows in that you can
> *choose* a distro that that particularly suits your needs, wants and
> preferences.
This, of course, assumes you have the knowledge and experience to make an
educated choice. There is no good way for most people to do this - even for
an advanced user this can take quite some time.
>
> I'm not sure you are really in the best position to be evaluating Linux
> for persons coming from Windows. First off, you do not use Windows
> yourself, nor do you even use a PC.
Not at all true. Not only do I use Windows, I teach it at a college and do
consulting work with it. I have been training people on PCs in one format
or another since 1987. I just prefer OS X for most (but not all) things.
> Now had you said you were evaluating Linux as an alternative to Mac users,
> then you'd have a point.
>
> Truthfully, I think the only person that can effectively evaluate whether
> or not Linux is suitable for them is themselves.
Students and clients often ask me for alternatives to Windows. I am very
familiar with their needs and their capabilities.
>
> What you should do is just hand them a LiveCD and let them try it for
> themselves. There are plenty to choose from, certainly more than are
> currently available for a Mac.
Yes, and I am playing with and making several LiveCD's for that purpose. I
will likely hand out such CD's to people who it is appropriate for. They
will undoubtedly come to me for help on it, and therefore before I do that I
need to know enough to be able to answer basic questions - and to make
recommendations for which distros they might want to use.
Rick
> "Freeride" <free...@maillinux.org> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.07....@maillinux.org on 3/6/05 7:41 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:44:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Just does not have a polished, modern look
>>
>> I personal think both Gnome and KDE are much more polished and modern than
>> anything Microsoft has.
>
> Can not speak about KDE, as I have not played with it, but Gnome just does
> not impress me at all. I listed some of the reasons before, but here is a
> list - some of this may be configurable, but I did not see how... I would
> love to hear if there are "fixes":
>
> * Dragged icons are not transparent - making it harder to move into a folder
I just tried that in KDE... works.
> * Folder icons do not change to open folder icons as you drag over them - a
> cool feature in OS X (not XP)
In KDE, the folder opens, as opposed to the icon changing.
> * No shadowing - everything looks flat
So what?
> * Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
Like MacOS platinum?
> this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they keep
> their resized status when moved to a folder
> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
Right-click-->properties, click on icon, pick icon to change.
> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I
> know this can be changed)
Wasted space in your opinion.
> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
Beeg Deel...
* Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
That has been explained to you, and your oly example is -a- screenshot
utility.
> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind
> windows
... because your hardware is old/slow and you're runnig from CD?
> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
Program to program, or in isolated programs, as -you- have already stated?
> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
Common task area?
> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
Why does every OS on the planet have to have every 'feature' of MacOs?
> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
Beeg Deel. So what?
> * Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
>
> I do like the badges you can put on icons - that is sorta cool.
>
>> Both are so much more customizable and have 10 times that bells and
>> whistles.
>
> Customizable - yes. More bells and whistles - perhaps. Something I
> would suggest to most users - no.
Of course you wouldn't.
>
>> Can't speak for OS X and won't till they port it over to x86.
>
> Not likely to happen...
Oh well...
--
Rick
sberry
> Well, I now have played with Linux on my PC. Let's start with the
> disclaimers:
>
> * I spend a couple hours with it playing, with both Ubuntu: Warty and
> Gnoppix - there is *no* doubt that there is still oodles and oodles to learn
> - I am just talking about what I found, not about Linux in general.
IOW you are giving your first impressions on a distro (or two) both
running the Gnome desktop environment. First impressions are just that -
first impressions. Still, nothing wrong with that.
> * I used LiveCD's: while these are a very cool way to get a feel for Linux,
> I have no idea what compromises are made to fit all they fit onto one CD.
Are you trying to sell a little FUD here? Compromises? The only
'compromise' is likely to be a lack of applications due to the limit in
size.
> * Speed is not an issue - one, I was using LiveCD's and not a HD install,
> and two, my PC is quite old.
So, we're not going to hear of any issues you have regarding speed?
> * I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to suggest to
> students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of the complaints
> below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to less technical
> folks.
The 'easiest' WM is KDE. KDE is also the most popular. Why are you
looking at the second favourite? Maybe it was just chance you dl'ed two
Gnome-based live disks.
> * Using FireStarter all ISO's worked without a hitch.
Not sure what that means.
> Ok, I started with Ubunto: Warty and then played with Gnoppix. Some notes
> and thoughts from using both of them for a short time:
>
> Booting:
>
> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and does
> not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
>
> 2) Moves to a "pretty" graphical progress bar.
>
> 3) Back to an ugly gray checked screen with a big X as the mouse pointer.
>
> 4) Back to an OS 9ish look of icons showing what they are loading... cute.
I don't think, in any review I might write, would I make 4 points about
what I see when booting. I am simply not concerned. I prefer an all-text
boot because if something goes wrong you can see where the problem lies.
> Booted:
>
> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
> feature if they wanted).
Ubuntu gives two panels - one top, one bottom. Right click on either ->
Delete This Panel. Are you talking about something else?
> 6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot was
> visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
> boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About" screen.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>
> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
> programs.
Why is one app's behaviour indicative of anything more than that one
app? I thought you was 'just talking about what I found, not about Linux
in general'
One more thing - if I click on a picture to view it, am I concerned
about what is and what is not written on the title bar. You are in
Gnome, guess what, it uses Eye of Gnome to display pics. How novel.
> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to that.
Ooo a criticism of speed - '* Speed is not an issue'. Try installing it.
> 8) Lots of programs - still impressed with how much they put on a CD. Even
> has Attaxx... I love that game. Wish I were better at it. :)
Don't play many games with the exception of two card games, Blackjack
and Pysol. Quite like the old style asteroid games too, but, as I said,
I don't play many games.
> 9) I can "restore" a maximized window by dragging the title bar down, but
> can not maximize a window by dragging the title bar up... which is what I
> understood from what I had read in COLA / CSMA.
I have never read in cola anything about minimising/maximising by
dragging. Just tried it and get the same result as you. Guess I'll just
use the buttons like I have been doing for years and as I would if I was
using any other OS.
> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
> Mac, too.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>
> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
Not sure why you are getting that. I don't. Look at NTP.
> 11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
> not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just seems
> flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there are themes
> with no borders which when you have one window over another there is
> absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other begins. This is
> the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the fonts did not look
> very smooth.
KDE rules for transparency.
You don't want borders but you want something to define where one window
ends and another starts? Make up your mind.
Fonts? Glad they look good but, do you know you can make them even
better? Look at Font (Preferences) in the Desktop Preferences/Control
Centre - Monochrome, Best Shape, Best Contrast, Sub-pixel Smoothing.
> 12) Because there is no transparency, it is harder to see when you drag a
> file into a folder. On OS X not only is the dragged item transparent, but
> the folder icon changes to show it is open. I also saw nothing like spring
> loaded folders - a huge plus for OS X in my book (though novices do not use
> it a whole lot).
Don't know what 'spring loaded folders' are. Just dragged a text file to
a folder in my home - as it hovered near, the dir highlighted and the
icon changed to an 'opened' folder icon. Two things confirming what you
are about to do.
> 13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders - all
> seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would open!
> They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then disappear.
> I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them, so it is not
> as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work. Rebooted and tried
> again and got the same issue.
You changed network settings and no app will open while the dialog is
still open? Sounds about right, to me. Particularly if the app loading
routinely checks network status before starting. But why oh why would
you keep the dialog open anyway? Are you looking for problems? Is that
the point of your posts?
> 14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
> random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select all"
> instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an "Apple II"
> screen saver, who can really complain. :)
There are indeed a wealth of screensavers. One for everybody.
> 15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the middle
> button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>
> Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
> most important points - applications work. That is the reason people use
> computers, not to play with themes...
I don't think many of us here would be using a system where the app's
don't work.
> 16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
> compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there is
> no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu. That is
> just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good thing.
Application feature preference, that's all that is. I hear you - it
should be on the Zoom Toolbar, but it isn't. Not exactly a biggie.
> 17) General dialogs are done "right", meaning they have "Save" and "Discard"
> as buttons, not "Yes" and "No" or whatever. This is better than XP and what
> OS X tends to have.
>
> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It was
> listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for either.
>
> 19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other goodies...
> Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the same at the
> level of usage I played with.
Your desktop looks how you want it to look. You are given the power to
change the look, feel and behaviour of everything you see. Desktop Icons
- no probs. 'Other goodies' has me at a loss. Every Linux distro has the
same pool of features, ie Gnome not distro. The differences between
distro's are likely to be minor and only be apparent during system
config or package management. Gnome is Gnome. Unless one is 2.6 and the
other is 2.8, then there are a few minor differences as you would expect
in a higher point release.
> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
> details:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
>
> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>
> Only OS X gets it right.
Maybe so. It would be nice to have one style of dialog but, TBH, it's
not a thing I'm going to lose sleep over.
> Wish I could be more positive about Linux. Again, remember that these are
> LiveCD's and first impressions - but GNOME is just not impressing me. I
> will play with KDE later, and hope that it is at least more modern looking
> and feeling.
'Wish I could be more positive about Linux'? I thought this was 'I am
just talking about what I found, not about Linux in general'.
Gnome is the number two WM. Try using the number one choice. It might be
better for you (and almost certainly better for any student you might
ply Linux on).
FWIW I use Gnome 2.8. It is the first Gnome I have been comfortable
enough with to use by choiceinstead of KDE. KDE is the best/easiest way
to learn. Gnome/Xfce/Fluxbox et al are there when you are ready.
Give a full Mandrake/KDE install a whirl. You know, Mandrake, the most
popular distro using the most popular Window Manager. Look forward to
your report :-)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:14:36 -0700,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Freeride" <free...@maillinux.org> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.07....@maillinux.org on 3/6/05 7:41 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:44:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Just does not have a polished, modern look
>>
>> I personal think both Gnome and KDE are much more polished and modern than
>> anything Microsoft has.
>
> Can not speak about KDE, as I have not played with it, but Gnome just does
> not impress me at all. I listed some of the reasons before, but here is a
> list - some of this may be configurable, but I did not see how... I would
> love to hear if there are "fixes":
>
> * Dragged icons are not transparent - making it harder to move into a folder
I think this is an issue with the X server, if yours supports alpha,
then you can have alpha icons. IIRC, XFree86 doesn't, and only the
latest versions of Xorg do. It's coming however.
> * Folder icons do not change to open folder icons as you drag over them - a
> cool feature in OS X (not XP)
> * No shadowing - everything looks flat
theme
> * Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
> this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they keep
> their resized status when moved to a folder
yes they can, view->zoom in. Also, if you are using SVG icons, then the
icons are vector maps, and scale smoothely, unlike pixmaps.
> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
rt click, properties, select custom icon.
> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I know
> this can be changed)
so change it?
> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
Odd, this used to be a function of the filemanager, although I haven't
used it much. It works this way in (for example) evolution, drag a
message from one folder, over to a folder with subfolders, and it
toggles open, showing the subfolders. Not sure when this changed, but it
looks like it's due to Apple *patenting* the "spring loaded folders"
thing. Pretty lame patent.
> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
When you click on the image, to view it, why do you care what the
program that views it is called? EOG gives you the name of the *image*
which would seem to be the relevent info. If you need to know the name
of the app, you can select "About" from the menubar. If you need to open
it with something other than the default media viewer for that format,
then you can always use the open with dialog.
> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind windows
That's a function of the config of the X server, which errs on the side
of easy config/detection, for the LiveCDs. On my Hoary HD install,
moving a window with an image in it, shows the image moving, as you'd
expect, not greyed out, or opaqued as if it were not dbl buffered.
> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
Within GNOME progs, no they don't. With non-GNOME progs, they can. Just
like non-Apple complient programmes running on OSX can differ :)
> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
what is this? maybe it's there, and you don't recognize it? What does
it's function serve?
> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
Autosize what and how? can you be more specific?
> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
Again, what is this?
> * Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
Expocity, a fork of Metacity, coming to the main tree soon, although not
in Hoary yet.
<http://www.pycage.de/software_expocity.html> for details, and for a
tarball, if that's your thing :)
>
> I do like the badges you can put on icons - that is sorta cool.
I haven't found much use for that, other than in a mr potato sort of
way, but it's kinda cool. Maybe I'll find it useful down the road.
>
>> Both are so much more customizable and have 10 times that bells and whistles.
>
> Customizable - yes. More bells and whistles - perhaps. Something I would
> suggest to most users - no.
You have missed a lot of the bells and whistles. :) For example, this
may be turned off by default, especially in the LiveCDs, but turn on
preview for local files in the file management prefs dialog.
(System->Preferences->File management) Now, open a file browser, and
hold the mouse pointer over a text file, or an mp3, or a video clip
(make sure it's with in the size limit you set on the dialog) and you
get a preview of what the file is. (or rather, contains.)
Drag a file, say, a spreadsheet, from the filebrowser to the menu bar on
top of the screen, instant shortcut to that file. Don't know if OSX does
that or not, either way, I find it useful.
Session management, you can have multiple sessions, and load them upon
login, not killer, but nice.
vFolders in Evolution, are one of those things that I ignored at first,
but am finding more and more useful. (not specifically GNOME issue,
since Evo can be used elsewhere, but Evo is the mail app for GNOME)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLB2Jd90bcYOAWPYRAtAqAKCWYjYRX/ZX+V3aCEqXfuyokCPrewCfWf7U
8UZAz2AvWhUppppBKsRyYWo=
=il5t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
the law!
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 15:01:34 -0700,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
<snip>
> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
> feature if they wanted).
>
> 6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot was
> visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
> boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About" screen.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>
> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
> programs.
>
> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to that.
LiveCD config most like, works fine here, on a HD install. Probably, the
LiveCD is in a slower, more conservative mode, to widen the hw compat as
much as possible.
>
> 8) Lots of programs - still impressed with how much they put on a CD. Even
> has Attaxx... I love that game. Wish I were better at it. :)
>
> 9) I can "restore" a maximized window by dragging the title bar down, but
> can not maximize a window by dragging the title bar up... which is what I
> understood from what I had read in COLA / CSMA.
Config issue I think, I can't get it to do it now, but not sure how I
turned it on or off :)
>
> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
> Mac, too.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>
> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
a bug, pure and simple.
>
> 11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
> not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just seems
> flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there are themes
> with no borders which when you have one window over another there is
> absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other begins. This is
> the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the fonts did not look
> very smooth.
>
Alpha transparency is a function of the X server, and is new for Xorg (at
least, I think it's in the dev tree) but not in the released version.
> 12) Because there is no transparency, it is harder to see when you drag a
> file into a folder. On OS X not only is the dragged item transparent, but
> the folder icon changes to show it is open. I also saw nothing like spring
> loaded folders - a huge plus for OS X in my book (though novices do not use
> it a whole lot).
>
It *used* to have spring loaded folders, but apple patented them...
> 13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders - all
> seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would open!
> They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then disappear.
> I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them, so it is not
> as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work. Rebooted and tried
> again and got the same issue.
>
Odd, a bug report would be useful.
> 14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
> random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select all"
> instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an "Apple II"
> screen saver, who can really complain. :)
>
I leave mine blank, I suppose it's a matter of taste :)
> 15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the middle
> button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>
> Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
> most important points - applications work. That is the reason people use
> computers, not to play with themes...
Agreed. Tinkering can be fun, but I'd rather be shooting, sailing, or
riding, than just tinkering with the computer.
>
> 16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
> compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there is
> no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu. That is
> just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good thing.
>
There's also crossover office, if you *must* have MS-Office, works very
well. About as well as MS-Office ever does.
> 17) General dialogs are done "right", meaning they have "Save" and "Discard"
> as buttons, not "Yes" and "No" or whatever. This is better than XP and what
> OS X tends to have.
>
This is something that the GNOME folks have put a fair amount of effort
into, (and received no small amount of flamage from many.)
> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It was
> listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for either.
SAMBA may or may not have been included in the LiveCD, although if not,
it should have given some sort of error. I don't have an MS-Windows
network here, but I share the HP 1200 over cups, and it works great. Not
that that's relevent to your setup really.
>
> 19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other goodies...
> Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the same at the
> level of usage I played with.
Ubuntu went away from icons on the desktop (thank GHU!) but it's a
setup/config issue. The still use them for somethings, like removable
media.
>
> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
> details:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
>
GNOME dialogs are the same, non GNOME dialogs may differ.
> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>
> Only OS X gets it right.
>
>
What does the gimp's save dialog look like on OSX? How about Open
Office?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLCLtd90bcYOAWPYRAh8hAJ9c6zortQfpz5zuKb86pNLYspBO5QCg1Pol
m7tOozdtldVNC8QlruBjiac=
=zEgi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Gravity is unforgiving.
Panama Red
>>
>> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
>> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should be.
>> You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
>
> Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose for
> looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who are looking
> to get away from XP.
Why do you assume that non technical users dont want their computer to
be ultimately configurable? I bet a significant group of Linux users
prefer it for just that reason, rather than for "technical" reasons.
I'll admit that I havent found a distro where the defaults are exactly
how I would have chose them, but I know that at least I have the
ability to set things up exaclty how I want.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet Poster
use...@gnubin.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linønut
> * Dragged icons are not transparent - making it harder to move into a folder
> * Folder icons do not change to open folder icons as you drag over them - a
> cool feature in OS X (not XP)
> * No shadowing - everything looks flat
> * Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
> this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they keep
> their resized status when moved to a folder
> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I know
> this can be changed)
> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind windows
> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
> * Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
Why don't you just keep on exploring before you tell us more about your
PERSONAL PREFERENCES?????
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <lin?n...@bone.com> wrote in post
> ioGdnWbYTLp...@comcast.com on 3/6/05 8:48 PM:
>
>> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and does
>>> not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
>>
>> This is a lame complaint. Very lame.
>
> You are welcome to disagree. The facts are not in question though we
> disagree on the importance of the facts. Fair enough?
It's a boot loader. Any messages that appear are welcome indicators of the
progress of the boot. Certainly more so than a color-gliding progress bar.
>
>>> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>>> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
>>> feature if they wanted).
>>
>> Try another window manager.
>
> I mention a *good* thing and you suggest I try another window manager? Are
> you looking to have people have bad experiences with Linux?
Linux is all about the freedom to experiment, my son.
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>>>
>>> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
>>> programs.
>>
>> What the HELL are you babbling about?
>
> Not sure what I can do to make it more clear. The name of the program is
> not in the title bar, as shown in the picture.
I understand (from another of your posts).
Why do you even CARE what app it is? It will appear on the taskbar as the
name of the item, which would seem to me to be more important. And the
button may also have the ICON for the application as well.
Frankly, Snit, you bring up a lot of personal preferences issues that are
unimportant.
>>> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
>>> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to that.
>>
>> You just said you're running it on low-end hardware. You can make many
>> user-interface adjustments to speed things up.
>
> It appears that the screen is not buffered - as it is on XP and OS X. Is
> that correct?
Everything in Linux is cached and buffered in some way. Even if the
software itself doesn't support it.
> Another way to un-maximize a window is to drag its title bar down. I had
> been told that dragging it up would maximize. I found that to not be the
> case and was reporting it.
>
> Does that help with your confusion?
I've never experienced dragging a window to change its size or maximizing
it. I mostly use double-click to shade the window.
And on XFce, how these actions are doen and the placement of the title-bar
buttons is configurable.
> That is your choice - to be honest I was not finding your commentary
> enlightening or amusing, so I think we are both happier that you cut your
> response short. Thank you.
Now why don't you return the favor and take some extra time to fully explore
your new Linux box, and to edit your posts for conciseness, hmm?
Linønut
>> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
>> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should be.
>> You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
>
> Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose for
> looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who are looking
> to get away from XP.
Enumerating your personal preferences (in a somewhat snide and condescending
manner) doesn't not advance your stated goal.
Snit
> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> "Linųnut" <lin?n...@bone.com> wrote in post
>> ioGdnWbYTLp...@comcast.com on 3/6/05 8:48 PM:
>>
>>> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>
>>>> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and
>>>> does not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
>>>>
>>> This is a lame complaint. Very lame.
>>>
>> You are welcome to disagree. The facts are not in question though we
>> disagree on the importance of the facts. Fair enough?
>>
> It's a boot loader. Any messages that appear are welcome indicators of the
> progress of the boot. Certainly more so than a color-gliding progress bar.
In your opinion. You are welcome to it.
>>
>>>> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>>>> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
>>>> feature if they wanted).
>>>
>>> Try another window manager.
>>
>> I mention a *good* thing and you suggest I try another window manager? Are
>> you looking to have people have bad experiences with Linux?
>
> Linux is all about the freedom to experiment, my son.
Does not change the fact that when I mention a good thing you suggest I look
for another window manager.
>
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>>>>
>>>> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
>>>> programs.
>>>
>>> What the HELL are you babbling about?
>>
>> Not sure what I can do to make it more clear. The name of the program is
>> not in the title bar, as shown in the picture.
>
> I understand (from another of your posts).
>
> Why do you even CARE what app it is? It will appear on the taskbar as the
> name of the item, which would seem to me to be more important. And the
> button may also have the ICON for the application as well.
>
> Frankly, Snit, you bring up a lot of personal preferences issues that are
> unimportant.
A consistent and easy to use interface is not merely a preference - it is a
requirement for my stated purposes. Knowing what program you are using is
important - if for no other reason than so you can use it again if you
chose. Or not use it, as the case may be.
>
>>>> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
>>>> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> You just said you're running it on low-end hardware. You can make many
>>> user-interface adjustments to speed things up.
>>
>> It appears that the screen is not buffered - as it is on XP and OS X. Is
>> that correct?
>
> Everything in Linux is cached and buffered in some way. Even if the
> software itself doesn't support it.
Can you explain why when I move a window I see the desktop pattern for a bit
and then see the icons get re-drawn. It is not done well.
>
>> Another way to un-maximize a window is to drag its title bar down. I had
>> been told that dragging it up would maximize. I found that to not be the
>> case and was reporting it.
>>
>> Does that help with your confusion?
>
> I've never experienced dragging a window to change its size or maximizing
> it. I mostly use double-click to shade the window.
Which, for the record, is a cool feature...
>
> And on XFce, how these actions are doen and the placement of the title-bar
> buttons is configurable.
I am not familiar with XFce.
>
>> That is your choice - to be honest I was not finding your commentary
>> enlightening or amusing, so I think we are both happier that you cut your
>> response short. Thank you.
>
> Now why don't you return the favor and take some extra time to fully explore
> your new Linux box, and to edit your posts for conciseness, hmm?
You are welcome to read or not read my longer posts as you chose. I will
not be offended if you select to not read or comment on them all - but I do
appreciate reasoned feedback. It is one of the ways that I am learning
about Linux.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
Ease of use is not primarily about personal preference. While some of the
above could be accurately labeled as that, most can not. I get the feeling
that discussing with you the reasons why would be futile. Do you disagree?
Snit
otntf2-...@ralph.homelinux.net on 3/7/05 4:02 AM:
> I believe it was Snit who said...
>>>
>>> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
>>> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should be.
>>> You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
>>
>> Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose for
>> looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who are looking
>> to get away from XP.
>
> Why do you assume that non technical users dont want their computer to
> be ultimately configurable? I bet a significant group of Linux users
> prefer it for just that reason, rather than for "technical" reasons.
Perhaps we are using the term "technical" in somewhat different ways. I am
in reference to people who are not "computer folks"... people who want to
use a computer as a tool, but not have to play with the tool much to get it
to work or who have the experience and desire, and sometimes the capability,
to select among hundreds of choices.
I am not saying that such things are bad for Linux. They are certainly a
huge bonus for it to some... just, in general, not my students / clients.
For those that are more likely to tinker and explore in such ways, they
really do not need me to point them to Linux.
>
> I'll admit that I havent found a distro where the defaults are exactly
> how I would have chose them, but I know that at least I have the
> ability to set things up exaclty how I want.
So far I have not found a distro that allows me to set things up in a way
that is nearly as easy to use for a new user as OS X is by default.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Snit
dgktf2-...@grendel.myth on 3/7/05 2:46 AM:
>> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
>> feature if they wanted).
>>
>> 6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot was
>> visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
>> boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About" screen.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>>
>> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
>> programs.
>>
>> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
>> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to that.
>
> LiveCD config most like, works fine here, on a HD install. Probably, the
> LiveCD is in a slower, more conservative mode, to widen the hw compat as
> much as possible.
Could be... and that could affect not only this but some of my other
observations. Thanks.
>>
>> 8) Lots of programs - still impressed with how much they put on a CD. Even
>> has Attaxx... I love that game. Wish I were better at it. :)
>>
>> 9) I can "restore" a maximized window by dragging the title bar down, but
>> can not maximize a window by dragging the title bar up... which is what I
>> understood from what I had read in COLA / CSMA.
>
> Config issue I think, I can't get it to do it now, but not sure how I
> turned it on or off :)
I looked for a config, but could not find it. Does not mean it does not
exist...
>>
>> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
>> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
>> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
>> Mac, too.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>
>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>
> a bug, pure and simple.
No doubt... and presumably not one that is seen in all distros... I would
bet I would not have been the first to find it. :)
>>
>> 11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
>> not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just seems
>> flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there are themes
>> with no borders which when you have one window over another there is
>> absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other begins. This is
>> the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the fonts did not look
>> very smooth.
>
> Alpha transparency is a function of the X server, and is new for Xorg (at
> least, I think it's in the dev tree) but not in the released version.
OK... so this should be corrected/improved in the not too distant future...
good to know.
>
>> 12) Because there is no transparency, it is harder to see when you drag a
>> file into a folder. On OS X not only is the dragged item transparent, but
>> the folder icon changes to show it is open. I also saw nothing like spring
>> loaded folders - a huge plus for OS X in my book (though novices do not use
>> it a whole lot).
>
> It *used* to have spring loaded folders, but apple patented them...
I can understand both sides of that issue... but how about icons changing as
items are dragged over them - changing in ways other than shading.
I did notice that when I mouse over icons they get highlighted... this is
done well, at least from my opinion.
>
>> 13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders - all
>> seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would open!
>> They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then disappear.
>> I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them, so it is not
>> as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work. Rebooted and tried
>> again and got the same issue.
>
> Odd, a bug report would be useful.
Perhaps I shall do that.
>
>> 14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
>> random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select all"
>> instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an "Apple II"
>> screen saver, who can really complain. :)
>
> I leave mine blank, I suppose it's a matter of taste :)
No! Not at all... this is paramount to the functioning of the computer!
Um, or not. :)
>
>> 15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the middle
>> button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>>
>> Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
>> most important points - applications work. That is the reason people use
>> computers, not to play with themes...
>
> Agreed. Tinkering can be fun, but I'd rather be shooting, sailing, or
> riding, than just tinkering with the computer.
Seems that Linux is designed for folks who tinker...
>>
>> 16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
>> compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there is
>> no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu. That is
>> just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good thing.
>
> There's also crossover office, if you *must* have MS-Office, works very
> well. About as well as MS-Office ever does.
I thought you said it worked very well. :)
At some point I shall have to play with it...
>
>> 17) General dialogs are done "right", meaning they have "Save" and "Discard"
>> as buttons, not "Yes" and "No" or whatever. This is better than XP and what
>> OS X tends to have.
>
> This is something that the GNOME folks have put a fair amount of effort
> into, (and received no small amount of flamage from many.)
Why? Who would disagree with this?
>
>> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It was
>> listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for either.
>
> SAMBA may or may not have been included in the LiveCD, although if not,
> it should have given some sort of error. I don't have an MS-Windows
> network here, but I share the HP 1200 over cups, and it works great. Not
> that that's relevent to your setup really.
I can share my printer in other ways. If I were setting up a HD installed
version I would play with that more... probably not an issue for most of my
students / clients.
>>
>> 19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other goodies...
>> Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the same at the
>> level of usage I played with.
>
> Ubuntu went away from icons on the desktop (thank GHU!) but it's a
> setup/config issue. The still use them for somethings, like removable
> media.
Yes, I noticed that. One thing I did not find was the *trash* on Gnoppix.
I thought that was strange. Could not even add it to the panels.
>>
>> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
>> details:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
>
> GNOME dialogs are the same, non GNOME dialogs may differ.
Any distros that come with all GNOME programs?
>
>> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>>
>> Only OS X gets it right.
>
> What does the gimp's save dialog look like on OSX? How about Open
> Office?
Neither fits with the OS X look, but neither is common, either - at least
not for non-techy users.
Of course, people on OS X tend to use commercial, and often expensive,
programs to fill those needs. There is something to be said for free!
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Snit
2:27 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>> Well, I now have played with Linux on my PC. Let's start with the
>> disclaimers:
>>
>> * I spend a couple hours with it playing, with both Ubuntu: Warty and
>> Gnoppix - there is *no* doubt that there is still oodles and oodles to learn
>> - I am just talking about what I found, not about Linux in general.
>
> IOW you are giving your first impressions on a distro (or two) both
> running the Gnome desktop environment. First impressions are just that -
> first impressions. Still, nothing wrong with that.
Of course... and I am hoping some of my complaints will be met with info on
how it is from a LiveCD only, or how there is an easy way to do what I want
but I just missed it.
Redrawing issues, for example, seem to be a LiveCD issue. Good for me to
know.
>
>> * I used LiveCD's: while these are a very cool way to get a feel for Linux,
>> I have no idea what compromises are made to fit all they fit onto one CD.
>
> Are you trying to sell a little FUD here? Compromises? The only
> 'compromise' is likely to be a lack of applications due to the limit in
> size.
I also understand that some of my issues do not exist for others who are
using HD installations - such as the redraw issues. The time issue also
seems to be that way.
>
>> * Speed is not an issue - one, I was using LiveCD's and not a HD install,
>> and two, my PC is quite old.
>
> So, we're not going to hear of any issues you have regarding speed?
Not directly - the redraw issue is related to speed - but more tied to what
is redrawn and how.
>
>> * I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to suggest to
>> students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of the complaints
>> below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to less technical
>> folks.
>
> The 'easiest' WM is KDE. KDE is also the most popular. Why are you
> looking at the second favourite? Maybe it was just chance you dl'ed two
> Gnome-based live disks.
I just downloaded Knoppix and will be playing - and reporting - about that.
>
>> * Using FireStarter all ISO's worked without a hitch.
>
> Not sure what that means.
It was a pain to get the ISO's I first worked with to burn - was looking at
OS X distros... and they would not work with Apple's standard tools. This
was a problem. Found another tool - Fireburner - that works fine. Even for
the x86 versions I am burning them from my Mac - my PC does not have a
burner.
>
>> Ok, I started with Ubunto: Warty and then played with Gnoppix. Some notes
>> and thoughts from using both of them for a short time:
>>
>> Booting:
>>
>> 1) It still starts with ugly, poorly wrapped text. Not a big deal, and does
>> not really hurt anything, but not a good first impression.
>>
>> 2) Moves to a "pretty" graphical progress bar.
>>
>> 3) Back to an ugly gray checked screen with a big X as the mouse pointer.
>>
>> 4) Back to an OS 9ish look of icons showing what they are loading... cute.
>
> I don't think, in any review I might write, would I make 4 points about
> what I see when booting. I am simply not concerned. I prefer an all-text
> boot because if something goes wrong you can see where the problem lies.
For my intended audience the above would likely be a deterrent - though not
a major one.
>
>> Booted:
>>
>> 5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>> advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
>> feature if they wanted).
>
> Ubuntu gives two panels - one top, one bottom. Right click on either ->
> Delete This Panel. Are you talking about something else?
No. You can delete either - but not both. Well, not unless you open
another first. :)
>
>> 6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot was
>> visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
>> boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About" screen.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>>
>> That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
>> programs.
>
> Why is one app's behaviour indicative of anything more than that one
> app? I thought you was 'just talking about what I found, not about Linux
> in general'
And I found that. :)
Keep in mind that these are the apps that ship with the OS... and this one
is even a default for this distro.
>
> One more thing - if I click on a picture to view it, am I concerned
> about what is and what is not written on the title bar. You are in
> Gnome, guess what, it uses Eye of Gnome to display pics. How novel.
I have no problem with it using a program, even one with a cutesy name. :)
>
>> 7) As I move Windows I can see the screen redraw - speed issue? No
>> buffering? Is this typical? Very... um... 80's or early 90's look to that.
>
> Ooo a criticism of speed - '* Speed is not an issue'. Try installing it.
Not just about speed - but it I have been told it is a LiveCD issue...
>
>> 8) Lots of programs - still impressed with how much they put on a CD. Even
>> has Attaxx... I love that game. Wish I were better at it. :)
>
> Don't play many games with the exception of two card games, Blackjack
> and Pysol. Quite like the old style asteroid games too, but, as I said,
> I don't play many games.
Nor, really, do I. I guess that is why we are not Windows advocates. :)
>
>> 9) I can "restore" a maximized window by dragging the title bar down, but
>> can not maximize a window by dragging the title bar up... which is what I
>> understood from what I had read in COLA / CSMA.
>
> I have never read in cola anything about minimising/maximising by
> dragging. Just tried it and get the same result as you. Guess I'll just
> use the buttons like I have been doing for years and as I would if I was
> using any other OS.
Yup... me, too. This was based on a discussion with someone else...
>
>> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
>> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
>> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
>> Mac, too.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>
>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>
> Not sure why you are getting that. I don't. Look at NTP.
It is a bug.
>
>> 11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
>> not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just seems
>> flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there are themes
>> with no borders which when you have one window over another there is
>> absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other begins. This is
>> the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the fonts did not look
>> very smooth.
>
> KDE rules for transparency.
>
> You don't want borders but you want something to define where one window
> ends and another starts? Make up your mind.
I did - I want shadowing or some sort of default border. One of the two
distros of Linux did not offer this - though it did offer the ability to
select different themes that had borders.
>
> Fonts? Glad they look good but, do you know you can make them even
> better? Look at Font (Preferences) in the Desktop Preferences/Control
> Centre - Monochrome, Best Shape, Best Contrast, Sub-pixel Smoothing.
Thank you...I shall look for that.
>
>> 12) Because there is no transparency, it is harder to see when you drag a
>> file into a folder. On OS X not only is the dragged item transparent, but
>> the folder icon changes to show it is open. I also saw nothing like spring
>> loaded folders - a huge plus for OS X in my book (though novices do not use
>> it a whole lot).
>
> Don't know what 'spring loaded folders' are.
This will explain it:
http://kb.indiana.edu/data/aehp.html?cust=635619.79198.30
> Just dragged a text file to a folder in my home - as it hovered near, the dir
> highlighted and the icon changed to an 'opened' folder icon. Two things
> confirming what you are about to do.
Cool... can I ask how you got that to work - mine does not do that.
>
>> 13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders - all
>> seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would open!
>> They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then disappear.
>> I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them, so it is not
>> as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work. Rebooted and tried
>> again and got the same issue.
>
> You changed network settings and no app will open while the dialog is
> still open?
Or even when it is closed.
> Sounds about right, to me. Particularly if the app loading routinely checks
> network status before starting. But why oh why would you keep the dialog open
> anyway? Are you looking for problems? Is that the point of your posts?
Who said I kept it open? In any case, even if I had, applications should
open.
>
>> 14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
>> random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select all"
>> instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an "Apple II"
>> screen saver, who can really complain. :)
>
> There are indeed a wealth of screensavers. One for everybody.
Or even two or three. :)
>
>> 15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the middle
>> button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>>
>> Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
>> most important points - applications work. That is the reason people use
>> computers, not to play with themes...
>
> I don't think many of us here would be using a system where the app's
> don't work.
Yet many people use Windows. :)
>
>> 16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
>> compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there is
>> no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu. That is
>> just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good thing.
>
> Application feature preference, that's all that is. I hear you - it
> should be on the Zoom Toolbar, but it isn't. Not exactly a biggie.
Just an example - if that were the only "oddity" it would not be a big deal,
but it is not the only oddity.
>
>> 17) General dialogs are done "right", meaning they have "Save" and "Discard"
>> as buttons, not "Yes" and "No" or whatever. This is better than XP and what
>> OS X tends to have.
>>
>> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It was
>> listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for either.
>>
>> 19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other goodies...
>> Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the same at the
>> level of usage I played with.
>
> Your desktop looks how you want it to look. You are given the power to
> change the look, feel and behaviour of everything you see. Desktop Icons
> - no probs. 'Other goodies' has me at a loss. Every Linux distro has the
> same pool of features, ie Gnome not distro. The differences between
> distro's are likely to be minor and only be apparent during system
> config or package management. Gnome is Gnome. Unless one is 2.6 and the
> other is 2.8, then there are a few minor differences as you would expect
> in a higher point release.
I am talking about the defaults - but I can see where I Was not clear.
>
>> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
>> details:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
>>
>> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>>
>> Only OS X gets it right.
>
> Maybe so. It would be nice to have one style of dialog but, TBH, it's
> not a thing I'm going to lose sleep over.
No, but it is important, esp. for newer and non-techy users.
>
>> Wish I could be more positive about Linux. Again, remember that these are
>> LiveCD's and first impressions - but GNOME is just not impressing me. I
>> will play with KDE later, and hope that it is at least more modern looking
>> and feeling.
>
> 'Wish I could be more positive about Linux'? I thought this was 'I am
> just talking about what I found, not about Linux in general'.
Sigh... you can nit pick my comments if you like. Should I have worded it
as:
Wish I could be more positive about *my experience with* Linux.
>
> Gnome is the number two WM. Try using the number one choice. It might be
> better for you (and almost certainly better for any student you might
> ply Linux on).
Thank you, I shall.
>
> FWIW I use Gnome 2.8. It is the first Gnome I have been comfortable
> enough with to use by choiceinstead of KDE. KDE is the best/easiest way
> to learn. Gnome/Xfce/Fluxbox et al are there when you are ready.
>
> Give a full Mandrake/KDE install a whirl. You know, Mandrake, the most
> popular distro using the most popular Window Manager. Look forward to
> your report :-)
Do not have the spare hardware to do a full install, but will when I get a
chance. I will be playing with KDE and will report soon.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Liam Slider
> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they keep
> their resized status when moved to a folder
Um...Snit...did you try the Zoom feature?
> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
Um... right click, it's under properties, Select Custom Icon.
> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I know
> this can be changed)
You do know the panel can be set to automatically hide right, and only
popping up when needed?
> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
I might as well complain about the lack of emblems in OSX. :-)
> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
Not really, they do with a couple programs yes. But it's nowhere near as
bad as with XP.
Liam Slider
<snip>
>>> 12) Because there is no transparency, it is harder to see when you drag a
>>> file into a folder. On OS X not only is the dragged item transparent, but
>>> the folder icon changes to show it is open. I also saw nothing like spring
>>> loaded folders - a huge plus for OS X in my book (though novices do not use
>>> it a whole lot).
>>
>> It *used* to have spring loaded folders, but apple patented them...
>
> I can understand both sides of that issue... but how about icons changing as
> items are dragged over them - changing in ways other than shading.
It does this now, at least on mine.
sberry
> Redrawing issues, for example, seem to be a LiveCD issue. Good for me to
> know.
Agreed.
>>>* I used LiveCD's: while these are a very cool way to get a feel for Linux,
>>>I have no idea what compromises are made to fit all they fit onto one CD.
>>
>>Are you trying to sell a little FUD here? Compromises? The only
>>'compromise' is likely to be a lack of applications due to the limit in
>>size.
>
> I also understand that some of my issues do not exist for others who are
> using HD installations - such as the redraw issues. The time issue also
> seems to be that way.
Unless I and others here are the exception, and not knowing any
different, I would agree it probably must be a live disk issue. I've
seen the redrawing but only when I'm stressing my system to an unusual
degree - it certainly never happens during normal usage. I'm quite picky
and that alone would annoy me to the point of looking for alternatives.
Good of you to honestly relate these problems. Have you made a bug report?
>>>* I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to suggest to
>>>students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of the complaints
>>>below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to less technical
>>>folks.
>>
>>The 'easiest' WM is KDE. KDE is also the most popular. Why are you
>>looking at the second favourite? Maybe it was just chance you dl'ed two
>>Gnome-based live disks.
>
>
> I just downloaded Knoppix and will be playing - and reporting - about that.
Knoppix is the Father. Never used it but a person I know says good
things about his install. Good luck with it.
>>>Booted:
>>>
>>>5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>>>advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
>>>feature if they wanted).
>>
>>Ubuntu gives two panels - one top, one bottom. Right click on either ->
>>Delete This Panel. Are you talking about something else?
>
>
> No. You can delete either - but not both. Well, not unless you open
> another first. :)
Now I understand. I don't know the official reason but I know, a few
years ago, I deleted the single panel and couldn't find a way of getting
it back creating a new one without right-click->create new panel on an
existing panel. I like my panels as they are so forgive me for not
deleting mine 'just to see' something I suspect and partly hope is correct.
>>>6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot was
>>>visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
>>>boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About" screen.
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>>>
>>>That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
>>>programs.
>>
>>Why is one app's behaviour indicative of anything more than that one
>>app? I thought you was 'just talking about what I found, not about Linux
>>in general'
>
>
> And I found that. :)
>
> Keep in mind that these are the apps that ship with the OS... and this one
> is even a default for this distro.
But why would you want to know it's Eye of Gnome anyway? Do you want to
open a new instance and make use of its features? Does it matter that
the name isn't on the title bar? The only time I would be interested is
if I wanted to change the default prog which opens images by right-click
-> Properties -> Open With (which is another way of telling what that
suddenly appearing program is that's opening the file by default).
Help -> About would be known by most users.
>>>8) Lots of programs - still impressed with how much they put on a CD. Even
>>>has Attaxx... I love that game. Wish I were better at it. :)
>>
>>Don't play many games with the exception of two card games, Blackjack
>>and Pysol. Quite like the old style asteroid games too, but, as I said,
>>I don't play many games.
>
>
> Nor, really, do I. I guess that is why we are not Windows advocates. :)
Aye, you're probably right.
>>>11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
>>>not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just seems
>>>flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there are themes
>>>with no borders which when you have one window over another there is
>>>absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other begins. This is
>>>the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the fonts did not look
>>>very smooth.
>>
>>KDE rules for transparency.
>>
>>You don't want borders but you want something to define where one window
>>ends and another starts? Make up your mind.
>
>
> I did - I want shadowing or some sort of default border. One of the two
> distros of Linux did not offer this - though it did offer the ability to
> select different themes that had borders.
Have a look at gnome-look.org or art.gnome.org. And please read
ubuntuguide.org
>>Don't know what 'spring loaded folders' are.
>
>
> This will explain it:
>
> http://kb.indiana.edu/data/aehp.html?cust=635619.79198.30
I didn't know what you meant. Thanks for the link. Konqueror does this.
It is a very cool feature. I wish Gnome's Nautilus would do the same.
It's starting to sound more and more that you are a KDE type :-) (Don't
worry, you're normal - well, in the majority, anyway)
>>Just dragged a text file to a folder in my home - as it hovered near, the dir
>>highlighted and the icon changed to an 'opened' folder icon. Two things
>>confirming what you are about to do.
>
>
> Cool... can I ask how you got that to work - mine does not do that.
The icon changing? It must be a feature of the theme I've installed from
one of the two sites above. If so, the icon set is Noia Warm.
>>>13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders - all
>>>seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would open!
>>>They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then disappear.
>>>I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them, so it is not
>>>as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work. Rebooted and tried
>>>again and got the same issue.
>>
>>You changed network settings and no app will open while the dialog is
>>still open?
>
>
> Or even when it is closed.
Even when closed? Your system is FUBAR'd once you alter network settings?
>>>14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
>>>random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select all"
>>>instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an "Apple II"
>>>screen saver, who can really complain. :)
>>
>>There are indeed a wealth of screensavers. One for everybody.
>
>
> Or even two or three. :)
:-)
>>>15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the middle
>>>button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>>>
>>>Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
>>>most important points - applications work. That is the reason people use
>>>computers, not to play with themes...
>>
>>I don't think many of us here would be using a system where the app's
>>don't work.
>
>
> Yet many people use Windows. :)
Now now ;-)
>>>16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
>>>compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there is
>>>no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu. That is
>>>just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good thing.
>>
>>Application feature preference, that's all that is. I hear you - it
>>should be on the Zoom Toolbar, but it isn't. Not exactly a biggie.
>
>
> Just an example - if that were the only "oddity" it would not be a big deal,
> but it is not the only oddity.
1. Oddity or different way of doing something?
2. Oddity or missing feature?
3. Oddity or bug?
If 1, it will take months of everyday usage to be as comfortable with a
completely new system and ways of doing things. Having to learn a
different way is not hard but added up will make you realise it takes
time to learn. It is worth the effort.
If 2, please look on the web for a wishlist and add all you would like
to see, though I don't think you mean this.
3 would mean the time 'bug' (if that is what it is and isn't
BIOS/hardware clock related)? You have others? Please tell (and submit a
bug report).
>>>20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
>>>details:
>>>Only OS X gets it right.
>>
>>Maybe so. It would be nice to have one style of dialog but, TBH, it's
>>not a thing I'm going to lose sleep over.
>
>
> No, but it is important, esp. for newer and non-techy users.
I don't think any of the different dialog boxes used are going to give a
user any problems. Uniformity would be nice, in fact welcomed, but not
as big an issue as you are making out. And, as someone else asked 'what
do the Save dialogs for The Gimp and OpenOffice look like on Mac?'
>>>Wish I could be more positive about Linux. Again, remember that these are
>>>LiveCD's and first impressions - but GNOME is just not impressing me. I
>>>will play with KDE later, and hope that it is at least more modern looking
>>>and feeling.
>>
>>'Wish I could be more positive about Linux'? I thought this was 'I am
>>just talking about what I found, not about Linux in general'.
>
>
> Sigh... you can nit pick my comments if you like. Should I have worded it
> as:
>
> Wish I could be more positive about *my experience with* Linux.
Change Linux to the name of distro and I wouldn't 'nit pick', though I
would still point you in the direction of KDE.
>>Gnome is the number two WM. Try using the number one choice. It might be
>>better for you (and almost certainly better for any student you might
>>ply Linux on).
>
>
> Thank you, I shall.
It was intended as a comment/recommendation for the students as much as
for you. I hope it gives what you want, and in consideration to
transparency/spring loaded folders, I think it might.
>>FWIW I use Gnome 2.8. It is the first Gnome I have been comfortable
>>enough with to use by choiceinstead of KDE. KDE is the best/easiest way
>>to learn. Gnome/Xfce/Fluxbox et al are there when you are ready.
>>
>>Give a full Mandrake/KDE install a whirl. You know, Mandrake, the most
>>popular distro using the most popular Window Manager. Look forward to
>>your report :-)
>
>
> Do not have the spare hardware to do a full install, but will when I get a
> chance. I will be playing with KDE and will report soon.
The problem, as I see it, lies in the choice of distro/WM.
Ubuntu is not a distro I would recommend for a migrating/new user. Given
ubuntuguide.org and a lot will be explained to new ears, but, I think
they would have it a sight easier by using KDE in the form of MDK or a
KDE-based livedisk.
No chance of creating a partition and installing Mandrake (PPC)? No
spare 4Gb+ hard drives knocking around? Shame - you're missing out.
Good luck with your choices.
JEDIDIAH
Sure it is. Everyone wants different things out of a computer.
This is what separates general purpose machines from Playstations.
> above could be accurately labeled as that, most can not. I get the feeling
> that discussing with you the reasons why would be futile. Do you disagree?
>
If the end users can't handle variation in the interface then the
ultimate purpose of a GUI is meaningless. It just becomes a fancy way to
waist cpu cycles and money.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Linønut
Frankly, since you got a point wrong about an OS you use a lot (XP will
expand a subdirectory if the mouse cursor hovers over it), I'm sure as hell
not going to trust your claims about Linux functionality.
Maybe in a few weeks you'll be able to demonstrate more familiarity.
Linønut
> So far I have not found a distro that allows me to set things up in a way
> that is nearly as easy to use for a new user as OS X is by default.
All distros allow it. You have to figure it out for your users.
Tailorability of Linux GUIs is high. You can lock them down, too.
Google for "kiosk mode"+Linux.
Snit
pan.2005.03.07....@trollfeed.com on 3/6/05 11:34 PM:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:14:36 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Freeride" <free...@maillinux.org> wrote in post
>> pan.2005.03.07....@maillinux.org on 3/6/05 7:41 PM:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:44:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just does not have a polished, modern look
>>>
>>> I personal think both Gnome and KDE are much more polished and modern than
>>> anything Microsoft has.
>>
>> Can not speak about KDE, as I have not played with it, but Gnome just does
>> not impress me at all. I listed some of the reasons before, but here is a
>> list - some of this may be configurable, but I did not see how... I would
>> love to hear if there are "fixes":
>>
>> * Dragged icons are not transparent - making it harder to move into a folder
>
> I just tried that in KDE... works.
Cool. Will be playing with - and reporting my findings - KDE soon. Maybe
even today.
>
>> * Folder icons do not change to open folder icons as you drag over them - a
>> cool feature in OS X (not XP)
>
> In KDE, the folder opens, as opposed to the icon changing.
Spring Loaded folders? OS X has both.
>
>> * No shadowing - everything looks flat
>
> So what?
Harder to find things - it *does* make a difference.
>
>> * Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
>
> Like MacOS platinum?
You mean from OS 9? It was nowhere near as bad as the defaults I have seen
from the versions of Linux I have played with - or many of the other themes.
Still, OS 9 was not as good in this area as is OS X.
>
>> this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
>> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they keep
>> their resized status when moved to a folder
>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>
> Right-click-->properties, click on icon, pick icon to change.
Can you copy and paste an image?
>
>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I
>> know this can be changed)
>
> Wasted space in your opinion.
The fact that the space is used is not an opinion. The fact that it is
wasted is something that can be easily shown.
>
>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>
> Beeg Deel...
>
>> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
>
> That has been explained to you, and your oly example is -a- screenshot
> utility.
Actually, no, it was not a screen shot utility, it was Eye of Gnome... it
deals with other pictures, does it not?
>
>> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind
>> windows
>
> ... because your hardware is old/slow and you're runnig from CD?
I have heard from others that it is buffered but that the LiveCD's might not
support that feature. If that is the case it is a non-issue.
>
>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
>
> Program to program, or in isolated programs, as -you- have already stated?
Not sure what the difference is... different programs are isolated almost by
definition. I suppose we can nit pick the concept in relation to suites,
but I do not see what you are getting at.
>
>> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
>
> Common task area?
Yes. In XP.
>
>> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
>
> Why does every OS on the planet have to have every 'feature' of MacOs?
I can not think of a reason. Neither of us seem to support that concept, so
why do you bring it up?
>
>> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
>
> Beeg Deel. So what?
For a new user it is not that big of a deal... and since that is my stated
and actual purpose, I can see where it is nit picky. For more advanced
users it is a very cool feature.
>
>> * Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
>>
>> I do like the badges you can put on icons - that is sorta cool.
>>
>>> Both are so much more customizable and have 10 times that bells and
>>> whistles.
>>
>> Customizable - yes. More bells and whistles - perhaps. Something I
>> would suggest to most users - no.
>
> Of course you wouldn't.
OK. Is there a reason I should.
>>
>>> Can't speak for OS X and won't till they port it over to x86.
>>
>> Not likely to happen...
>
> Oh well...
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Snit
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:14:36 -0700,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "Freeride" <free...@maillinux.org> wrote in post
>> pan.2005.03.07....@maillinux.org on 3/6/05 7:41 PM:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:44:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just does not have a polished, modern look
>>>
>>> I personal think both Gnome and KDE are much more polished and modern than
>>> anything Microsoft has.
>>
>> Can not speak about KDE, as I have not played with it, but Gnome just does
>> not impress me at all. I listed some of the reasons before, but here is a
>> list - some of this may be configurable, but I did not see how... I would
>> love to hear if there are "fixes":
>>
>> * Dragged icons are not transparent - making it harder to move into a folder
>
> I think this is an issue with the X server, if yours supports alpha,
> then you can have alpha icons. IIRC, XFree86 doesn't, and only the
> latest versions of Xorg do. It's coming however.
Good to hear - thanks.
>
>> * Folder icons do not change to open folder icons as you drag over them - a
>> cool feature in OS X (not XP)
>
>> * No shadowing - everything looks flat
>
> theme
Did not see shadows on any theme - tied to alpha issues again, I would
guess.
>
>> * Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
>> this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
>> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they keep
>> their resized status when moved to a folder
>
> yes they can, view->zoom in. Also, if you are using SVG icons, then the
> icons are vector maps, and scale smoothely, unlike pixmaps.
Doesn't that change all icons in the folder? On the desktop you can do it
by icon.
>
>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>
> rt click, properties, select custom icon.
How about arbitrary images via cut and paste or something similar?
>
>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I know
>> this can be changed)
>
> so change it?
I can - but my students and clients would be unlikely to.
>
>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>
> Odd, this used to be a function of the filemanager, although I haven't
> used it much. It works this way in (for example) evolution, drag a
> message from one folder, over to a folder with subfolders, and it
> toggles open, showing the subfolders. Not sure when this changed, but it
> looks like it's due to Apple *patenting* the "spring loaded folders"
> thing. Pretty lame patent.
I can understand both sides of the issue...
>
>> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
>
> When you click on the image, to view it, why do you care what the
> program that views it is called? EOG gives you the name of the *image*
> which would seem to be the relevent info. If you need to know the name
> of the app, you can select "About" from the menubar. If you need to open
> it with something other than the default media viewer for that format,
> then you can always use the open with dialog.
The work around do not excuse the poor UI on this.
>
>> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind windows
>
> That's a function of the config of the X server, which errs on the side
> of easy config/detection, for the LiveCDs. On my Hoary HD install,
> moving a window with an image in it, shows the image moving, as you'd
> expect, not greyed out, or opaqued as if it were not dbl buffered.
Hmmm, the image moves, but the icons behind did not get redrawn well. I
would see the desktop image and then see the icons get re-added. Could be
LiveCD issue though.
>
>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
>
> Within GNOME progs, no they don't. With non-GNOME progs, they can. Just
> like non-Apple complient programmes running on OSX can differ :)
The *big* difference here, though, is that most people run only OS X
compliant programs on OS X. The two distros I played with that had GNOME
had lots of apps that came with it that were non-compliant.
>
>> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
>
> what is this? maybe it's there, and you don't recognize it? What does
> it's function serve?
Common tasks readily available without having to right click.
>
>> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
>
> Autosize what and how? can you be more specific?
Say you have 5 icons in a folder. Click a button in OS X and the window
becomes big enough to show all icons - but no bigger. A very cool feature.
Now if only OS X had a real maximize. :)
>
>> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
>
> Again, what is this?
It allows you to have a script or program run based on what is happening
with the folder - items being added, removed, renamed, etc.
This is not something a non-techy is likely to do, so perhaps should not
have been on the list. Really would not matter to most of my students /
clients.
>
>> * Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
>
> Expocity, a fork of Metacity, coming to the main tree soon, although not
> in Hoary yet.
>
> <http://www.pycage.de/software_expocity.html> for details, and for a
> tarball, if that's your thing :)
Thanks. Does not really help my students, but good to know it is likely to
become more common over time.
>>
>> I do like the badges you can put on icons - that is sorta cool.
>
> I haven't found much use for that, other than in a mr potato sort of
> way, but it's kinda cool. Maybe I'll find it useful down the road.
I know some people who would likely benefit - but for me they are little
more than a gee-whiz factor. :)
>
>>
>>> Both are so much more customizable and have 10 times that bells and
>>> whistles.
>>
>> Customizable - yes. More bells and whistles - perhaps. Something I would
>> suggest to most users - no.
>
> You have missed a lot of the bells and whistles. :)
I am glad, truly, that you are here to enlighten me.
> For example, this may be turned off by default, especially in the LiveCDs, but
> turn on preview for local files in the file management prefs dialog.
> (System->Preferences->File management) Now, open a file browser, and hold the
> mouse pointer over a text file, or an mp3, or a video clip (make sure it's
> with in the size limit you set on the dialog) and you get a preview of what
> the file is. (or rather, contains.)
Yes, I did see that - and both OS X and XP have similar features (handled a
bit differently).
>
> Drag a file, say, a spreadsheet, from the filebrowser to the menu bar on
> top of the screen, instant shortcut to that file. Don't know if OSX does
> that or not, either way, I find it useful.
OS X does this - though only to the right side of the dock. Keeps things
organized. You can do similar things in XP. And, yes, I did find this,
too. Not bad for such a short time playing, eh? :)
>
> Session management, you can have multiple sessions, and load them upon
> login, not killer, but nice.
Not sure what a "session" is - other than the feature I have heard where you
can save what programs are open, etc. That *is* a cool feature. Have read
about it in COLA / CSMA, but not played with it.
>
> vFolders in Evolution, are one of those things that I ignored at first,
> but am finding more and more useful. (not specifically GNOME issue,
> since Evo can be used elsewhere, but Evo is the mail app for GNOME)
What is a vFolder? I would guess something like Smart Folders... which OS X
will get with 10.4 (though does not have them now). OS X will even have
them for the OS itself - very cool.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
_________________________________________
Snit
pan.2005.03.07...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/7/05 7:52 AM:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:14:36 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>
>> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they keep
>> their resized status when moved to a folder
>
> Um...Snit...did you try the Zoom feature?
Yes, but it zoomed all icons in the folder, did it not (I could be
"misremembering")
>
>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>
> Um... right click, it's under properties, Select Custom Icon.
Anything similar to copy and paste for arbitrary icons?
>
>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I know
>> this can be changed)
>
> You do know the panel can be set to automatically hide right, and only
> popping up when needed?
Yes... and I did not play much with that. I would assume that they can get
in the way, much like the Dock can in OS X.
>
>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>
> I might as well complain about the lack of emblems in OSX. :-)
>
OS X uses them, but for different purposes...
OK, the functionality does not easily exist in OS X (I suppose you can
create icons and copy and paste - but that is silly!)
>
>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
>
> Not really, they do with a couple programs yes. But it's nowhere near as
> bad as with XP.
I suppose I would have to play with more apps. XP is pretty bad in this
area... OS X is excellent (though not perfect).
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.07...@trollfeed.com on 3/7/05 3:08 PM:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:41:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
>>> pan.2005.03.07....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/7/05 2:36 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:54:43 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
>>>>> pan.2005.03.07...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/7/05 7:52 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:14:36 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they
>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>> their resized status when moved to a folder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Um...Snit...did you try the Zoom feature?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but it zoomed all icons in the folder, did it not (I could be
>>>>> "misremembering")
>>>>
>>>> You are correct. But it does change icon size. Basically, we have a
>>>> different way of customizing than you are used to I guess.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I have not been clear. From what I know of GNOME:
>>>
>>> - on the desktop you can change the size of individual icons
>>> - in folders you can not, though you can change the size of all icons
>>>
>>> I do not understand the inconsistency.
>>
>> Ask the Gnome developers in their forum. They may not consider ti an
>> inconsistency.
>
> Unless I am wrong about the feature how could it be anything but an
> inconsistency?
... ask them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Um... right click, it's under properties, Select Custom Icon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything similar to copy and paste for arbitrary icons?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure entirely what you mean. But you can change what image your icon
>>>> uses easily, and add user defined ones and custom icons.
>>>
>>> How do you add custom ones? That is what I am looking for - for example,
>>> say I make an image in... oh, GIMP or something... how do I change the icon
>>> to look like the image?
>>
>> Save the image. Right click on Icon -->properties, click th eicon,
>> navigate to the save image.
>
> While not quite as easy as copy and paste, certainly not bad.
I think it is at least as easy as copy and paste.
> What limitations are there on the type of image?
I have no idea.
--
Rick
Rick
> In article <pan.2005.03.07...@trollfeed.com>,
> Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
>> It can be. Whatever OS a person first uses usually seem easier than
>> learning a new OS.
>
> Really? So DOS is easier to use than Linux.
>
> Amazing.
You're an idiot.
--
Rick
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.07...@trollfeed.com on 3/7/05 3:11 PM:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:21:55 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>> It can be. Whatever OS a person first uses usually seem easier than
>> learning a new OS.
>
> While there is *some* truth to this, I have taught enough Mac people to use
> Windows and vice verso to know it not to be true in a general sense.
>>
>>> While some of the above could be accurately labeled as that, most can not. I
>>> get the feeling that discussing with you the reasons why would be futile.
>>
>> Why?
>
> The personality of the person I was talking to. I am looking for well
> reasoned comments and I was not getting them from him. I would be happy to
> see that change.
>>
>>> Do you disagree?
>>
>> It depends. I disagree with you in that I believe a lot of 'ease of use'
>> has to do with preferences.
>
> Ok. So we disagree. Out of curiosity, what do you base your view on? I
> base mine, among other things, on training hundreds of people to use an OS
> other than what they are accustomed to.
I base mine on reactions of people trying to use an OS they aren't used to.
--
Rick
Linønut
>> All distros allow it. You have to figure it out for your users.
>> Tailorability of Linux GUIs is high. You can lock them down, too.
>> Google for "kiosk mode"+Linux.
>
> I have seen nothing in Linux that makes me believe what you are saying is
> correct - that I can configure it as you claim. Then again, I have used
> only GNOME and only for a short time.
The wise man would stop making assertions, then, until more knowledge is
gained.
Snit
>>> In KDE, the folder opens, as opposed to the icon changing.
>>
>> Spring Loaded folders? OS X has both.
>
> Spring Loaded folders? Doubtful. The folder highlights, and the window
> changes to show the contents of the folder.
Not sure what you mean.
>>>
>>>> * No shadowing - everything looks flat
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> Harder to find things - it *does* make a difference.
>
> Yeah. Right. Lack of shadows makes it harder to find things. Uh huh.
Your sarcasm is not helping the conversation.
>
>>>
>>>> * Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
>>>
>>> Like MacOS platinum?
>>
>> You mean from OS 9? It was nowhere near as bad as the defaults I have seen
>> from the versions of Linux I have played with - or many of the other themes.
>> Still, OS 9 was not as good in this area as is OS X.
>>>
>>>> this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
>>>> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they
>>>> keep
>>>> their resized status when moved to a folder
>>>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>>>
>>> Right-click-->properties, click on icon, pick icon to change.
>>
>> Can you copy and paste an image?
>
> I don't know. It is a different way of doing things. And it eliminates the
> need to paste.
Others have described in better detail the answer to my question. It sound
like the option does exist.
>>>
>>>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I
>>>> know this can be changed)
>>>
>>> Wasted space in your opinion.
>>
>> The fact that the space is used is not an opinion. The fact that it is
>> wasted is something that can be easily shown.
>
> Wasted space in your opinion.
Repeating your comment does not add any force to it. You are merely pushing
the conversation into a loop.
>
>>>
>>>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>>>
>>> Beeg Deel...
>>>
>>>> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
>>>
>>> That has been explained to you, and your oly example is -a- screenshot
>>> utility.
>>
>> Actually, no, it was not a screen shot utility, it was Eye of Gnome... it
>> deals with other pictures, does it not?
>
> IO just opened Eye of Gnome. When it opened, Eye of Gnome was in the Title
> Bar. When I opened a graphic, the Title Bar changed to show the name of
> the graphic. It seemed handy to me.
What a strange inconsistency.
>
> In looking around, I noticed Konqueror has some nice graphic view features.
OK.
>>>
>>>> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind
>>>> windows
>>>
>>> ... because your hardware is old/slow and you're runnig from CD?
>>
>> I have heard from others that it is buffered but that the LiveCD's might not
>> support that feature. If that is the case it is a non-issue.
>>>
>>>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
>>>
>>> Program to program, or in isolated programs, as -you- have already stated?
>>
>> Not sure what the difference is... different programs are isolated almost by
>> definition. I suppose we can nit pick the concept in relation to suites,
>> but I do not see what you are getting at.
>
> I am getting at... Gnome doe shave Human Interface guidelines. Some
> developers do not follow them.
Regardless: from what I have seen of the two distros I have used that came
with GNOME, the default apps do not follow the standards. This is very
different, and inferior, to OS X. There may be other distros where this is
not the case.
>>>
>>>> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
>>>
>>> Common task area?
>>
>> Yes. In XP.
>
> OK... just for you...
>
> What is the common task area, and where is it?
It is the area in XP windows that show the common tasks. They are seen in
this image:
http://www.mcfedries.com/cigwindowsxp/01fig03.jpg
>>>> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
>>>
>>> Why does every OS on the planet have to have every 'feature' of MacOs?
>>
>> I can not think of a reason. Neither of us seem to support that concept, so
>> why do you bring it up?
>
> Why should any other OS have auto-size to contents?
Same reason other OS's should have other features that are beneficial to
users.
>>>
>>>> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
>>>
>>> Beeg Deel. So what?
>>
>> For a new user it is not that big of a deal... and since that is my stated
>> and actual purpose, I can see where it is nit picky. For more advanced
>> users it is a very cool feature.
>
> If it were that cool, I'd have thought someone would have added it.
They did. To OS X.
Is that how you define "cool" - if it has made it to Linux? GNOME?
>>>
>>>> * Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
>>>>
>>>> I do like the badges you can put on icons - that is sorta cool.
>>>>
>>>>> Both are so much more customizable and have 10 times that bells and
>>>>> whistles.
>>>>
>>>> Customizable - yes. More bells and whistles - perhaps. Something I
>>>> would suggest to most users - no.
>>>
>>> Of course you wouldn't.
>>
>> OK. Is there a reason I should.
>
> Yes. It has a lack of virii. A lack of spyware. Installation is easy. It
> is fairly easy to use and maintain. And it probably runs on hardware the
> 'new user' already has.
Other than the last point OS X has all of those. OS X also has benefits
that Linux, as a whole, does not.
Still there are people Linux no doubt is best for. That is the reason I am
playing with it, so I can best judge such things.
>>>>
>>>>> Can't speak for OS X and won't till they port it over to x86.
>>>>
>>>> Not likely to happen...
>>>
>>> Oh well...
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
_________________________________________
Snit
>>> It depends. I disagree with you in that I believe a lot of 'ease of use'
>>> has to do with preferences.
>>
>> Ok. So we disagree. Out of curiosity, what do you base your view on? I
>> base mine, among other things, on training hundreds of people to use an OS
>> other than what they are accustomed to.
>
> I base mine on reactions of people trying to use an OS they aren't used to.
What people? How many? In what circumstances?
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
_________________________________________
Snit
> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>> All distros allow it. You have to figure it out for your users.
>>> Tailorability of Linux GUIs is high. You can lock them down, too.
>>> Google for "kiosk mode"+Linux.
>>
>> I have seen nothing in Linux that makes me believe what you are saying is
>> correct - that I can configure it as you claim. Then again, I have used
>> only GNOME and only for a short time.
>
> The wise man would stop making assertions, then, until more knowledge is
> gained.
If we were talking about what was *possible* with Linux or with GNOME
specifically your point would be more accurate. As it is, I am looking at
what to suggest for non-technical users.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
_________________________________________
Panama Red
> "Panama Red" <complaintde...@yahoo.com> wrote in post
> otntf2-...@ralph.homelinux.net on 3/7/05 4:02 AM:
>
>> I believe it was Snit who said...
>>>>
>>>> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
>>>> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should be.
>>>> You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
>>>
>>> Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose for
>>> looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who are looking
>>> to get away from XP.
>>
>> Why do you assume that non technical users dont want their computer to
>> be ultimately configurable? I bet a significant group of Linux users
>> prefer it for just that reason, rather than for "technical" reasons.
>
> Perhaps we are using the term "technical" in somewhat different ways. I am
> in reference to people who are not "computer folks"... people who want to
> use a computer as a tool, but not have to play with the tool much to get it
> to work or who have the experience and desire, and sometimes the capability,
> to select among hundreds of choices.
Which most Linux distros do quite well. You really dont have to set it
up any more than you do Windows, for example.
> I am not saying that such things are bad for Linux. They are certainly a
> huge bonus for it to some... just, in general, not my students / clients.
Because you've decided that your distaste of Linux fonts and/or
screenshot menubars are a big issue. I think most people would agree
that those things are trivial.
> For those that are more likely to tinker and explore in such ways, they
> really do not need me to point them to Linux.
>>
>> I'll admit that I havent found a distro where the defaults are exactly
>> how I would have chose them, but I know that at least I have the
>> ability to set things up exaclty how I want.
>
> So far I have not found a distro that allows me to set things up in a way
> that is nearly as easy to use for a new user as OS X is by default.
In your opinion. But for 3 times the price, you would expect at least
a decent font and a clock that works.
Snit
> I believe it was Snit who said...
>> "Panama Red" <complaintde...@yahoo.com> wrote in post
>> otntf2-...@ralph.homelinux.net on 3/7/05 4:02 AM:
>>
>>> I believe it was Snit who said...
>>>>>
>>>>> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
>>>>> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should
>>>>> be.
>>>>> You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
>>>>
>>>> Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose for
>>>> looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who are looking
>>>> to get away from XP.
>>>
>>> Why do you assume that non technical users dont want their computer to
>>> be ultimately configurable? I bet a significant group of Linux users
>>> prefer it for just that reason, rather than for "technical" reasons.
>>
>> Perhaps we are using the term "technical" in somewhat different ways. I am
>> in reference to people who are not "computer folks"... people who want to
>> use a computer as a tool, but not have to play with the tool much to get it
>> to work or who have the experience and desire, and sometimes the capability,
>> to select among hundreds of choices.
>
> Which most Linux distros do quite well. You really dont have to set it
> up any more than you do Windows, for example.
I have played with only two: Ubuntu and Gnoppix. Neither does it well.
Have played even less with Knoppix - it is better, but still does not do it
well.
What distro do you suggest?
>
>> I am not saying that such things are bad for Linux. They are certainly a
>> huge bonus for it to some... just, in general, not my students / clients.
>
> Because you've decided that your distaste of Linux fonts and/or
> screenshot menubars are a big issue. I think most people would agree
> that those things are trivial.
Your attempt to put words into my mouth does not speak well for you.
>
>> For those that are more likely to tinker and explore in such ways, they
>> really do not need me to point them to Linux.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that I havent found a distro where the defaults are exactly
>>> how I would have chose them, but I know that at least I have the
>>> ability to set things up exaclty how I want.
>>
>> So far I have not found a distro that allows me to set things up in a way
>> that is nearly as easy to use for a new user as OS X is by default.
>
> In your opinion. But for 3 times the price, you would expect at least
> a decent font and a clock that works.
I am not sure what you are in reference to. What are you comparing as far
as prices? What clock are you in reference to - the one that did not work
in the Linux?
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
TravelinMan
Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
Because I show how foolish your statements are?
Whatever.
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.07....@trollfeed.com on 3/7/05 4:31 PM:
>
>>>> It depends. I disagree with you in that I believe a lot of 'ease of use'
>>>> has to do with preferences.
>>>
>>> Ok. So we disagree. Out of curiosity, what do you base your view on? I
>>> base mine, among other things, on training hundreds of people to use an OS
>>> other than what they are accustomed to.
>>
>> I base mine on reactions of people trying to use an OS they aren't used to.
>
> What people?
People that I know.
> How many?
I haven't counted
> In what circumstances?
Various.
BTW, I teach also. At the moment, I teach High School Health Sciences.
That involves students using computers. They seem to think that Internet
Explorer is 'the Internet' and were absolutely lost when we switched to
Firefox.
--
Rick
TravelinMan
Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
So you've got students who are lost when simply substituting one browser
for another - and you're advocating that they can use Linux with no
problems?
That's pretty silly.
Snit
I actually have had a pretty good response from switching people to Firefox
- though, of course, they always want to look for the "Internet icon"...
once they get past they they are generally OK. Then I teach them to use
tabs... and have converts. :)
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.07....@trollfeed.com on 3/7/05 3:39 PM:
>
>>>> In KDE, the folder opens, as opposed to the icon changing.
>>>
>>> Spring Loaded folders? OS X has both.
>>
>> Spring Loaded folders? Doubtful. The folder highlights, and the window
>> changes to show the contents of the folder.
>
> Not sure what you mean.
>>>>
>>>>> * No shadowing - everything looks flat
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> Harder to find things - it *does* make a difference.
>>
>> Yeah. Right. Lack of shadows makes it harder to find things. Uh huh.
>
> Your sarcasm is not helping the conversation.
I'm not sure you actually want 'the situation' helped.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
>>>>
>>>> Like MacOS platinum?
>>>
>>> You mean from OS 9? It was nowhere near as bad as the defaults I have seen
>>> from the versions of Linux I have played with - or many of the other themes.
>>> Still, OS 9 was not as good in this area as is OS X.
>>>>
>>>>> this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
>>>>> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they
>>>>> keep
>>>>> their resized status when moved to a folder
>>>>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>>>>
>>>> Right-click-->properties, click on icon, pick icon to change.
>>>
>>> Can you copy and paste an image?
>>
>> I don't know. It is a different way of doing things. And it eliminates the
>> need to paste.
>
> Others have described in better detail the answer to my question. It sound
> like the option does exist.
>>>>
>>>>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I
>>>>> know this can be changed)
>>>>
>>>> Wasted space in your opinion.
>>>
>>> The fact that the space is used is not an opinion. The fact that it is
>>> wasted is something that can be easily shown.
>>
>> Wasted space in your opinion.
>
> Repeating your comment does not add any force to it. You are merely pushing
> the conversation into a loop.
Then recognize the difference between your opinion and a fact.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>>>>
>>>> Beeg Deel...
>>>>
>>>>> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
>>>>
>>>> That has been explained to you, and your oly example is -a- screenshot
>>>> utility.
>>>
>>> Actually, no, it was not a screen shot utility, it was Eye of Gnome... it
>>> deals with other pictures, does it not?
>>
>> IO just opened Eye of Gnome. When it opened, Eye of Gnome was in the Title
>> Bar. When I opened a graphic, the Title Bar changed to show the name of
>> the graphic. It seemed handy to me.
>
> What a strange inconsistency.
So what? It seemed handy to me and since I am not unique, I am sure there
are others that find it handy.
>>
>> In looking around, I noticed Konqueror has some nice graphic view features.
>
> OK.
>>>>
>>>>> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind
>>>>> windows
>>>>
>>>> ... because your hardware is old/slow and you're runnig from CD?
>>>
>>> I have heard from others that it is buffered but that the LiveCD's might not
>>> support that feature. If that is the case it is a non-issue.
>>>>
>>>>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
>>>>
>>>> Program to program, or in isolated programs, as -you- have already stated?
>>>
>>> Not sure what the difference is... different programs are isolated almost by
>>> definition. I suppose we can nit pick the concept in relation to suites,
>>> but I do not see what you are getting at.
>>
>> I am getting at... Gnome doe shave Human Interface guidelines. Some
>> developers do not follow them.
>
> Regardless: from what I have seen of the two distros I have used that came
> with GNOME, the default apps do not follow the standards.
'Default apps'? Do you know the difference between 'default apps', GTK
apps and Gnome apps?
> This is very different, and inferior, to OS X.
.. which is what it seems you are trying to prove.
> There may be other distros where this is not the case.
>>>>
>>>>> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
>>>>
>>>> Common task area?
>>>
>>> Yes. In XP.
>>
>> OK... just for you...
>>
>> What is the common task area, and where is it?
>
> It is the area in XP windows that show the common tasks. They are seen in
> this image:
>
> http://www.mcfedries.com/cigwindowsxp/01fig03.jpg
>
It seems that using either the side panel in Konqueror or right-clicking
on the files gives you most of those feature.
>>>>> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
>>>>
>>>> Why does every OS on the planet have to have every 'feature' of MacOs?
>>>
>>> I can not think of a reason. Neither of us seem to support that concept, so
>>> why do you bring it up?
>>
>> Why should any other OS have auto-size to contents?
>
> Same reason other OS's should have other features that are beneficial to
> users.
I see you are again dictating what features all people want.
>>>>
>>>>> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
>>>>
>>>> Beeg Deel. So what?
>>>
>>> For a new user it is not that big of a deal... and since that is my stated
>>> and actual purpose, I can see where it is nit picky. For more advanced
>>> users it is a very cool feature.
>>
>> If it were that cool, I'd have thought someone would have added it.
>
> They did. To OS X.
I though you were looking at some Linux distro.
>
> Is that how you define "cool" - if it has made it to Linux?
... sheesh.
You do understand that OSS software is basically driven by the wants and
needs of the developers and the request of the users, don't you?
> GNOME?
I use KDE at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>> * Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
>>>>>
>>>>> I do like the badges you can put on icons - that is sorta cool.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Both are so much more customizable and have 10 times that bells and
>>>>>> whistles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Customizable - yes. More bells and whistles - perhaps. Something I
>>>>> would suggest to most users - no.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you wouldn't.
>>>
>>> OK. Is there a reason I should.
>>
>> Yes. It has a lack of virii. A lack of spyware. Installation is easy. It
>> is fairly easy to use and maintain. And it probably runs on hardware the
>> 'new user' already has.
>
> Other than the last point OS X has all of those.
So what?
> OS X also has benefits that Linux, as a whole, does not.
... for some people.
>
> Still there are people Linux no doubt is best for. That is the reason I am
> playing with it, so I can best judge such things.
I don't think so. I think you are 'playing with it' to find reasons to not
use it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't speak for OS X and won't till they port it over to x86.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not likely to happen...
>>>>
>>>> Oh well...
--
Rick
Snit
>>>>>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>>>>>
>>>>> Beeg Deel...
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
>>>>>
>>>>> That has been explained to you, and your oly example is -a- screenshot
>>>>> utility.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, no, it was not a screen shot utility, it was Eye of Gnome... it
>>>> deals with other pictures, does it not?
>>>
>>> IO just opened Eye of Gnome. When it opened, Eye of Gnome was in the Title
>>> Bar. When I opened a graphic, the Title Bar changed to show the name of
>>> the graphic. It seemed handy to me.
>>
>> What a strange inconsistency.
>
> So what? It seemed handy to me and since I am not unique, I am sure there
> are others that find it handy.
What do you find "handy" about this particular inconsistency?
>
>
>>>
>>> In looking around, I noticed Konqueror has some nice graphic view features.
>>
>> OK.
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind
>>>>>> windows
>>>>>
>>>>> ... because your hardware is old/slow and you're runnig from CD?
>>>>
>>>> I have heard from others that it is buffered but that the LiveCD's might
>>>> not
>>>> support that feature. If that is the case it is a non-issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP,
>>>>>> too)
>>>>>
>>>>> Program to program, or in isolated programs, as -you- have already stated?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what the difference is... different programs are isolated almost
>>>> by
>>>> definition. I suppose we can nit pick the concept in relation to suites,
>>>> but I do not see what you are getting at.
>>>
>>> I am getting at... Gnome doe shave Human Interface guidelines. Some
>>> developers do not follow them.
>>
>> Regardless: from what I have seen of the two distros I have used that came
>> with GNOME, the default apps do not follow the standards.
>
> 'Default apps'? Do you know the difference between 'default apps', GTK
> apps and Gnome apps?
Yes, though I am not sure how to find the difference between them.
Do you know what I mean by default apps for a distro?
>
>> This is very different, and inferior, to OS X.
>
> .. which is what it seems you are trying to prove.
As long as you are not able to understand what I mean by default
applications for a distro you are not likely to be able to understand why
having default apps that arbitrarily inconsistent is a problem.
>
>> There may be other distros where this is not the case.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
>>>>>
>>>>> Common task area?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. In XP.
>>>
>>> OK... just for you...
>>>
>>> What is the common task area, and where is it?
>>
>> It is the area in XP windows that show the common tasks. They are seen in
>> this image:
>>
>> http://www.mcfedries.com/cigwindowsxp/01fig03.jpg
>
> It seems that using either the side panel in Konqueror or right-clicking
> on the files gives you most of those feature.
I will have to play with K more. Did not see anything like the Action menu
or the Common Task area.
>
>>>>>> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does every OS on the planet have to have every 'feature' of MacOs?
>>>>
>>>> I can not think of a reason. Neither of us seem to support that concept,
>>>> so
>>>> why do you bring it up?
>>>
>>> Why should any other OS have auto-size to contents?
>>
>> Same reason other OS's should have other features that are beneficial to
>> users.
>
> I see you are again dictating what features all people want.
No... and your pushing of straw men is tiring.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
>>>>>
>>>>> Beeg Deel. So what?
>>>>
>>>> For a new user it is not that big of a deal... and since that is my stated
>>>> and actual purpose, I can see where it is nit picky. For more advanced
>>>> users it is a very cool feature.
>>>
>>> If it were that cool, I'd have thought someone would have added it.
>>
>> They did. To OS X.
>
> I though you were looking at some Linux distro.
I look at more than one thing.
>>
>> Is that how you define "cool" - if it has made it to Linux?
>
> ... sheesh.
>
>
> You do understand that OSS software is basically driven by the wants and
> needs of the developers and the request of the users, don't you?
That does not imply that features found elsewhere are not done better or are
simply missing from Linux. Do you understand that?
<SNIP>
>> Still there are people Linux no doubt is best for. That is the reason I am
>> playing with it, so I can best judge such things.
>
> I don't think so. I think you are 'playing with it' to find reasons to not
> use it.
Perhaps it is this incorrect assumption of yours that makes you push so many
straw men? In any case, your incorrect assumption does not serve the
conversation well.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Tim Smith
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
> Mac, too.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>
> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
Note that the difference between those is 7 hours, and you appear to be
in a time zone that is 7 hours from GMT. That is probably not a
coincidence.
...
> 14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
> random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select all"
> instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an "Apple II"
> screen saver, who can really complain. :)
If they have them, try the galaxies screen saver, and the IFS screen
saver.
Speaking of screen savers, I remember when I first got OS X back on a G3
at work, there was a cool screen saver that was like the stars screen
saver from Windows, but instead of stars coming at you, it used icons,
picking from among all the icons on your system, and using Apple's
really cool smooth icon scaling to make them grow smoothly (and rotate)
as they flew at you.
This does not seem to be included any more. Anyone know what happened
to it?
> 15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the middle
> button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>
> Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
> most important points - applications work. That is the reason people use
> computers, not to play with themes...
Kind of like the difference between home equipment and industrial
equipment. Industrial equipment is often pretty ugly, but it works.
Compare, say, the controls and instruments on, say, a bulldozer to those
of a car. The bulldozer will show no sign that style or aesthetics were
a consideration, whereas the car will.
> Wish I could be more positive about Linux. Again, remember that these are
> LiveCD's and first impressions - but GNOME is just not impressing me. I
> will play with KDE later, and hope that it is at least more modern looking
> and feeling.
You'll find the KDE dialogs are closer to OS X, and in some ways better.
For example, KDE save dialogs have a thing on the left side that
provides quick access to various locations, like OS X does.
Furthermore, you can modify that from the dialogs. In OS X, I don't see
any way to do it from the dialog...you have to do it from the Finder, it
seems.
Compared the KDE (and OS X), Gnome dialogs just seem so limiting to me.
When I work, I am often working with files in several directories, and
often edit a file starting from one, and need to save in another. In
KDE, I can just add quick access entries for all the places I'm working.
Also, note up at the top, there is a bookmarks drop down on the KDE
dialogs, so I can bookmark common locations (this is one of the ways the
KDE dialogs are better than the OS X dialogs).
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
reply_in_group-02B...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 3/7/05 9:48
PM:
> In article <BE50CBCE.77CE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
>> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
>> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
>> Mac, too.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>
>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>
> Note that the difference between those is 7 hours, and you appear to be
> in a time zone that is 7 hours from GMT. That is probably not a
> coincidence.
Correct. Still, it is still a bug.
> ...
>
>> 14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
>> random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select all"
>> instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an "Apple II"
>> screen saver, who can really complain. :)
>
> If they have them, try the galaxies screen saver, and the IFS screen
> saver.
Will do - and, for the record, I found I do not have to select them all.
Now I just don't know what the check boxes are for. :)
>
> Speaking of screen savers, I remember when I first got OS X back on a G3
> at work, there was a cool screen saver that was like the stars screen
> saver from Windows, but instead of stars coming at you, it used icons,
> picking from among all the icons on your system, and using Apple's
> really cool smooth icon scaling to make them grow smoothly (and rotate)
> as they flew at you.
>
> This does not seem to be included any more. Anyone know what happened
> to it?
Hey, just looked - mine is gone, too. Arg!
>
>> 15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the middle
>> button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>>
>> Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
>> most important points - applications work. That is the reason people use
>> computers, not to play with themes...
>
> Kind of like the difference between home equipment and industrial
> equipment. Industrial equipment is often pretty ugly, but it works.
> Compare, say, the controls and instruments on, say, a bulldozer to those
> of a car. The bulldozer will show no sign that style or aesthetics were
> a consideration, whereas the car will.
Good analogy. I am not looking for a system for a professional bull dozer
operator, or even someone who takes lots of road trips - I am looking for
folks who drive to and from work.
>
>> Wish I could be more positive about Linux. Again, remember that these are
>> LiveCD's and first impressions - but GNOME is just not impressing me. I
>> will play with KDE later, and hope that it is at least more modern looking
>> and feeling.
>
> You'll find the KDE dialogs are closer to OS X, and in some ways better.
> For example, KDE save dialogs have a thing on the left side that
> provides quick access to various locations, like OS X does.
> Furthermore, you can modify that from the dialogs. In OS X, I don't see
> any way to do it from the dialog...you have to do it from the Finder, it
> seems.
True - you do.. and I have often wondered why.
>
> Compared the KDE (and OS X), Gnome dialogs just seem so limiting to me.
>
> When I work, I am often working with files in several directories, and
> often edit a file starting from one, and need to save in another. In
> KDE, I can just add quick access entries for all the places I'm working.
> Also, note up at the top, there is a bookmarks drop down on the KDE
> dialogs, so I can bookmark common locations (this is one of the ways the
> KDE dialogs are better than the OS X dialogs).
When they are available - they are not in many programs that come with
Knoppix.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:51:41 -0700,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in post
> a5jtf2-...@grendel.myth on 3/7/05 2:23 AM:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:14:36 -0700,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>> * Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
>>> this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
>>> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they keep
>>> their resized status when moved to a folder
>>
>> yes they can, view->zoom in. Also, if you are using SVG icons, then the
>> icons are vector maps, and scale smoothely, unlike pixmaps.
>
> Doesn't that change all icons in the folder? On the desktop you can do it
> by icon.
it's a view attribute of the window. Not only changes the size of the
icon, but also the details level of the info. If you want to change the
icon of just one, then you change it to a custom icon.
>>
>>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>>
>> rt click, properties, select custom icon.
>
> How about arbitrary images via cut and paste or something similar?
any image of any format supported (which includes gif, png, jpg, xpm and
others)
>>
>>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I know
>>> this can be changed)
>>
>> so change it?
>
> I can - but my students and clients would be unlikely to.
If it matters, they can change it, if it doesn't matter, then it doesn't
matter :)
>>
>>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>>
>> Odd, this used to be a function of the filemanager, although I haven't
>> used it much. It works this way in (for example) evolution, drag a
>> message from one folder, over to a folder with subfolders, and it
>> toggles open, showing the subfolders. Not sure when this changed, but it
>> looks like it's due to Apple *patenting* the "spring loaded folders"
>> thing. Pretty lame patent.
>
> I can understand both sides of the issue...
depends on how the patent is worded really.
>>
>>> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
>>
>> When you click on the image, to view it, why do you care what the
>> program that views it is called? EOG gives you the name of the *image*
>> which would seem to be the relevent info. If you need to know the name
>> of the app, you can select "About" from the menubar. If you need to open
>> it with something other than the default media viewer for that format,
>> then you can always use the open with dialog.
>
> The work around do not excuse the poor UI on this.
>
I simply disagree that it's "poor UI" The important info is the
filename, EOG is a basic part of the GNOME desktop, it's obvious what
it's function is, and if you need the info, then it's there in the
about text.
>
>>> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind windows
>>
>> That's a function of the config of the X server, which errs on the side
>> of easy config/detection, for the LiveCDs. On my Hoary HD install,
>> moving a window with an image in it, shows the image moving, as you'd
>> expect, not greyed out, or opaqued as if it were not dbl buffered.
>
> Hmmm, the image moves, but the icons behind did not get redrawn well. I
> would see the desktop image and then see the icons get re-added. Could be
> LiveCD issue though.
Could be, I don't get it here, and I have fairly (by today's standards)
light HW, 1GHz PIII, with 512MB of RAM.
>>
>>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
>>
>> Within GNOME progs, no they don't. With non-GNOME progs, they can. Just
>> like non-Apple complient programmes running on OSX can differ :)
>
> The *big* difference here, though, is that most people run only OS X
> compliant programs on OS X. The two distros I played with that had GNOME
> had lots of apps that came with it that were non-compliant.
I think that while consistancy is a virtue, in most cases, it's a minor
issue at best, as long as there aren't big gotchas, like colors that
mean opposite things, or backwards ok/cancel concepts. People aren't
insects, we aren't programmed genetically for this. We learn, and adapt.
Since you aren't talking about students who are retarded (I assume) and
since they can presumably come to terms with the differences between OSX
and OS9 or XP/W2K (all 4 of which, are different in these ways) I don't
see a big problem.
>>
>>> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
>>
>> what is this? maybe it's there, and you don't recognize it? What does
>> it's function serve?
>
> Common tasks readily available without having to right click.
>>
Can you give an example, I am not seeing the utility here. You mean like
open with, or run or something? If you are suggesting that you should
click on the icon, and then click on the action (or vice versa) I'd say
that's silly, and a reflection of the one button heresy. :) But maybe I
am not understanding what you mean here.
>>> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
>>
>> Autosize what and how? can you be more specific?
>
> Say you have 5 icons in a folder. Click a button in OS X and the window
> becomes big enough to show all icons - but no bigger. A very cool feature.
Ah, no, that's not present, (that I know of) Sounds useful though.
>
> Now if only OS X had a real maximize. :)
:)
>>
>>> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
>>
>> Again, what is this?
>
> It allows you to have a script or program run based on what is happening
> with the folder - items being added, removed, renamed, etc.
>
> This is not something a non-techy is likely to do, so perhaps should not
> have been on the list. Really would not matter to most of my students /
> clients.
Ah, fam is your friend. File alteration monitor, can trigger anything on
a change in a file or directory. But the tools to utilize it are
somewhat primitive at the moment. You'd have to be comfortable at least
with script languages to utilize it at the moment, but that will change.
>>
>>> * Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
>>
>> Expocity, a fork of Metacity, coming to the main tree soon, although not
>> in Hoary yet.
>>
>> <http://www.pycage.de/software_expocity.html> for details, and for a
>> tarball, if that's your thing :)
>
> Thanks. Does not really help my students, but good to know it is likely to
> become more common over time.
improvements are good :)
>>>
>>> I do like the badges you can put on icons - that is sorta cool.
>>
>> I haven't found much use for that, other than in a mr potato sort of
>> way, but it's kinda cool. Maybe I'll find it useful down the road.
>
> I know some people who would likely benefit - but for me they are little
> more than a gee-whiz factor. :)
pretty much my opinion too. Although that could change, I have found
things like that more useful after I used them for a while, than I would
have expected.
That's it, usefulness varies with the apps integration with GNOME,
Epiphany can remember the sites you were visiting, and open them
automatically with this (it also has sessions just for the websites,but
that's a different issue. ) Firefox can't, at least yet.
>
>> vFolders in Evolution, are one of those things that I ignored at first,
>> but am finding more and more useful. (not specifically GNOME issue,
>> since Evo can be used elsewhere, but Evo is the mail app for GNOME)
>
> What is a vFolder? I would guess something like Smart Folders... which OS X
> will get with 10.4 (though does not have them now). OS X will even have
> them for the OS itself - very cool.
Possibly. An example, I can filter on my mailboxes/accounts, and when
the filter hits on a msg that triggers it, that message is placed into
the relevent vfolder, or rather, a linked copy, is. It's still in the
original mailbox also.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLS3+d90bcYOAWPYRAjNAAJ9G39JouUFchAykruFDPTpk8pqgawCguJtJ
AIq4WM6qfx8MLKJSkg50yng=
=/GMD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Payday came and with it beer.
-- Rudyard Kipling
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:42:12 -0700,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in post
> dgktf2-...@grendel.myth on 3/7/05 2:46 AM:
>
>
<snip>
>> LiveCD config most like, works fine here, on a HD install. Probably, the
>> LiveCD is in a slower, more conservative mode, to widen the hw compat as
>> much as possible.
>
> Could be... and that could affect not only this but some of my other
> observations. Thanks.
It's something to bear in mind, esp with video performance, although
most of the rest of the machine's performance is tied to amount of RAM.
<snip>
>>
>> Config issue I think, I can't get it to do it now, but not sure how I
>> turned it on or off :)
>
> I looked for a config, but could not find it. Does not mean it does not
> exist...
Possibly, it may have been removed/added recently, or it may be one of
the few things that are only changeable in the gconf system directly
(using gconfeditor or manually editing the config) Most of these cases,
are for options that are deemed too "geeky" to waste space on the
dialogs for.
<Snip>
>
>> a bug, pure and simple.
>
> No doubt... and presumably not one that is seen in all distros... I would
> bet I would not have been the first to find it. :)
I suspect that it may be unique to the PPC ones. The handling of the
clock is different IIRC, from the x86 world, and that may be the root of
it.
<snip>
>> Alpha transparency is a function of the X server, and is new for Xorg (at
>> least, I think it's in the dev tree) but not in the released version.
>
> OK... so this should be corrected/improved in the not too distant future...
> good to know.
yeah, improvemets are always welcome :)
<snip>
>
>> It *used* to have spring loaded folders, but apple patented them...
>
> I can understand both sides of that issue... but how about icons changing as
> items are dragged over them - changing in ways other than shading.
>
It would depend on exactly how Apple's patent is worded of course, I
find shading quite adequate, but wished the directory would open, so I
could select sub directories. Like I said, this used to be the case,
prior to Apple's patent. Maybe Novell or IBM will challenge it.
> I did notice that when I mouse over icons they get highlighted... this is
> done well, at least from my opinion.
and they can be previewed :)
>>
>>> 13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders - all
>>> seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would open!
>>> They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then disappear.
>>> I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them, so it is not
>>> as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work. Rebooted and tried
>>> again and got the same issue.
>>
>> Odd, a bug report would be useful.
>
> Perhaps I shall do that.
I am a little unclear on what you mean by "set up the network so I could
share folders"
<snip>
>> Agreed. Tinkering can be fun, but I'd rather be shooting, sailing, or
>> riding, than just tinkering with the computer.
>
> Seems that Linux is designed for folks who tinker...
More that it was designed *by* folks who tinker.
>> There's also crossover office, if you *must* have MS-Office, works very
>> well. About as well as MS-Office ever does.
>
> I thought you said it worked very well. :)
>
well, at least you don't have to deal with the rest of the redmonster :)
<snip>
>> This is something that the GNOME folks have put a fair amount of effort
>> into, (and received no small amount of flamage from many.)
>
> Why? Who would disagree with this?
>
some folks will object to anything, and everything. That behaviour isn't
limited to *.advocacy groups :)
There was some significant debate on the utility of spatial file
browsing, and on limiting the dialogs as much as they were. Some folks,
wanted to go the KDE route, of adding advanced settings tabs to things,
rather than limit the choices of the user. Others took the position that
an option used by 2% of the users, might be better off hidden from the
rest.
The goal of GNOME, was to simplify the user experience as much as
possible by "doing the right thing" out of the box as much as possible.
>
>>> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It was
>>> listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for either.
>>
>> SAMBA may or may not have been included in the LiveCD, although if not,
>> it should have given some sort of error. I don't have an MS-Windows
>> network here, but I share the HP 1200 over cups, and it works great. Not
>> that that's relevent to your setup really.
>
> I can share my printer in other ways. If I were setting up a HD installed
> version I would play with that more... probably not an issue for most of my
> students / clients.
SAMBA works fine, within the limitations of the CIFS/SMB architecture,
but it's not my preferred way, like Apple, Ubuntu (and I think GNOME in
general) has gone to CUPS. Which I find far easier.
>>>
>>> 19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other goodies...
>>> Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the same at the
>>> level of usage I played with.
>>
>> Ubuntu went away from icons on the desktop (thank GHU!) but it's a
>> setup/config issue. The still use them for somethings, like removable
>> media.
>
> Yes, I noticed that. One thing I did not find was the *trash* on Gnoppix.
> I thought that was strange. Could not even add it to the panels.
>
Odd, I can add a "Wastebasket" to the panel, but that may be a recent
addition to Hoary, and not present in the LiveCD. Also, go to the home
directory in the file browser (or anywhere, in the file browser) and
trash, is listed under the "Places" menu.
>>
>>> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
>>> details:
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
>>
>> GNOME dialogs are the same, non GNOME dialogs may differ.
>
> Any distros that come with all GNOME programs?
Depends on how you install them. In much the same way that you can add
non OSX apps to OSX. Does that mean that OSX doesn't come with only OSX
style apps?
GNOME doesn't (yet) have great apps for all niches, there are places
(like GIMP) were there is no GNOME equivilent. Firefox is not a GNOME
app, but Epiphany is, and uses the std GNOME dialogs. Same rendering
engine as Firefox, can use at least some of the same plugins. (Flash for
one) but I typically use Firefox, because I like it better.
Out of curiousity, how does the save dialog on OSX look for Firefox?
>>
>>> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>>>
>>> Only OS X gets it right.
>>
>> What does the gimp's save dialog look like on OSX? How about Open
>> Office?
>
> Neither fits with the OS X look, but neither is common, either - at least
> not for non-techy users.
>
> Of course, people on OS X tend to use commercial, and often expensive,
> programs to fill those needs. There is something to be said for free!
>
:) I couldn't really afford (and wouldn't buy, even if I had the cash)
MS-Office, OO and such fit my needs there to a T. (I use Gnumeric for
spreadsheet duties, it rocks, and yes, it uses the GNOME dialogs :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLMaZd90bcYOAWPYRAtYrAJ9HcY7JdPOnowVuWpLupUjffiZejACg4Hf+
/EHE5YQ8Jc+6obktyQ1XCf0=
=C8/e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Microsoft - because god hates us
Peter Köhlmann
> "Linønut" <lin?n...@bone.com> wrote in post
> 27mdnRe_ELM...@comcast.com on 3/7/05 4:33 PM:
>
>> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>>> All distros allow it. You have to figure it out for your users.
>>>> Tailorability of Linux GUIs is high. You can lock them down, too.
>>>> Google for "kiosk mode"+Linux.
>>>
>>> I have seen nothing in Linux that makes me believe what you are saying
>>> is
>>> correct - that I can configure it as you claim. Then again, I have used
>>> only GNOME and only for a short time.
>>
>> The wise man would stop making assertions, then, until more knowledge is
>> gained.
>
> If we were talking about what was *possible* with Linux or with GNOME
> specifically your point would be more accurate. As it is, I am looking at
> what to suggest for non-technical users.
>
No. You are making assertions out of ignorance. And it is *total* ignorance,
not just partial. Up to now all your "observations" about linux are
meaningless, and have no vlaue whatsoever.
But in your post you accuse someone of telling you something which,
according to your meaningless "observations", is not true.
You have been shown by now more than once that you are wrong, yet you still
drag your heels. And shift the goalposts (again). Before, there was the
allegedla missing kiosk mode. You were told it exists, more than once. Now
you throw in the "non-technical user".
Why do you have to shift the requirements constantly?
I have had this feeling from the start, and every single post you make tells
me that this feeling was correct: You are a troll. And a mac-user from
csma. And those are incredibly stupid
--
Try to be the best of whatever you are, even if what you are is
no good.
rapskat
fault at address <BE513B29.78BE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
follows .vbs
> "rapskat" <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.07....@rapskat.com on 3/6/05 10:29 PM:
>
>> begin Error log for Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:32:13 -0700 - Snit caused a
>> page fault at address <BE51275D.7894%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> details as follows .vbs
>>
>>>> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
>>>> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface
>>>> should be. You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
>>>
>>> Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose
>>> for looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who
>>> are looking to get away from XP.
>>
>> Linux is completely different from either OS X or Windows in that you
>> can *choose* a distro that that particularly suits your needs, wants
>> and preferences.
>
> This, of course, assumes you have the knowledge and experience to make
> an educated choice. There is no good way for most people to do this -
> even for an advanced user this can take quite some time.
True, however the point I am trying to express is that ultimately it is
only the individual who will be able to make this choice.
>> I'm not sure you are really in the best position to be evaluating Linux
>> for persons coming from Windows. First off, you do not use Windows
>> yourself, nor do you even use a PC.
>
> Not at all true. Not only do I use Windows, I teach it at a college and
> do consulting work with it. I have been training people on PCs in one
> format or another since 1987. I just prefer OS X for most (but not all)
> things.
Sorry, I can just go by what I see you using here all the time, which is
always Mac.
>> Now had you said you were evaluating Linux as an alternative to Mac
>> users, then you'd have a point.
>>
>> Truthfully, I think the only person that can effectively evaluate
>> whether or not Linux is suitable for them is themselves.
>
> Students and clients often ask me for alternatives to Windows. I am very
> familiar with their needs and their capabilities.
As determined by whom exactly?
>> What you should do is just hand them a LiveCD and let them try it for
>> themselves. There are plenty to choose from, certainly more than are
>> currently available for a Mac.
>
> Yes, and I am playing with and making several LiveCD's for that purpose.
> I will likely hand out such CD's to people who it is appropriate for.
> They will undoubtedly come to me for help on it, and therefore before I
> do that I need to know enough to be able to answer basic questions - and
> to make recommendations for which distros they might want to use.
I have found that Mepis is a very user-friendly distro that looks very
nice and people seem to like alot. The thing is, I give them the CD and
let them make their own conclusions.
--
rapskat - 03:32:16 up 42 min, 2 users, load average: 1.69, 2.02, 1.54
Executive ability is prominent in your make-up.
Snit
>>> a bug, pure and simple.
>>
>> No doubt... and presumably not one that is seen in all distros... I would
>> bet I would not have been the first to find it. :)
>
> I suspect that it may be unique to the PPC ones. The handling of the
> clock is different IIRC, from the x86 world, and that may be the root of
> it.
The image I took was from an x86 version...
<snip>
>>>> 13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders - all
>>>> seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would open!
>>>> They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then disappear.
>>>> I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them, so it is not
>>>> as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work. Rebooted and tried
>>>> again and got the same issue.
>>>
>>> Odd, a bug report would be useful.
>>
>> Perhaps I shall do that.
>
> I am a little unclear on what you mean by "set up the network so I could
> share folders"
Share files...
>
>
> <snip>
>>> Agreed. Tinkering can be fun, but I'd rather be shooting, sailing, or
>>> riding, than just tinkering with the computer.
>>
>> Seems that Linux is designed for folks who tinker...
>
> More that it was designed *by* folks who tinker.
very true.
<SNIP>
>>> This is something that the GNOME folks have put a fair amount of effort
>>> into, (and received no small amount of flamage from many.)
>>
>> Why? Who would disagree with this?
>
> some folks will object to anything, and everything. That behaviour isn't
> limited to *.advocacy groups :)
>
> There was some significant debate on the utility of spatial file
> browsing, and on limiting the dialogs as much as they were. Some folks,
> wanted to go the KDE route, of adding advanced settings tabs to things,
> rather than limit the choices of the user. Others took the position that
> an option used by 2% of the users, might be better off hidden from the
> rest.
>
> The goal of GNOME, was to simplify the user experience as much as
> possible by "doing the right thing" out of the box as much as possible.
KDE seems to be trying to be all things to all people - and doing it so-so.
GNOME seems to be trying to emulate early 90's tech (as far as GUI)... at
least from the LiveCD's I saw.
>
>>
>>>> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It was
>>>> listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> SAMBA may or may not have been included in the LiveCD, although if not,
>>> it should have given some sort of error. I don't have an MS-Windows
>>> network here, but I share the HP 1200 over cups, and it works great. Not
>>> that that's relevent to your setup really.
>>
>> I can share my printer in other ways. If I were setting up a HD installed
>> version I would play with that more... probably not an issue for most of my
>> students / clients.
>
> SAMBA works fine, within the limitations of the CIFS/SMB architecture,
> but it's not my preferred way, like Apple, Ubuntu (and I think GNOME in
> general) has gone to CUPS. Which I find far easier.
Which is not zeroconfig or even browsable, is it?
>>>>
>>>> 19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other goodies...
>>>> Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the same at the
>>>> level of usage I played with.
>>>
>>> Ubuntu went away from icons on the desktop (thank GHU!) but it's a
>>> setup/config issue. The still use them for somethings, like removable
>>> media.
>>
>> Yes, I noticed that. One thing I did not find was the *trash* on Gnoppix.
>> I thought that was strange. Could not even add it to the panels.
>
> Odd, I can add a "Wastebasket" to the panel, but that may be a recent
> addition to Hoary, and not present in the LiveCD. Also, go to the home
> directory in the file browser (or anywhere, in the file browser) and
> trash, is listed under the "Places" menu.
Aha... thanks.
>>>
>>>> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
>>>> details:
>>>>
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
>>>
>>> GNOME dialogs are the same, non GNOME dialogs may differ.
>>
>> Any distros that come with all GNOME programs?
>
> Depends on how you install them. In much the same way that you can add
> non OSX apps to OSX. Does that mean that OSX doesn't come with only OSX
> style apps?
OS X comes with if not fully at least primarily OS X style apps. *Most*
users of OS X never see an X11 application or other non-standard app.
>
> GNOME doesn't (yet) have great apps for all niches, there are places
> (like GIMP) were there is no GNOME equivilent. Firefox is not a GNOME
> app, but Epiphany is, and uses the std GNOME dialogs. Same rendering
> engine as Firefox, can use at least some of the same plugins. (Flash for
> one) but I typically use Firefox, because I like it better.
>
> Out of curiousity, how does the save dialog on OSX look for Firefox?
Like all the others... :)
Actually, oddly enough it lacks the "Hide Extension" check mark. Odd.
Other than that one detail its save and print dialogs are 100% standard.
>
>>>
>>>> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>>>>
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>>>>
>>>> Only OS X gets it right.
>>>
>>> What does the gimp's save dialog look like on OSX? How about Open
>>> Office?
>>
>> Neither fits with the OS X look, but neither is common, either - at least
>> not for non-techy users.
>>
>> Of course, people on OS X tend to use commercial, and often expensive,
>> programs to fill those needs. There is something to be said for free!
>
> :) I couldn't really afford (and wouldn't buy, even if I had the cash)
> MS-Office, OO and such fit my needs there to a T. (I use Gnumeric for
> spreadsheet duties, it rocks, and yes, it uses the GNOME dialogs :)
Cool...
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
>>>> * Most themes have black on gray text - not enough contrast. Yes, I know
>>>> this can be altered, but why have the default not work well?
>>>> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they
>>>> keep
>>>> their resized status when moved to a folder
>>>
>>> yes they can, view->zoom in. Also, if you are using SVG icons, then the
>>> icons are vector maps, and scale smoothely, unlike pixmaps.
>>
>> Doesn't that change all icons in the folder? On the desktop you can do it
>> by icon.
>
> it's a view attribute of the window. Not only changes the size of the
> icon, but also the details level of the info. If you want to change the
> icon of just one, then you change it to a custom icon.
Still does not explain why the resize feature is available on the desktop
but not elsewhere.
>>>
>>>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>>>
>>> rt click, properties, select custom icon.
>>
>> How about arbitrary images via cut and paste or something similar?
>
> any image of any format supported (which includes gif, png, jpg, xpm and
> others)
Seems it works well then - perhaps not quite as well as the Mac version, but
certainly better than XP.
>>>
>>>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I know
>>>> this can be changed)
>>>
>>> so change it?
>>
>> I can - but my students and clients would be unlikely to.
>
> If it matters, they can change it, if it doesn't matter, then it doesn't
> matter :)
Often the people in question try to adapt when they would be better off with
different choices. For some this is a transitional phase. For others this
seems to be quite persisitent.
>>>
>>>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>>>
>>> Odd, this used to be a function of the filemanager, although I haven't
>>> used it much. It works this way in (for example) evolution, drag a
>>> message from one folder, over to a folder with subfolders, and it
>>> toggles open, showing the subfolders. Not sure when this changed, but it
>>> looks like it's due to Apple *patenting* the "spring loaded folders"
>>> thing. Pretty lame patent.
>>
>> I can understand both sides of the issue...
>
> depends on how the patent is worded really.
>
>>>
>>>> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
>>>
>>> When you click on the image, to view it, why do you care what the
>>> program that views it is called? EOG gives you the name of the *image*
>>> which would seem to be the relevent info. If you need to know the name
>>> of the app, you can select "About" from the menubar. If you need to open
>>> it with something other than the default media viewer for that format,
>>> then you can always use the open with dialog.
>>
>> The work around do not excuse the poor UI on this.
>
> I simply disagree that it's "poor UI" The important info is the
> filename, EOG is a basic part of the GNOME desktop, it's obvious what
> it's function is, and if you need the info, then it's there in the
> about text.
For people who are not comfortable with the concepts of files, applications,
etc. this is a disservice. It is an arbitrary difference for no reason.
>>
>>>> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind windows
>>>
>>> That's a function of the config of the X server, which errs on the side
>>> of easy config/detection, for the LiveCDs. On my Hoary HD install,
>>> moving a window with an image in it, shows the image moving, as you'd
>>> expect, not greyed out, or opaqued as if it were not dbl buffered.
>>
>> Hmmm, the image moves, but the icons behind did not get redrawn well. I
>> would see the desktop image and then see the icons get re-added. Could be
>> LiveCD issue though.
>
> Could be, I don't get it here, and I have fairly (by today's standards)
> light HW, 1GHz PIII, with 512MB of RAM.
Still ahead of me. PII 335. Not even sure of the Ram off hand... might be
512.
>>>
>>>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP, too)
>>>
>>> Within GNOME progs, no they don't. With non-GNOME progs, they can. Just
>>> like non-Apple complient programmes running on OSX can differ :)
>>
>> The *big* difference here, though, is that most people run only OS X
>> compliant programs on OS X. The two distros I played with that had GNOME
>> had lots of apps that came with it that were non-compliant.
>
> I think that while consistancy is a virtue, in most cases, it's a minor
> issue at best, as long as there aren't big gotchas, like colors that
> mean opposite things, or backwards ok/cancel concepts. People aren't
> insects, we aren't programmed genetically for this. We learn, and adapt.
> Since you aren't talking about students who are retarded (I assume) and
> since they can presumably come to terms with the differences between OSX
> and OS9 or XP/W2K (all 4 of which, are different in these ways) I don't
> see a big problem.
I teach people to use such dialogs. When they run into a different one it
is a big gotcha. Like above, some folks get over this quickly - others do
not.
>>>
>>>> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
>>>
>>> what is this? maybe it's there, and you don't recognize it? What does
>>> it's function serve?
>>
>> Common tasks readily available without having to right click.
>
> Can you give an example, I am not seeing the utility here. You mean like
> open with, or run or something? If you are suggesting that you should
> click on the icon, and then click on the action (or vice versa) I'd say
> that's silly, and a reflection of the one button heresy. :) But maybe I
> am not understanding what you mean here.
Click on an icon and have the common tasks available to you - such as being
able to copy it or add a label or even create an archive. Being able to do
this without having to use the second mouse button is a godsend to many.
>
>>>> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
>>>
>>> Autosize what and how? can you be more specific?
>>
>> Say you have 5 icons in a folder. Click a button in OS X and the window
>> becomes big enough to show all icons - but no bigger. A very cool feature.
>
> Ah, no, that's not present, (that I know of) Sounds useful though.
>
It is a good feature - though done somewhat better in OS 9 than in X.
>> Now if only OS X had a real maximize. :)
>
> :)
>
>>>
>>>> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
>>>
>>> Again, what is this?
>>
>> It allows you to have a script or program run based on what is happening
>> with the folder - items being added, removed, renamed, etc.
>>
>> This is not something a non-techy is likely to do, so perhaps should not
>> have been on the list. Really would not matter to most of my students /
>> clients.
>
> Ah, fam is your friend. File alteration monitor, can trigger anything on
> a change in a file or directory. But the tools to utilize it are
> somewhat primitive at the moment. You'd have to be comfortable at least
> with script languages to utilize it at the moment, but that will change.
Good to hear... thanks.
>
>>>
>>>> * Nothing like Exposé, though it does have mult desktops
>>>
>>> Expocity, a fork of Metacity, coming to the main tree soon, although not
>>> in Hoary yet.
>>>
>>> <http://www.pycage.de/software_expocity.html> for details, and for a
>>> tarball, if that's your thing :)
>>
>> Thanks. Does not really help my students, but good to know it is likely to
>> become more common over time.
>
> improvements are good :)
Sometimes. :)
Cool feature - though I can see where the inconsistency could be
frustrating.
>>
>>> vFolders in Evolution, are one of those things that I ignored at first,
>>> but am finding more and more useful. (not specifically GNOME issue,
>>> since Evo can be used elsewhere, but Evo is the mail app for GNOME)
>>
>> What is a vFolder? I would guess something like Smart Folders... which OS X
>> will get with 10.4 (though does not have them now). OS X will even have
>> them for the OS itself - very cool.
>
> Possibly. An example, I can filter on my mailboxes/accounts, and when
> the filter hits on a msg that triggers it, that message is placed into
> the relevent vfolder, or rather, a linked copy, is. It's still in the
> original mailbox also.
Same idea. http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/mail.html
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
_________________________________________
Snit
>>> Linux is completely different from either OS X or Windows in that you
>>> can *choose* a distro that that particularly suits your needs, wants
>>> and preferences.
>>
>> This, of course, assumes you have the knowledge and experience to make
>> an educated choice. There is no good way for most people to do this -
>> even for an advanced user this can take quite some time.
>
> True, however the point I am trying to express is that ultimately it is
> only the individual who will be able to make this choice.
Then, almost universally, they will choice Windows... even though they hate
it.
>>> I'm not sure you are really in the best position to be evaluating Linux
>>> for persons coming from Windows. First off, you do not use Windows
>>> yourself, nor do you even use a PC.
>>
>> Not at all true. Not only do I use Windows, I teach it at a college and
>> do consulting work with it. I have been training people on PCs in one
>> format or another since 1987. I just prefer OS X for most (but not all)
>> things.
>
> Sorry, I can just go by what I see you using here all the time, which is
> always Mac.
You go by my Usenet client?
>
>>> Now had you said you were evaluating Linux as an alternative to Mac
>>> users, then you'd have a point.
>>>
>>> Truthfully, I think the only person that can effectively evaluate
>>> whether or not Linux is suitable for them is themselves.
>>
>> Students and clients often ask me for alternatives to Windows. I am very
>> familiar with their needs and their capabilities.
>
> As determined by whom exactly?
A professional with far more experience than they have who has the time and
interest to help them find the best choices for themselves: me.
I could, of course, just not say anything and they will continue to use
Windows.
>
>>> What you should do is just hand them a LiveCD and let them try it for
>>> themselves. There are plenty to choose from, certainly more than are
>>> currently available for a Mac.
>>
>> Yes, and I am playing with and making several LiveCD's for that purpose.
>> I will likely hand out such CD's to people who it is appropriate for.
>> They will undoubtedly come to me for help on it, and therefore before I
>> do that I need to know enough to be able to answer basic questions - and
>> to make recommendations for which distros they might want to use.
>
> I have found that Mepis is a very user-friendly distro that looks very
> nice and people seem to like alot. The thing is, I give them the CD and
> let them make their own conclusions.
Do you think I am going to hand them CD's and demand that they use what I
have selected for them?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:36:40 -0600,
Liam Slider <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:54:43 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2005.03.07...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/7/05 7:52 AM:
>>
<snip>
>>> I might as well complain about the lack of emblems in OSX. :-)
>>>
>> OS X uses them, but for different purposes...
>>
>> OK, the functionality does not easily exist in OS X (I suppose you can
>> create icons and copy and paste - but that is silly!)
>
> Yeah, again....we basically have our own way of customizing. Plus, we can
> sort and organise by emblem, which I don't think you can do on OSX with
> what you are talking about...which makes it a handy feature, not just eye
> candy. But it basically comes down to different useful featuresets. Every
> OS is different, as is every DE.
>
sort on emblems? I didn't realize that, thanks. That makes them actively
useful, rather than just interesting eye candy :)
>>>
>>>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP,
>>>> too)
>>>
>>> Not really, they do with a couple programs yes. But it's nowhere near
>>> as bad as with XP.
>>
>> I suppose I would have to play with more apps. XP is pretty bad in this
>> area... OS X is excellent (though not perfect).
>
> GNOME is certainly better than XP in this area typically (if you assume
> you stick mainly to GNOME/GTK applications, and shy away from KDE apps),
> and no, not perfect either. Maybe not quite OSX either...but I'd say it's
> getting there at least.
>
åAnd with freedesktop.org pushing it, even KDE and GNOME are coming
together (along with some of the other WM/DE)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLXd8d90bcYOAWPYRAo+QAJ4gBPE9wC7hj9prmGNW71jUvfVDnACgzumR
iAOjp7QQor0hcxWhJ4jR2Eo=
=YBu5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Does Emacs have the Buddha nature? Why not? It has bloody well
everything else
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:41:40 -0700,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.07....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/7/05 2:36 PM:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:54:43 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
>>> pan.2005.03.07...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/7/05 7:52 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:14:36 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Icons can be resized on the desktop, but not in folders - though they
>>>>> keep
>>>>> their resized status when moved to a folder
>>>>
>>>> Um...Snit...did you try the Zoom feature?
>>>
>>> Yes, but it zoomed all icons in the folder, did it not (I could be
>>> "misremembering")
>>
>> You are correct. But it does change icon size. Basically, we have a
>> different way of customizing than you are used to I guess.
>
> Perhaps I have not been clear. From what I know of GNOME:
>
> - on the desktop you can change the size of individual icons
> - in folders you can not, though you can change the size of all icons
>
> I do not understand the inconsistency.
changing them in the folders, is using the filebrowser, what you are
doing there, is changing how the filebrowser displays them, not changing
them in actual fact. Althoug amusingly enough, if you stretch an icon on
the desktop, then drag it into a folder, the icon stays stretched.
>>>>
>>>>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>>>>
>>>> Um... right click, it's under properties, Select Custom Icon.
>>>
>>> Anything similar to copy and paste for arbitrary icons?
>>
>> Not sure entirely what you mean. But you can change what image your icon
>> uses easily, and add user defined ones and custom icons.
>
> How do you add custom ones? That is what I am looking for - for example,
> say I make an image in... oh, GIMP or something... how do I change the icon
> to look like the image?
rt click on the file to be changed, select properties, select "Select
custom icon" browse to icon you have made, select it.
>>>>
>>>>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I
>>>>> know this can be changed)
>>>>
>>>> You do know the panel can be set to automatically hide right, and only
>>>> popping up when needed?
>>>
>>> Yes... and I did not play much with that. I would assume that they can
>>> get in the way, much like the Dock can in OS X.
>>
>> Well, every OS has it's quirks.
>
> No. OS X is perfect in every way. There is no reason for them to even
> continue development.
>
> OK - that was added so the trolls could quote me later and make fun of it.
>:)
Some would have made it up, if you hadn't said it (however facetiously
:)
<snip>
>>> OS X uses them, but for different purposes...
>>>
>>> OK, the functionality does not easily exist in OS X (I suppose you can
>>> create icons and copy and paste - but that is silly!)
>>
>> Yeah, again....we basically have our own way of customizing. Plus, we can
>> sort and organise by emblem, which I don't think you can do on OSX with
>> what you are talking about...which makes it a handy feature, not just eye
>> candy. But it basically comes down to different useful featuresets. Every
>> OS is different, as is every DE.
>
> The ability to search and sort by emblem is very cool... OS X has that with
> labels - essentially colors - but I like the emblems. They are simply more
> descriptive.
Although I am a little puzzled by the sorting order, it's not
alphabetical, so what is it?
<snip>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLXmad90bcYOAWPYRAkFyAKCqXzX94K2HXaHKSQLGIbMqbWkIeQCfSaaY
Tvb4z3x4M6lGclJbSPCXCE4=
=Rn/C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A ruler must learn to be other than good. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.
rapskat
fault at address <BE52C2D2.7BB9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
follows .vbs
>
>>>> Linux is completely different from either OS X or Windows in that you
>>>> can *choose* a distro that that particularly suits your needs, wants
>>>> and preferences.
>>>
>>> This, of course, assumes you have the knowledge and experience to make
>>> an educated choice. There is no good way for most people to do this -
>>> even for an advanced user this can take quite some time.
>>
>> True, however the point I am trying to express is that ultimately it is
>> only the individual who will be able to make this choice.
>
> Then, almost universally, they will choice Windows... even though they hate
> it.
When given an opportunity and shown alternatives, I see many people
choosing Linux over Windows all the time on equal ground.
>>>> I'm not sure you are really in the best position to be evaluating Linux
>>>> for persons coming from Windows. First off, you do not use Windows
>>>> yourself, nor do you even use a PC.
>>>
>>> Not at all true. Not only do I use Windows, I teach it at a college and
>>> do consulting work with it. I have been training people on PCs in one
>>> format or another since 1987. I just prefer OS X for most (but not all)
>>> things.
>>
>> Sorry, I can just go by what I see you using here all the time, which is
>> always Mac.
>
> You go by my Usenet client?
So you don't use Mac?
>>>> Now had you said you were evaluating Linux as an alternative to Mac
>>>> users, then you'd have a point.
>>>>
>>>> Truthfully, I think the only person that can effectively evaluate
>>>> whether or not Linux is suitable for them is themselves.
>>>
>>> Students and clients often ask me for alternatives to Windows. I am very
>>> familiar with their needs and their capabilities.
>>
>> As determined by whom exactly?
>
> A professional with far more experience than they have who has the time and
> interest to help them find the best choices for themselves: me.
So they should just trust in you, since you know what's best for them,
right?
> I could, of course, just not say anything and they will continue to use
> Windows.
If you decide to advocate Linux to people, that's your choice. All I'm
saying is that people have to choose for themselves, not because someone
else told them to or not to.
Just because something may or may not be up to *your* standards doesn't
mean it would or wouldn't be suitable for someone else.
>>>> What you should do is just hand them a LiveCD and let them try it for
>>>> themselves. There are plenty to choose from, certainly more than are
>>>> currently available for a Mac.
>>>
>>> Yes, and I am playing with and making several LiveCD's for that purpose.
>>> I will likely hand out such CD's to people who it is appropriate for.
>>> They will undoubtedly come to me for help on it, and therefore before I
>>> do that I need to know enough to be able to answer basic questions - and
>>> to make recommendations for which distros they might want to use.
>>
>> I have found that Mepis is a very user-friendly distro that looks very
>> nice and people seem to like alot. The thing is, I give them the CD and
>> let them make their own conclusions.
>
> Do you think I am going to hand them CD's and demand that they use what I
> have selected for them?
Pretty much, yes.
--
rapskat - 04:59:51 up 2:10, 2 users, load average: 0.29, 0.54, 0.72
Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last
you are going to see of him until he emerges on the other side of his
Atlantic with his verb in his mouth.
-- Mark Twain "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"
Snit
>> Then, almost universally, they will choice Windows... even though they hate
>> it.
>
> When given an opportunity and shown alternatives, I see many people
> choosing Linux over Windows all the time on equal ground.
OK. Not sure why you share that.
Keep in mind that I am talking about a specific population that I am
familiar with.
>
>>>>> I'm not sure you are really in the best position to be evaluating Linux
>>>>> for persons coming from Windows. First off, you do not use Windows
>>>>> yourself, nor do you even use a PC.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all true. Not only do I use Windows, I teach it at a college and
>>>> do consulting work with it. I have been training people on PCs in one
>>>> format or another since 1987. I just prefer OS X for most (but not all)
>>>> things.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I can just go by what I see you using here all the time, which is
>>> always Mac.
>>
>> You go by my Usenet client?
>
> So you don't use Mac?
What makes you think that? Are you having trouble with the idea that I use
both Mac and Windows?
>
>>>>> Now had you said you were evaluating Linux as an alternative to Mac
>>>>> users, then you'd have a point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Truthfully, I think the only person that can effectively evaluate
>>>>> whether or not Linux is suitable for them is themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Students and clients often ask me for alternatives to Windows. I am very
>>>> familiar with their needs and their capabilities.
>>>
>>> As determined by whom exactly?
>>
>> A professional with far more experience than they have who has the time and
>> interest to help them find the best choices for themselves: me.
>
> So they should just trust in you, since you know what's best for them,
> right?
Why you insist on trying to put words in my mouth is something that I
neither understand nor care to. It is something, however, that will likely
end this conversation.
>
>> I could, of course, just not say anything and they will continue to use
>> Windows.
>
> If you decide to advocate Linux to people, that's your choice. All I'm
> saying is that people have to choose for themselves, not because someone
> else told them to or not to.
>
> Just because something may or may not be up to *your* standards doesn't
> mean it would or wouldn't be suitable for someone else.
Again you are tying to place words in my mouth. We have covered why this
claim of yours is not valid. There is really nothing more to add.
>
>>>>> What you should do is just hand them a LiveCD and let them try it for
>>>>> themselves. There are plenty to choose from, certainly more than are
>>>>> currently available for a Mac.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and I am playing with and making several LiveCD's for that purpose.
>>>> I will likely hand out such CD's to people who it is appropriate for.
>>>> They will undoubtedly come to me for help on it, and therefore before I
>>>> do that I need to know enough to be able to answer basic questions - and
>>>> to make recommendations for which distros they might want to use.
>>>
>>> I have found that Mepis is a very user-friendly distro that looks very
>>> nice and people seem to like alot. The thing is, I give them the CD and
>>> let them make their own conclusions.
>>
>> Do you think I am going to hand them CD's and demand that they use what I
>> have selected for them?
>
> Pretty much, yes.
Again, of course, you are wrong. Sad thing is you have been repeatedly told
of your error and you keep repeating it.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
>> Perhaps I have not been clear. From what I know of GNOME:
>>
>> - on the desktop you can change the size of individual icons
>> - in folders you can not, though you can change the size of all icons
>>
>> I do not understand the inconsistency.
>
> changing them in the folders, is using the filebrowser, what you are
> doing there, is changing how the filebrowser displays them, not changing
> them in actual fact. Althoug amusingly enough, if you stretch an icon on
> the desktop, then drag it into a folder, the icon stays stretched.
Right - you can view your stretched icons elsewhere, but only stretch them
on the desktop. Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>>>>>
>>>>> Um... right click, it's under properties, Select Custom Icon.
>>>>
>>>> Anything similar to copy and paste for arbitrary icons?
>>>
>>> Not sure entirely what you mean. But you can change what image your icon
>>> uses easily, and add user defined ones and custom icons.
>>
>> How do you add custom ones? That is what I am looking for - for example,
>> say I make an image in... oh, GIMP or something... how do I change the icon
>> to look like the image?
>
> rt click on the file to be changed, select properties, select "Select
> custom icon" browse to icon you have made, select it.
This has been covered elsewhere - seems GNOME is comparable or nearly so to
OS X here... and both are far better than Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I
>>>>>> know this can be changed)
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know the panel can be set to automatically hide right, and only
>>>>> popping up when needed?
>>>>
>>>> Yes... and I did not play much with that. I would assume that they can
>>>> get in the way, much like the Dock can in OS X.
>>>
>>> Well, every OS has it's quirks.
>>
>> No. OS X is perfect in every way. There is no reason for them to even
>> continue development.
>>
>> OK - that was added so the trolls could quote me later and make fun of it.
>> :)
>
> Some would have made it up, if you hadn't said it (however facetiously
> :)
Translation: you were women's underwear and dance in the moonlight.
Yeah, like that.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> OS X uses them, but for different purposes...
>>>>
>>>> OK, the functionality does not easily exist in OS X (I suppose you can
>>>> create icons and copy and paste - but that is silly!)
>>>
>>> Yeah, again....we basically have our own way of customizing. Plus, we can
>>> sort and organise by emblem, which I don't think you can do on OSX with
>>> what you are talking about...which makes it a handy feature, not just eye
>>> candy. But it basically comes down to different useful featuresets. Every
>>> OS is different, as is every DE.
>>
>> The ability to search and sort by emblem is very cool... OS X has that with
>> labels - essentially colors - but I like the emblems. They are simply more
>> descriptive.
>
> Although I am a little puzzled by the sorting order, it's not
> alphabetical, so what is it?
I will have to play at some point. I am guessing each emblem has a "hidden"
number.
Rick
> "Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in post
> reply_in_group-02B...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 3/7/05 9:48
> PM:
>
>> In article <BE50CBCE.77CE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
>>> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
>>> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on the
>>> Mac, too.
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>>
>>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
>>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>>
>> Note that the difference between those is 7 hours, and you appear to be
>> in a time zone that is 7 hours from GMT. That is probably not a
>> coincidence.
>
> Correct. Still, it is still a bug.
How?
--
Rick
Snit
The time in the menu is incorrect. By 7 hours.
Peter Köhlmann
> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.08....@trollfeed.com on 3/8/05 3:45 AM:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:29:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in post
>>> reply_in_group-02B...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 3/7/05
>>> 9:48 PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <BE50CBCE.77CE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
>>>>> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot...
>>>>> makes no sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release
>>>>> version on the
>>>>> Mac, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened
>>>>> the
>>>>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the difference between those is 7 hours, and you appear to be
>>>> in a time zone that is 7 hours from GMT. That is probably not a
>>>> coincidence.
>>>
>>> Correct. Still, it is still a bug.
>>
>> How?
>
> The time in the menu is incorrect. By 7 hours.
>
>
In other words, you haven't understood GMT, localtime and timezone
--
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Rick
You may now show where I have said that.
>
> That's pretty silly.
Yes, you are.
--
Rick
Snit
d0k02g$p4o$05$1...@news.t-online.com on 3/8/05 4:00 AM:
>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the difference between those is 7 hours, and you appear to be
>>>>> in a time zone that is 7 hours from GMT. That is probably not a
>>>>> coincidence.
>>>>
>>>> Correct. Still, it is still a bug.
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>> The time in the menu is incorrect. By 7 hours.
>
> In other words, you haven't understood GMT, localtime and timezone
You are, of course, incorrect. Care to explain why it would show local time
in one spot but GMT in another - but only in some distros - and how this is
not a bug?
Perhaps you know of a setting I did not find. By all means, please point me
to it.
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.08....@trollfeed.com on 3/7/05 8:11 PM:
>
>>>>>>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Beeg Deel...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has been explained to you, and your oly example is -a- screenshot
>>>>>> utility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, no, it was not a screen shot utility, it was Eye of Gnome... it
>>>>> deals with other pictures, does it not?
>>>>
>>>> IO just opened Eye of Gnome. When it opened, Eye of Gnome was in the Title
>>>> Bar. When I opened a graphic, the Title Bar changed to show the name of
>>>> the graphic. It seemed handy to me.
>>>
>>> What a strange inconsistency.
>>
>> So what? It seemed handy to me and since I am not unique, I am sure there
>> are others that find it handy.
>
> What do you find "handy" about this particular inconsistency?
sheesh.. the name of the graphic being viewed in the title bar.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In looking around, I noticed Konqueror has some nice graphic view features.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Does not look like there is any buffering of the desktop behind
>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... because your hardware is old/slow and you're runnig from CD?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have heard from others that it is buffered but that the LiveCD's might
>>>>> not
>>>>> support that feature. If that is the case it is a non-issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Save dialogs differ greatly from program to program (they do in XP,
>>>>>>> too)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Program to program, or in isolated programs, as -you- have already stated?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure what the difference is... different programs are isolated almost
>>>>> by
>>>>> definition. I suppose we can nit pick the concept in relation to suites,
>>>>> but I do not see what you are getting at.
>>>>
>>>> I am getting at... Gnome doe shave Human Interface guidelines. Some
>>>> developers do not follow them.
>>>
>>> Regardless: from what I have seen of the two distros I have used that came
>>> with GNOME, the default apps do not follow the standards.
>>
>> 'Default apps'? Do you know the difference between 'default apps', GTK
>> apps and Gnome apps?
>
> Yes, though I am not sure how to find the difference between them.
Them maybe yu need to go figure out the difference between Gnome and GTK.
>
> Do you know what I mean by default apps for a distro?
Mayb you should tell us what you think it is. You might be right.
>>
>>> This is very different, and inferior, to OS X.
>>
>> .. which is what it seems you are trying to prove.
>
> As long as you are not able to understand what I mean by default
> applications for a distro you are not likely to be able to understand why
> having default apps that arbitrarily inconsistent is a problem.
As long as you don't know the difference between Gnome, GTK (and QT), you
aren't going to figure out any reasons for these ... 'inconsistencies'.
>>
>>> There may be other distros where this is not the case.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Common task area?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. In XP.
>>>>
>>>> OK... just for you...
>>>>
>>>> What is the common task area, and where is it?
>>>
>>> It is the area in XP windows that show the common tasks. They are seen in
>>> this image:
>>>
>>> http://www.mcfedries.com/cigwindowsxp/01fig03.jpg
>>
>> It seems that using either the side panel in Konqueror or right-clicking
>> on the files gives you most of those feature.
>
> I will have to play with K more. Did not see anything like the Action menu
> or the Common Task area.
You do realize that different OS's sometimes do things differently? ...
some OS's may not group the same features in the same single panel?
>>
>>>>>>> * No auto-size to contents feature (OS X has this)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does every OS on the planet have to have every 'feature' of MacOs?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can not think of a reason. Neither of us seem to support that concept,
>>>>> so
>>>>> why do you bring it up?
>>>>
>>>> Why should any other OS have auto-size to contents?
>>>
>>> Same reason other OS's should have other features that are beneficial to
>>> users.
>>
>> I see you are again dictating what features all people want.
>
> No... and your pushing of straw men is tiring.
Get some sleep.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Beeg Deel. So what?
>>>>>
>>>>> For a new user it is not that big of a deal... and since that is my stated
>>>>> and actual purpose, I can see where it is nit picky. For more advanced
>>>>> users it is a very cool feature.
>>>>
>>>> If it were that cool, I'd have thought someone would have added it.
>>>
>>> They did. To OS X.
>>
>> I though you were looking at some Linux distro.
>
> I look at more than one thing.
You are not really looking at anything.
>>>
>>> Is that how you define "cool" - if it has made it to Linux?
>>
>> ... sheesh.
>>
>>
>> You do understand that OSS software is basically driven by the wants and
>> needs of the developers and the request of the users, don't you?
>
> That does not imply that features found elsewhere are not done better or are
> simply missing from Linux. Do you understand that?
And it doesn't imply that features found elsewhere are not done better or
are simply missing from OS X or Windows. Do you understand that?
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> Still there are people Linux no doubt is best for. That is the reason I am
>>> playing with it, so I can best judge such things.
>>
>> I don't think so. I think you are 'playing with it' to find reasons to not
>> use it.
>
> Perhaps it is this incorrect assumption of yours that makes you push so many
> straw men? In any case, your incorrect assumption does not serve the
> conversation well.
>
Then you might try to understand that just because OS X has some 'feature'
does not mean it is required for another OS to be 'friendly.
--
Rick
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:22:16 -0700,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in post
> sdtuf2-...@grendel.myth on 3/7/05 2:24 PM:
>
>>>> a bug, pure and simple.
>>>
>>> No doubt... and presumably not one that is seen in all distros... I would
>>> bet I would not have been the first to find it. :)
>>
>> I suspect that it may be unique to the PPC ones. The handling of the
>> clock is different IIRC, from the x86 world, and that may be the root of
>> it.
>
> The image I took was from an x86 version...
>
Then it sounds like a bug, either hw related, or the LiveCD. I don't
recall from the last time I used the liveCD if I dinked with the clock,
but it works fine on the HD installed systems here.
><snip>
>>
>> I am a little unclear on what you mean by "set up the network so I could
>> share folders"
>
> Share files...
rt click on directory, select share, give password (if needed to config
for sharing) select method (usually SMB or NFS) fill out particulars.
You shouldn't have to touch the network config if it's already set up,
which it normally is, automatically.
<snip>
>>>> This is something that the GNOME folks have put a fair amount of effort
>>>> into, (and received no small amount of flamage from many.)
>>>
>>> Why? Who would disagree with this?
>>
>> some folks will object to anything, and everything. That behaviour isn't
>> limited to *.advocacy groups :)
>>
>> There was some significant debate on the utility of spatial file
>> browsing, and on limiting the dialogs as much as they were. Some folks,
>> wanted to go the KDE route, of adding advanced settings tabs to things,
>> rather than limit the choices of the user. Others took the position that
>> an option used by 2% of the users, might be better off hidden from the
>> rest.
>>
>> The goal of GNOME, was to simplify the user experience as much as
>> possible by "doing the right thing" out of the box as much as possible.
>
> KDE seems to be trying to be all things to all people - and doing it so-so.
> GNOME seems to be trying to emulate early 90's tech (as far as GUI)... at
> least from the LiveCD's I saw.
Not really, (at least, IMHO) some things, like fire, the wheel, and
such, stand the test of time. Aspects of GUIs are no different, some
things last, some don't. Using what works is hardly a bad thing.
KDE is a bit... busy for my tastes, but there are them who like it.
>>
>>>
>>>>> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It was
>>>>> listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for
>>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> SAMBA may or may not have been included in the LiveCD, although if not,
>>>> it should have given some sort of error. I don't have an MS-Windows
>>>> network here, but I share the HP 1200 over cups, and it works great. Not
>>>> that that's relevent to your setup really.
>>>
>>> I can share my printer in other ways. If I were setting up a HD installed
>>> version I would play with that more... probably not an issue for most of my
>>> students / clients.
>>
>> SAMBA works fine, within the limitations of the CIFS/SMB architecture,
>> but it's not my preferred way, like Apple, Ubuntu (and I think GNOME in
>> general) has gone to CUPS. Which I find far easier.
>
> Which is not zeroconfig or even browsable, is it?
nothing is zeroconfig, the question, is who has to do the configuration.
Yes, CUPS is browseable. For security reasons, the default config, is
set to disable it. Wouldn't want your server spreading the printer out
to the world, would you?
and remember, CUPS is what Apple chose for it's printer sharing engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> 19) Gnoppix has icons on the desktop by default and some other goodies...
>>>>> Ubuntu does not. Other than that, they are essentially the same at the
>>>>> level of usage I played with.
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu went away from icons on the desktop (thank GHU!) but it's a
>>>> setup/config issue. The still use them for somethings, like removable
>>>> media.
>>>
>>> Yes, I noticed that. One thing I did not find was the *trash* on Gnoppix.
>>> I thought that was strange. Could not even add it to the panels.
>>
>> Odd, I can add a "Wastebasket" to the panel, but that may be a recent
>> addition to Hoary, and not present in the LiveCD. Also, go to the home
>> directory in the file browser (or anywhere, in the file browser) and
>> trash, is listed under the "Places" menu.
>
> Aha... thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
>>>>> details:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/save_dialogs.html
>>>>
>>>> GNOME dialogs are the same, non GNOME dialogs may differ.
>>>
>>> Any distros that come with all GNOME programs?
>>
>> Depends on how you install them. In much the same way that you can add
>> non OSX apps to OSX. Does that mean that OSX doesn't come with only OSX
>> style apps?
>
> OS X comes with if not fully at least primarily OS X style apps. *Most*
> users of OS X never see an X11 application or other non-standard app.
>>
most apps on liveCD Ubuntu, are GNOME, notable exceptions are Firefox,
Gimp and OO.
>> GNOME doesn't (yet) have great apps for all niches, there are places
>> (like GIMP) were there is no GNOME equivilent. Firefox is not a GNOME
>> app, but Epiphany is, and uses the std GNOME dialogs. Same rendering
>> engine as Firefox, can use at least some of the same plugins. (Flash for
>> one) but I typically use Firefox, because I like it better.
>>
>> Out of curiousity, how does the save dialog on OSX look for Firefox?
>
> Like all the others... :)
>
> Actually, oddly enough it lacks the "Hide Extension" check mark. Odd.
> Other than that one detail its save and print dialogs are 100% standard.
does it follow the OSX themes?, firefox will now follow GTK themes,
which is nice, although it doesn't cover file dialogs and the like. Huh,
interesting, I just checked Firefox, and it now uses the GNOME file
dialogs for save as, don't know when that changed. So does OO and Gimp,
hm, I wonder if the file dialogs have seen a big change in Hoary.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>>>>>
>>>>> Only OS X gets it right.
>>>>
>>>> What does the gimp's save dialog look like on OSX? How about Open
>>>> Office?
>>>
>>> Neither fits with the OS X look, but neither is common, either - at least
>>> not for non-techy users.
>>>
>>> Of course, people on OS X tend to use commercial, and often expensive,
>>> programs to fill those needs. There is something to be said for free!
>>
>> :) I couldn't really afford (and wouldn't buy, even if I had the cash)
>> MS-Office, OO and such fit my needs there to a T. (I use Gnumeric for
>> spreadsheet duties, it rocks, and yes, it uses the GNOME dialogs :)
>
>
> Cool...
>
See above :) Gimp, OO, and Firefox now seem to use the GNOME file
dialogs on Hoary.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLX2hd90bcYOAWPYRAmgGAJ9G2g7TnQC9cyJZ+RB+BGMYa16dugCfau2N
sxFm0CXJeRgB8uAVqrQxYFs=
=6jud
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
With the GNOME filebrowser, activate the side pane, and select the
history tab, it's updated when you visit another location, and it can
have icons dropped on it for the usual reasons.
Konqueror is nice, and I prefer a split pane filebrowser, Konqueror
allows this, Nautilus doesn't, but I find Nautilus almost as good, with
some nice features of it's own. Although Konqueror is still ahead of
Nautilus in most areas. IMHO.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLX7yd90bcYOAWPYRAjvbAKCGhnFqUs70qePu5/4KYehU0zX8pQCglXkm
2RlFija38bxoPFavMV5z0Mk=
=C6v5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program"
-- Larry Niven
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.08....@trollfeed.com on 3/8/05 3:45 AM:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:29:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in post
>>> reply_in_group-02B...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 3/7/05 9:48
>>> PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <BE50CBCE.77CE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>> 10) Time is still wrong on Ubuntu! Different version of Ubuntu on a
>>>>> different platform! What is up with that? Took a screen shot... makes no
>>>>> sense why this would be wrong... was wrong on the pre-release version on
>>>>> the
>>>>> Mac, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
>>>>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the difference between those is 7 hours, and you appear to be
>>>> in a time zone that is 7 hours from GMT. That is probably not a
>>>> coincidence.
>>>
>>> Correct. Still, it is still a bug.
>>
>> How?
>
> The time in the menu is incorrect. By 7 hours.
You might want to check your Date/Time setup. You do understand timezones
and local time, don't you?
BTW, does OS X automatically know what timezone it is in?
--
Rick
Snit
>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
>>>>>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the difference between those is 7 hours, and you appear to be
>>>>> in a time zone that is 7 hours from GMT. That is probably not a
>>>>> coincidence.
>>>>
>>>> Correct. Still, it is still a bug.
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>> The time in the menu is incorrect. By 7 hours.
>
> You might want to check your Date/Time setup. You do understand timezones
> and local time, don't you?
Of course.
>
> BTW, does OS X automatically know what timezone it is in?
Of course not. How would it?
Snit
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:23:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2005.03.08....@trollfeed.com on 3/7/05 8:11 PM:
>>
>>>>>>>> * No spring loaded folders - a cool OS X feature (not XP)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beeg Deel...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Not all programs have their name in the title bar - a GUI no-no
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That has been explained to you, and your oly example is -a- screenshot
>>>>>>> utility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, no, it was not a screen shot utility, it was Eye of Gnome... it
>>>>>> deals with other pictures, does it not?
>>>>>
>>>>> IO just opened Eye of Gnome. When it opened, Eye of Gnome was in the Title
>>>>> Bar. When I opened a graphic, the Title Bar changed to show the name of
>>>>> the graphic. It seemed handy to me.
>>>>
>>>> What a strange inconsistency.
>>>
>>> So what? It seemed handy to me and since I am not unique, I am sure there
>>> are others that find it handy.
>>
>> What do you find "handy" about this particular inconsistency?
>
> sheesh.. the name of the graphic being viewed in the title bar.
Nobody has suggested that this should be changed. In fact, I have suggested
that it should be easier to know what application you are in *and* what file
you are using.
>>> 'Default apps'? Do you know the difference between 'default apps', GTK
>>> apps and Gnome apps?
>>
>> Yes, though I am not sure how to find the difference between them.
>
> Them maybe yu need to go figure out the difference between Gnome and GTK.
I will likely try other DE's in the future, but how would that change the
weakness I saw in the distro I examined?
>>
>> Do you know what I mean by default apps for a distro?
>
> Mayb you should tell us what you think it is. You might be right.
It appears you do not. Fair enough. That explains why you did not
understand my previous comments.
>>>
>>>> This is very different, and inferior, to OS X.
>>>
>>> .. which is what it seems you are trying to prove.
>>
>> As long as you are not able to understand what I mean by default
>> applications for a distro you are not likely to be able to understand why
>> having default apps that arbitrarily inconsistent is a problem.
>
> As long as you don't know the difference between Gnome, GTK (and QT), you
> aren't going to figure out any reasons for these ... 'inconsistencies'.
No matter how you try to explain them away, they are still
inconsistencies... and a weakness in the distro I examined. While I will
likely never look at all distros, I have no reason to think *any* distro of
Linux is as good as OS X in this area. If I am wrong I welcome being
pointed to a distro that fits this criteria.
>>>
>>>> There may be other distros where this is not the case.
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Nothing like Apple's Action Menu or XP Common Task area
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Common task area?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. In XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK... just for you...
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the common task area, and where is it?
>>>>
>>>> It is the area in XP windows that show the common tasks. They are seen in
>>>> this image:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mcfedries.com/cigwindowsxp/01fig03.jpg
>>>
>>> It seems that using either the side panel in Konqueror or right-clicking
>>> on the files gives you most of those feature.
>>
>> I will have to play with K more. Did not see anything like the Action menu
>> or the Common Task area.
>
> You do realize that different OS's sometimes do things differently? ...
Of course - and your comment is silly being that I have just described how
two OS's do similar things in different ways.
> some OS's may not group the same features in the same single panel?
I have no problem with that. If you read my comments above you will see
this is so.
>>>>>>>> * No folder actions (OS X has this)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beeg Deel. So what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a new user it is not that big of a deal... and since that is my
>>>>>> stated
>>>>>> and actual purpose, I can see where it is nit picky. For more advanced
>>>>>> users it is a very cool feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it were that cool, I'd have thought someone would have added it.
>>>>
>>>> They did. To OS X.
>>>
>>> I though you were looking at some Linux distro.
>>
>> I look at more than one thing.
>
> You are not really looking at anything.
Again you are incorrect.
>
>>>>
>>>> Is that how you define "cool" - if it has made it to Linux?
>>>
>>> ... sheesh.
>>>
>>>
>>> You do understand that OSS software is basically driven by the wants and
>>> needs of the developers and the request of the users, don't you?
>>
>> That does not imply that features found elsewhere are not done better or are
>> simply missing from Linux. Do you understand that?
>
> And it doesn't imply that features found elsewhere are not done better or
> are simply missing from OS X or Windows. Do you understand that?
Of course - and if you have some features you want to point out to me I
would love to hear them. Sadly you do not seem to have the ability and
instead prefer to belittle instead of assist.
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> Still there are people Linux no doubt is best for. That is the reason I am
>>>> playing with it, so I can best judge such things.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. I think you are 'playing with it' to find reasons to not
>>> use it.
>>
>> Perhaps it is this incorrect assumption of yours that makes you push so many
>> straw men? In any case, your incorrect assumption does not serve the
>> conversation well.
>>
>
> Then you might try to understand that just because OS X has some 'feature'
> does not mean it is required for another OS to be 'friendly.
I never suggested otherwise. You might want to read my comments before
making rash and incorrect assumptions about my views.
Snit
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:22:16 -0700,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in post
>> sdtuf2-...@grendel.myth on 3/7/05 2:24 PM:
>>
>>>>> a bug, pure and simple.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt... and presumably not one that is seen in all distros... I would
>>>> bet I would not have been the first to find it. :)
>>>
>>> I suspect that it may be unique to the PPC ones. The handling of the
>>> clock is different IIRC, from the x86 world, and that may be the root of
>>> it.
>>
>> The image I took was from an x86 version...
>>
>
> Then it sounds like a bug, either hw related, or the LiveCD. I don't
> recall from the last time I used the liveCD if I dinked with the clock,
> but it works fine on the HD installed systems here.
I would be surprised if it did not... then again, I was surprised to see the
bug in the first place. :)
>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I am a little unclear on what you mean by "set up the network so I could
>>> share folders"
>>
>> Share files...
>
> rt click on directory, select share, give password (if needed to config
> for sharing) select method (usually SMB or NFS) fill out particulars.
> You shouldn't have to touch the network config if it's already set up,
> which it normally is, automatically.
Did not work - maybe a LiveCD issue. Seems to have the UI to do this with
ease, but gave me some error - though I did not write it down.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>>> This is something that the GNOME folks have put a fair amount of effort
>>>>> into, (and received no small amount of flamage from many.)
>>>>
>>>> Why? Who would disagree with this?
>>>
>>> some folks will object to anything, and everything. That behaviour isn't
>>> limited to *.advocacy groups :)
>>>
>>> There was some significant debate on the utility of spatial file
>>> browsing, and on limiting the dialogs as much as they were. Some folks,
>>> wanted to go the KDE route, of adding advanced settings tabs to things,
>>> rather than limit the choices of the user. Others took the position that
>>> an option used by 2% of the users, might be better off hidden from the
>>> rest.
>>>
>>> The goal of GNOME, was to simplify the user experience as much as
>>> possible by "doing the right thing" out of the box as much as possible.
>>
>> KDE seems to be trying to be all things to all people - and doing it so-so.
>> GNOME seems to be trying to emulate early 90's tech (as far as GUI)... at
>> least from the LiveCD's I saw.
>
> Not really, (at least, IMHO) some things, like fire, the wheel, and
> such, stand the test of time. Aspects of GUIs are no different, some
> things last, some don't. Using what works is hardly a bad thing.
Maybe if I had played more with other themes on GNOME and was not running a
LiveCD...
>
> KDE is a bit... busy for my tastes, but there are them who like it.
It is too busy for me as well. I suppose I want something between GNOME and
KDE. :)
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 18) I have a printer shared from my Mac, set for Windows sharing. It was
>>>>>> listed for Gnoppix but not for Ubuntu - though it did not *work* for
>>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> SAMBA may or may not have been included in the LiveCD, although if not,
>>>>> it should have given some sort of error. I don't have an MS-Windows
>>>>> network here, but I share the HP 1200 over cups, and it works great. Not
>>>>> that that's relevent to your setup really.
>>>>
>>>> I can share my printer in other ways. If I were setting up a HD installed
>>>> version I would play with that more... probably not an issue for most of my
>>>> students / clients.
>>>
>>> SAMBA works fine, within the limitations of the CIFS/SMB architecture,
>>> but it's not my preferred way, like Apple, Ubuntu (and I think GNOME in
>>> general) has gone to CUPS. Which I find far easier.
>>
>> Which is not zeroconfig or even browsable, is it?
>
> nothing is zeroconfig, the question, is who has to do the configuration.
> Yes, CUPS is browseable. For security reasons, the default config, is
> set to disable it. Wouldn't want your server spreading the printer out
> to the world, would you?
No, just to my network.
>
> and remember, CUPS is what Apple chose for it's printer sharing engine.
True. With Rendezvous it is very easy Mac to Mac.
Seems OO and Firefox would be two of the most common apps, though.
>
>>> GNOME doesn't (yet) have great apps for all niches, there are places
>>> (like GIMP) were there is no GNOME equivilent. Firefox is not a GNOME
>>> app, but Epiphany is, and uses the std GNOME dialogs. Same rendering
>>> engine as Firefox, can use at least some of the same plugins. (Flash for
>>> one) but I typically use Firefox, because I like it better.
>>>
>>> Out of curiousity, how does the save dialog on OSX look for Firefox?
>>
>> Like all the others... :)
>>
>> Actually, oddly enough it lacks the "Hide Extension" check mark. Odd.
>> Other than that one detail its save and print dialogs are 100% standard.
>
> does it follow the OSX themes?,
Yes. Both of them. :)
> firefox will now follow GTK themes,
> which is nice, although it doesn't cover file dialogs and the like. Huh,
> interesting, I just checked Firefox, and it now uses the GNOME file
> dialogs for save as, don't know when that changed. So does OO and Gimp,
> hm, I wonder if the file dialogs have seen a big change in Hoary.
Seems I am not the only one to notice this weakness - great to hear it is
being remedied. Really need to get a nice sized drive to plop on my PC to
be able to play with things other than LiveCD's. If there is a distro that
has at least most of the common apps with consistent dialogs I would be
happier with it.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Compare this with OS X and XP:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only OS X gets it right.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does the gimp's save dialog look like on OSX? How about Open
>>>>> Office?
>>>>
>>>> Neither fits with the OS X look, but neither is common, either - at least
>>>> not for non-techy users.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, people on OS X tend to use commercial, and often expensive,
>>>> programs to fill those needs. There is something to be said for free!
>>>
>>> :) I couldn't really afford (and wouldn't buy, even if I had the cash)
>>> MS-Office, OO and such fit my needs there to a T. (I use Gnumeric for
>>> spreadsheet duties, it rocks, and yes, it uses the GNOME dialogs :)
>>
>>
>> Cool...
>>
>
> See above :) Gimp, OO, and Firefox now seem to use the GNOME file
> dialogs on Hoary.
Return of: Cool...
Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> The nice thing about Linux is that you are not forcibly subjected to
> what some guy in an ivory tower somewhere thinks a user interface should be.
> You are free to mix and max components to suit your fancy.
Well, you can mix and match applications to suit your fancy, but the
interface elements of those applications *were* chosen by some guy in an
ivory tower somewhere: the application developer when he decided which
widget set or toolkit or framework to use.
For example, I switched from KMail to Thunderbird, because I switched
from a combination of POP and local files to IMAP, and, alas, KMail has
some problems with IMAP. I'd love to be able to mix and match things
and keep the KDE save dialog instead of the horrid dialogs that
Thunderbird uses.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Which is in some ways an excellent thing, but does not fit the purpose for
> looking into Linux - to offer ideas for non-technical users who are looking
> to get away from XP.
How technical are you (as opposed to your students)? If you are
reasonably technical, search and you can find instructions for Knoppix
(and problem the other live CDs) on how to remaster it. You could then
make Snittix (:-)) for your students, configured how you like, with
inconsistent programs removed.
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
AM:
Linux has the advantage that if feature X is very important to you, you are
very likely to be able to find it on some distro with some settings. For
some this is important and I certainly would not put that down. Where OS X
has the advantage, it seems to me, is that it is a complete package set up
with *mostly* correct settings from an ease-of-use standpoint... and fairly
easy for more techy users to configure - though not as much as with Linux.
It has better access to commercial apps, has better testing, and is
generally just a more consistent, easier to use OS. Windows had some cool
games. :)
Snit
AM:
I could likely do that - though I do not have the hardware to do it well. I
would also have to look for the applications and would likely end up with
some sacrifices in other areas of the apps.
Still, I like the idea and may play with it - after all, Snittix sounds so
cool. :)
sberry
> "sberry" <n...@this.time> wrote in post 422c7...@x-privat.org on 3/7/05
> 8:19 AM:
>
>
>>>Redrawing issues, for example, seem to be a LiveCD issue. Good for me to
>>>know.
>>
>>Agreed.
>
>
> Agree that it is LiveCD or that it is good I know. :)
Probably good that you know - you shouldn't therefore make the mistake
of condemning the entire OS on the false premise of a live disk issue. I
wasn't trying to be clever or funny with you.
>>>>>* I used LiveCD's: while these are a very cool way to get a feel for Linux,
>>>>>I have no idea what compromises are made to fit all they fit onto one CD.
>>>>
>>>>Are you trying to sell a little FUD here? Compromises? The only
>>>>'compromise' is likely to be a lack of applications due to the limit in
>>>>size.
>>>
>>>
>>>I also understand that some of my issues do not exist for others who are
>>>using HD installations - such as the redraw issues. The time issue also
>>>seems to be that way.
>>
>>Unless I and others here are the exception, and not knowing any
>>different, I would agree it probably must be a live disk issue. I've
>>seen the redrawing but only when I'm stressing my system to an unusual
>>degree - it certainly never happens during normal usage. I'm quite picky
>>and that alone would annoy me to the point of looking for alternatives.
>>
>>Good of you to honestly relate these problems. Have you made a bug report?
>
>
> I have not... perhaps I will. Good of you to not take my comments
> personally as some Linux advocates seem to. :)
I thought your OP was a fair post. It pointed out genuine good and bad
points (which every OS has) and was as unbiased as any report I can
imagine being written by any confirmed user of a different OS. It was
refreshing to see somebody take the time to write a proper write-up and
show willing to discuss and reply further at equal length.
>>>>>* I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to suggest to
>>>>>students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of the complaints
>>>>>below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to less technical
>>>>>folks.
>>>>
>>>>The 'easiest' WM is KDE. KDE is also the most popular. Why are you
>>>>looking at the second favourite? Maybe it was just chance you dl'ed two
>>>>Gnome-based live disks.
>>>
>>>I just downloaded Knoppix and will be playing - and reporting - about that.
>>
>>Knoppix is the Father. Never used it but a person I know says good
>>things about his install. Good luck with it.
>
>
> Have loaded the CD. So far it is impressive, but seems to be trying to be
> all things to all people. Will post specifically about it later.
'all things to all people' - agreed. It comes with a wealth of stuff
that could overwhelm a new user.
>>>>>Booted:
>>>>>
>>>>>5) Can not remove all panels - that is a good thing (I am assuming an
>>>>>advanced user could kill the process or whatever and remove / replace that
>>>>>feature if they wanted).
>>>>
>>>>Ubuntu gives two panels - one top, one bottom. Right click on either ->
>>>>Delete This Panel. Are you talking about something else?
>>>
>>>No. You can delete either - but not both. Well, not unless you open
>>>another first. :)
>>
>>Now I understand. I don't know the official reason but I know, a few
>>years ago, I deleted the single panel and couldn't find a way of getting
>>it back creating a new one without right-click->create new panel on an
>>existing panel. I like my panels as they are so forgive me for not
>>deleting mine 'just to see' something I suspect and partly hope is correct.
>
>
> Sounds like you and I are now on the same page.
:-)
>>>>>6) Took a screen shot, and when I opened it, the name of the screen shot
>>>>>was
>>>>>visible, but not the name of the program! That is a pretty nasty UI
>>>>>boo-boo. Was able to find it was "Eye of Gnome" from the "About" screen.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/name_error.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a level of poor GUI design not seen in OS X or XP in any major
>>>>>programs.
>>>>
>>>>Why is one app's behaviour indicative of anything more than that one
>>>>app? I thought you was 'just talking about what I found, not about Linux
>>>>in general'
>>>
>>>And I found that. :)
>>>
>>>Keep in mind that these are the apps that ship with the OS... and this one
>>>is even a default for this distro.
>>
>>But why would you want to know it's Eye of Gnome anyway? Do you want to
>>open a new instance and make use of its features? Does it matter that
>>the name isn't on the title bar? The only time I would be interested is
>>if I wanted to change the default prog which opens images by right-click
>>-> Properties -> Open With (which is another way of telling what that
>>suddenly appearing program is that's opening the file by default).
>>
>>Help -> About would be known by most users.
>
>
> Many users are still learning the concept between files and folders and
> applications. XP does not serve them well when it has the names in
> different locations, as seen here in Office 2003:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/Office2003.html
>
> I do not think that GNOME serves them well by not having the name there. In
> OS X, every application that is not full screen has the name in an easy to
> find place. It makes a difference.
>
> I am not claiming this is a deal breaker - just something I noted and do not
> like.
Your opinion is as valid as any other, we all have personal preferences.
>>>>>8) Lots of programs - still impressed with how much they put on a CD. Even
>>>>>has Attaxx... I love that game. Wish I were better at it. :)
>>>>
>>>>Don't play many games with the exception of two card games, Blackjack
>>>>and Pysol. Quite like the old style asteroid games too, but, as I said,
>>>>I don't play many games.
>>>
>>>Nor, really, do I. I guess that is why we are not Windows advocates. :)
>>
>>Aye, you're probably right.
>>
>>
>>>>>11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
>>>>>not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just
>>>>>seems
>>>>>flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there are
>>>>>themes
>>>>>with no borders which when you have one window over another there is
>>>>>absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other begins. This
>>>>>is
>>>>>the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the fonts did not look
>>>>>very smooth.
>>>>
>>>>KDE rules for transparency.
>>>>
>>>>You don't want borders but you want something to define where one window
>>>>ends and another starts? Make up your mind.
>>>
>>>I did - I want shadowing or some sort of default border. One of the two
>>>distros of Linux did not offer this - though it did offer the ability to
>>>select different themes that had borders.
>>
>>Have a look at gnome-look.org
>
>
> Seems to be all but down - taking forever to load.
Now you have started with Knoppix/KDE you might want to have a look at
kde-look.org. There are loads of goodies there :-).
>>or art.gnome.org.
>
>
> Thanks.
YW
>>And please read ubuntuguide.org
>
>
> Bookmarked it for later use... thanks again.
'Welcome again.
>>>>Don't know what 'spring loaded folders' are.
>>>
>>>This will explain it:
>>>
>>> http://kb.indiana.edu/data/aehp.html?cust=635619.79198.30
>>
>>I didn't know what you meant. Thanks for the link. Konqueror does this.
>>It is a very cool feature. I wish Gnome's Nautilus would do the same.
>>It's starting to sound more and more that you are a KDE type :-) (Don't
>>worry, you're normal - well, in the majority, anyway)
>
>
> LOL. I have looked a for a couple minutes at KDE and will offer my thoughts
> later when I have had more time with it.
>
>>>>Just dragged a text file to a folder in my home - as it hovered near, the
>>>>dir highlighted and the icon changed to an 'opened' folder icon. Two things
>>>>confirming what you are about to do.
>>>
>>>Cool... can I ask how you got that to work - mine does not do that.
>>
>>The icon changing? It must be a feature of the theme I've installed from
>>one of the two sites above. If so, the icon set is Noia Warm.
>
>
> Thanks.
:-)
>>>>>13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders - all
>>>>>seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would open!
>>>>>They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then disappear.
>>>>>I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them, so it is not
>>>>>as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work. Rebooted and tried
>>>>>again and got the same issue.
>>>>
>>>>You changed network settings and no app will open while the dialog is
>>>>still open?
>>>
>>>Or even when it is closed.
>>
>>Even when closed? Your system is FUBAR'd once you alter network settings?
>
>
> Yes. Not a good thing, but it could be LiveCD related.
I've got to be honest, if I booted any distro with that result, I would
not be happy. I hope it proves to be distro/live disk specific.
>>>>>14) Ok, I loved the screen savers, and like being able to have them be
>>>>>random and change every X minutes. Wish there was a way to say "select
>>>>>all"
>>>>>instead of checking so many boxes, but still, when they have an "Apple II"
>>>>>screen saver, who can really complain. :)
>>>>
>>>>There are indeed a wealth of screensavers. One for everybody.
>>>
>>>Or even two or three. :)
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>
>>>>>15) Apps seem, overall, to work just fine. Firefox works with the middle
>>>>>button to open tabs - by default... the way it should be. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Not a whole lot to say on this point, but this is, of course, one of the
>>>>>most important points - applications work. That is the reason people use
>>>>>computers, not to play with themes...
>>>>
>>>>I don't think many of us here would be using a system where the app's
>>>>don't work.
>>>
>>>Yet many people use Windows. :)
>>
>>Now now ;-)
>>
>>
>>>>>16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
>>>>>compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there is
>>>>>no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu. That is
>>>>>just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good thing.
>>>>
>>>>Application feature preference, that's all that is. I hear you - it
>>>>should be on the Zoom Toolbar, but it isn't. Not exactly a biggie.
>>>
>>>Just an example - if that were the only "oddity" it would not be a big deal,
>>>but it is not the only oddity.
>>
>>1. Oddity or different way of doing something?
>>2. Oddity or missing feature?
>>3. Oddity or bug?
>
>
> Well, the feature is there, so it is not a missing feature... but there does
> not seem to be a reason to not have it in the menu. Seems a poor way of
> doing something.
>
>>If 1, it will take months of everyday usage to be as comfortable with a
>>completely new system and ways of doing things. Having to learn a
>>different way is not hard but added up will make you realise it takes
>>time to learn. It is worth the effort.
>
>
> No doubt. I am not bothered simply because it is different, but because it
> is not as easy.
It's so easy to forget we all had to learn the basics first. As you use
Linux, things kind of fall into place. Like the directory structure: /
is root, /usr/bin is where the user program binaries/executables usually
are, config files in /etc and so on.
>>If 2, please look on the web for a wishlist and add all you would like
>>to see, though I don't think you mean this.
>
>
> I do. I would like a feature where I can access the page zoom from the
> toolbar.
From http://www.openoffice.org./project/www/contact.html
'Good Ideas: Features, Fixes, Notions. Send these to dis...@openoffice.org'
>>3 would mean the time 'bug' (if that is what it is and isn't
>>BIOS/hardware clock related)? You have others? Please tell (and submit a
>>bug report).
>
>
> I very well may - once I am a bit more familiar with the system. Reduces
> the chance I send in user-error reports and not real bugs. :)
Fair and good point.
>>>>>20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
>>>>>details:
>>
>>>>>Only OS X gets it right.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe so. It would be nice to have one style of dialog but, TBH, it's
>>>>not a thing I'm going to lose sleep over.
>>>
>>>No, but it is important, esp. for newer and non-techy users.
>>
>>I don't think any of the different dialog boxes used are going to give a
>>user any problems. Uniformity would be nice, in fact welcomed, but not
>>as big an issue as you are making out.
>
>
> I teach intro classes. I can assure you that when people have to learn
> multiple dialogs that you and I would figure out in literally fractions of a
> second some become completely stopped by it.
I think most users underestimate their knowledge. I remember my first
time at a computer (beyond a BBC Model A years earlier). Staring at the
C:\ prompt for twenty minutes before asking the tutor what the hell I
should do - typing 'win' ain't hard or difficult to remember but we all
had to be told once.
>>And, as someone else asked 'what do the Save dialogs for The Gimp and
>>OpenOffice look like on Mac?'
>
>
> Most people never use X11 apps on a Mac, but the dialogs are not "correct"
> there, either. A non-issue for most Mac users, since they will never see
> those apps.
It's a shame - they are both good strong app's. Still, their loss.
>>>>>Wish I could be more positive about Linux. Again, remember that these are
>>>>>LiveCD's and first impressions - but GNOME is just not impressing me. I
>>>>>will play with KDE later, and hope that it is at least more modern looking
>>>>>and feeling.
>>>>
>>>>'Wish I could be more positive about Linux'? I thought this was 'I am
>>>>just talking about what I found, not about Linux in general'.
>>>
>>>Sigh... you can nit pick my comments if you like. Should I have worded it
>>>as:
>>>
>>> Wish I could be more positive about *my experience with* Linux.
>>
>>Change Linux to the name of distro and I wouldn't 'nit pick', though I
>>would still point you in the direction of KDE.
>
>
> My experience with the Gnoppix and Ubuntu LiveCD's. :)
:-)
>>>>Gnome is the number two WM. Try using the number one choice. It might be
>>>>better for you (and almost certainly better for any student you might
>>>>ply Linux on).
>>>
>>>Thank you, I shall.
>>
>>It was intended as a comment/recommendation for the students as much as
>>for you. I hope it gives what you want, and in consideration to
>>transparency/spring loaded folders, I think it might.
>
>
> I took it as something to look at to fulfill my stated purpose. :)
I honestly do believe Mandrake is by far the best way for new users (if
only for its Control Centre -
http://doc.mandrakelinux.com/MandrakeLinux/100/en/Starter.html/drakconf-intro.html
or http://tinyurl.com/59lrd). It's a shame it involves an immediate full
install (unless you buy MandrakeMove
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/move/ or the Globetrotter
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/globetrotter) but it is the easiest
Linux to learn IMHO.
>>>>FWIW I use Gnome 2.8. It is the first Gnome I have been comfortable
>>>>enough with to use by choiceinstead of KDE. KDE is the best/easiest way
>>>>to learn. Gnome/Xfce/Fluxbox et al are there when you are ready.
>>>>
>>>>Give a full Mandrake/KDE install a whirl. You know, Mandrake, the most
>>>>popular distro using the most popular Window Manager. Look forward to
>>>>your report :-)
>>>
>>>Do not have the spare hardware to do a full install, but will when I get a
>>>chance. I will be playing with KDE and will report soon.
>>
>>The problem, as I see it, lies in the choice of distro/WM.
>>
>>Ubuntu is not a distro I would recommend for a migrating/new user. Given
>>ubuntuguide.org and a lot will be explained to new ears, but, I think
>>they would have it a sight easier by using KDE in the form of MDK or a
>>KDE-based livedisk.
>>
>>No chance of creating a partition and installing Mandrake (PPC)? No
>>spare 4Gb+ hard drives knocking around? Shame - you're missing out.
>
>
> I will have access to a spare HD soon to put into the box.
Mandrake, Mandrake, Mandrake.... :-)
Linønut
> With the GNOME filebrowser, activate the side pane, and select the
> history tab, it's updated when you visit another location, and it can
> have icons dropped on it for the usual reasons.
>
> Konqueror is nice, and I prefer a split pane filebrowser, Konqueror
> allows this, Nautilus doesn't, but I find Nautilus almost as good, with
> some nice features of it's own. Although Konqueror is still ahead of
> Nautilus in most areas. IMHO.
Maybe it's just me, but I find all those file-browsers to be tediously slow,
and I use them only when I want to rename files that have long filenames.
Of course, I do use the file-dialogs in apps. Their behavior is indeed
inconsistent. Some have a memory, some don't.
I've found these methods lead to fast navigation: cd, pushd, and popd, along
with tab-completion, "!", and history.
But that's just me.
--
When was the last time you thought about
Microsoft, except in frustration or anger?
-- Michael S. Malone, Silicon Insider
Liam Slider
<snip>
>
> sort on emblems? I didn't realize that, thanks. That makes them actively
> useful, rather than just interesting eye candy :)
Indeed. Actually *useful* eye candy is always a plus. :-)
Liam Slider
> Although I am a little puzzled by the sorting order, it's not
> alphabetical, so what is it?
It's alphabetical...by emblem name. According to the GNOME Help at least. :-)
Steve Carroll
Peter Köhlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin virus.scr Snit wrote:
>
> > "Linønut" <lin?n...@bone.com> wrote in post
> > 27mdnRe_ELM...@comcast.com on 3/7/05 4:33 PM:
> >
> >> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> >>
> >>>> All distros allow it. You have to figure it out for your users.
> >>>> Tailorability of Linux GUIs is high. You can lock them down, too.
> >>>> Google for "kiosk mode"+Linux.
> >>>
> >>> I have seen nothing in Linux that makes me believe what you are saying
> >>> is
> >>> correct - that I can configure it as you claim. Then again, I have used
> >>> only GNOME and only for a short time.
> >>
> >> The wise man would stop making assertions, then, until more knowledge is
> >> gained.
> >
> > If we were talking about what was *possible* with Linux or with GNOME
> > specifically your point would be more accurate. As it is, I am looking at
> > what to suggest for non-technical users.
> >
>
> No. You are making assertions out of ignorance. And it is *total* ignorance,
> not just partial. Up to now all your "observations" about linux are
> meaningless, and have no vlaue whatsoever.
>
> But in your post you accuse someone of telling you something which,
> according to your meaningless "observations", is not true.
> You have been shown by now more than once that you are wrong, yet you still
> drag your heels. And shift the goalposts (again). Before, there was the
> allegedla missing kiosk mode. You were told it exists, more than once. Now
> you throw in the "non-technical user".
> Why do you have to shift the requirements constantly?
>
> I have had this feeling from the start, and every single post you make tells
> me that this feeling was correct: You are a troll. And a mac-user from
> csma. And those are incredibly stupid
If, in your opinion, the fact that I earn a living by using my Mac makes
me stupid, so be it. There is one thing that virtually all 'stupid' Mac
users agree on and you just stated it yourself. A toast to Snit, the one
poster that virtually all in csma agree on:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fc7d9360d43
5b6e6
I'd like to thank cola for taking Snit in. Csma is much calmer with him
devoting his trolling there as of late. Though it may bother some in
csma, I don't much mind his intentional cross-trolling posts because I
don't even have to subscribe to cola to watch him troll there.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Peter Köhlmann" <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote in post
> d0k02g$p4o$05$1...@news.t-online.com on 3/8/05 4:00 AM:
>
> >>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that the difference between those is 7 hours, and you appear to be
> >>>>> in a time zone that is 7 hours from GMT. That is probably not a
> >>>>> coincidence.
> >>>>
> >>>> Correct. Still, it is still a bug.
> >>>
> >>> How?
> >>
> >> The time in the menu is incorrect. By 7 hours.
> >
> > In other words, you haven't understood GMT, localtime and timezone
>
> You are, of course, incorrect. Care to explain why it would show local time
> in one spot but GMT in another - but only in some distros - and how this is
> not a bug?
>
> Perhaps you know of a setting I did not find. By all means, please point me
> to it.
You've already issued an absolute statement calling it a bug:
"Correct. Still, it is still a bug"
Now, here you are, questioning the issue. Didn't you know with certainty
when you made the absolute statement above?
Snit
5:39 AM:
>>>> Redrawing issues, for example, seem to be a LiveCD issue. Good for me to
>>>> know.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> Agree that it is LiveCD or that it is good I know. :)
>
> Probably good that you know - you shouldn't therefore make the mistake
> of condemning the entire OS on the false premise of a live disk issue. I
> wasn't trying to be clever or funny with you.
No, I am certainly not assuming that this issue affects all Linux computers
or even all computers running GNOME.
>
>>>>>> * I used LiveCD's: while these are a very cool way to get a feel for
>>>>>> Linux, I have no idea what compromises are made to fit all they fit onto
>>>>>> one CD.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you trying to sell a little FUD here? Compromises? The only
>>>>> 'compromise' is likely to be a lack of applications due to the limit in
>>>>> size.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also understand that some of my issues do not exist for others who are
>>>> using HD installations - such as the redraw issues. The time issue also
>>>> seems to be that way.
>>>>
>>> Unless I and others here are the exception, and not knowing any different, I
>>> would agree it probably must be a live disk issue. I've seen the redrawing
>>> but only when I'm stressing my system to an unusual degree - it certainly
>>> never happens during normal usage. I'm quite picky and that alone would
>>> annoy me to the point of looking for alternatives.
>>>
>>> Good of you to honestly relate these problems. Have you made a bug report?
>>>
>>
>> I have not... perhaps I will. Good of you to not take my comments personally
>> as some Linux advocates seem to. :)
>
> I thought your OP was a fair post. It pointed out genuine good and bad
> points (which every OS has) and was as unbiased as any report I can
> imagine being written by any confirmed user of a different OS. It was
> refreshing to see somebody take the time to write a proper write-up and
> show willing to discuss and reply further at equal length.
Thank you. I find it strange how there are some people in COLA who seem
offended by such and resort to name calling - though frankly they seem far
more tame than some in CSMA...
>
>>>>>> * I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to suggest
>>>>>> to students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of the
>>>>>> complaints below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to less
>>>>>> technical folks.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The 'easiest' WM is KDE. KDE is also the most popular. Why are you looking
>>>>> at the second favourite? Maybe it was just chance you dl'ed two
>>>>> Gnome-based live disks.
>>>>>
>>>> I just downloaded Knoppix and will be playing - and reporting - about that.
>>>>
>>> Knoppix is the Father. Never used it but a person I know says good things
>>> about his install. Good luck with it.
>>>
>>
>> Have loaded the CD. So far it is impressive, but seems to be trying to be
>> all things to all people. Will post specifically about it later.
>>
> 'all things to all people' - agreed. It comes with a wealth of stuff that
> could overwhelm a new user.
Very much so. I have posted that review... should be interesting and
informative to read the replies. I know I learned a lot about GNOME from
the replies.
>>> But why would you want to know it's Eye of Gnome anyway? Do you want to
>>> open a new instance and make use of its features? Does it matter that
>>> the name isn't on the title bar? The only time I would be interested is
>>> if I wanted to change the default prog which opens images by right-click
>>> -> Properties -> Open With (which is another way of telling what that
>>> suddenly appearing program is that's opening the file by default).
>>>
>>> Help -> About would be known by most users.
>>
>>
>> Many users are still learning the concept between files and folders and
>> applications. XP does not serve them well when it has the names in
>> different locations, as seen here in Office 2003:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/Office2003.html
>>
>> I do not think that GNOME serves them well by not having the name there. In
>> OS X, every application that is not full screen has the name in an easy to
>> find place. It makes a difference.
>>
>> I am not claiming this is a deal breaker - just something I noted and do not
>> like.
>
> Your opinion is as valid as any other, we all have personal preferences.
>>>>>> 11) The interface, even after playing with the themes for a bit is really
>>>>>> not impressing me. There is no transparency or shadowing, and it just
>>>>>> seems flat. This not only makes it visually less appealing - but there
>>>>>> are themes with no borders which when you have one window over another
>>>>>> there is absolutely nothing showing you where one ends and the other
>>>>>> begins. This is the default for Gnoppix. Throughout the programs the
>>>>>> fonts did not look very smooth.
>>>>>>
>>>>> KDE rules for transparency.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't want borders but you want something to define where one window
>>>>> ends and another starts? Make up your mind.
>>>>>
>>>> I did - I want shadowing or some sort of default border. One of the two
>>>> distros of Linux did not offer this - though it did offer the ability to
>>>> select different themes that had borders.
>>>>
>>> Have a look at gnome-look.org
>>>
>>
>> Seems to be all but down - taking forever to load.
>>
> Now you have started with Knoppix/KDE you might want to have a look at
> kde-look.org. There are loads of goodies there :-).
Thanks... will do.
Hmmm, a question - in order to save that link for later use, just out of
habit, I selected your text and dragged it to my desktop. It became a
web-link that I will merely double click to view the site. Any such
features in Linux? Is it based on the browser? GNOME vs. KDE?
>
>>> or art.gnome.org.
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> YW
>
>>> And please read ubuntuguide.org
>>
>>
>> Bookmarked it for later use... thanks again.
>
> 'Welcome again.
>
>>>>>> 13) In Ubuntu I tried to set up the network so I could share folders -
>>>>>> all seemed to go OK, but when I left the dialog no other program would
>>>>>> open! They would start to - even show up on the bottom panel, and then
>>>>>> disappear. I could pull down menus and open folders and even create them,
>>>>>> so it is not as if the whole machine froze - it just did not work.
>>>>>> Rebooted and tried again and got the same issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You changed network settings and no app will open while the dialog is
>>>>> still open?
>>>>
>>>> Or even when it is closed.
>>>
>>> Even when closed? Your system is FUBAR'd once you alter network settings?
>>
>>
>> Yes. Not a good thing, but it could be LiveCD related.
>
> I've got to be honest, if I booted any distro with that result, I would
> not be happy. I hope it proves to be distro/live disk specific.
If the "real" OS worked that way it would be a big deal - but I am doubtful
that is the case.
<SNIP>
>>>>>> 16) Playing with Open Office for just a bit - it works but is clunky
>>>>>> compared to MS Office on OS X. In the zoom toolbar, for example, there
>>>>>> is no option to zoom to page width, even though there is in the menu.
>>>>>> That is just silly. Open Office is of course also free, which is a good
>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Application feature preference, that's all that is. I hear you - it should
>>>>> be on the Zoom Toolbar, but it isn't. Not exactly a biggie.
>>>>>
>>>> Just an example - if that were the only "oddity" it would not be a big
>>>> deal, but it is not the only oddity.
>>>>
>>> 1. Oddity or different way of doing something? 2. Oddity or missing feature?
>>> 3. Oddity or bug?
>>>
>>
>> Well, the feature is there, so it is not a missing feature... but there does
>> not seem to be a reason to not have it in the menu. Seems a poor way of
>> doing something.
>>
>>> If 1, it will take months of everyday usage to be as comfortable with a
>>> completely new system and ways of doing things. Having to learn a different
>>> way is not hard but added up will make you realise it takes time to learn.
>>> It is worth the effort.
>>>
>>
>> No doubt. I am not bothered simply because it is different, but because it
>> is not as easy.
>>
> It's so easy to forget we all had to learn the basics first. As you use Linux,
> things kind of fall into place. Like the directory structure: / is root,
> /usr/bin is where the user program binaries/executables usually are, config
> files in /etc and so on.
For me that would not be an issue - I am mostly looking at how hard it would
likely be for my students / clients to use. As long as they could fairly
easily install and find an icon it is not that big of an issue. XP, after
all, is pretty bad in this regard - the shortcut often has a different name
than the original (iexplore.exe vs Internet Explorer). OS X handles this
better... hmm, have not checked that out on Linux.
>
>>> If 2, please look on the web for a wishlist and add all you would like
>>> to see, though I don't think you mean this.
>>
>> I do. I would like a feature where I can access the page zoom from the
>> toolbar.
>
> From http://www.openoffice.org./project/www/contact.html
> 'Good Ideas: Features, Fixes, Notions. Send these to dis...@openoffice.org'
Will do.
>
>>> 3 would mean the time 'bug' (if that is what it is and isn't
>>> BIOS/hardware clock related)? You have others? Please tell (and submit a
>>> bug report).
>>
>> I very well may - once I am a bit more familiar with the system. Reduces
>> the chance I send in user-error reports and not real bugs. :)
>
> Fair and good point.
>
>>>>>> 20) Save dialogs are all different... not a good sign for looking at GUI
>>>>>> details:
>>>
>>>>>> Only OS X gets it right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe so. It would be nice to have one style of dialog but, TBH, it's
>>>>> not a thing I'm going to lose sleep over.
>>>>
>>>> No, but it is important, esp. for newer and non-techy users.
>>>
>>> I don't think any of the different dialog boxes used are going to give a
>>> user any problems. Uniformity would be nice, in fact welcomed, but not
>>> as big an issue as you are making out.
>>
>> I teach intro classes. I can assure you that when people have to learn
>> multiple dialogs that you and I would figure out in literally fractions of a
>> second some become completely stopped by it.
>
> I think most users underestimate their knowledge. I remember my first
> time at a computer (beyond a BBC Model A years earlier). Staring at the
> C:\ prompt for twenty minutes before asking the tutor what the hell I
> should do - typing 'win' ain't hard or difficult to remember but we all
> had to be told once.
I have seen mature, intelligent people who spend weeks struggling with
logging in to XP - the Control-Alt-Delete sequence is just mind-boggling to
them (even with the relatively clear instructions on the screen). There are
many people who are very bright who just do not, for whatever reason, "get"
computers. Often these are people who are in their 40's and beyond who have
had limited or essentially no experience with a computer. It takes a lot of
patience to work with these folks. They very often speak poorly of past
instructors who went "too fast". The concept of when to click or double
click is just baffling to them. Once I introduce right-click I have to
repeatedly answer the question, when I tell them to click on something, that
I mean "left click". In some classes I have just been careful to say "left
click" every time - but in some ways that does the students a disservice
because they will hear "click" and "right click" outside of class. I have
had hour long classes - and more - where we covered the concept of save
dialogs... only to have to start essentially from scratch when we try a
different program. Heck, some people are in such disbelief that when I
describe someone who gets completely stuck and panics over a floppy being in
the drive (or other stories of non-techy users) they insist I must be lying.
Such non-technical people are common - much more than most techy folks would
imagine.
I do not hold this against them - we all have areas of strength and
weakness. While I am a techy person - as is darn near every reader of COLA
and CSMA - I do not "get" foreign languages. I have tried, and I just
struggle. Sure, if I had to learn I could, but not something that is
natural or easy for me.
>
>>> And, as someone else asked 'what do the Save dialogs for The Gimp and
>>> OpenOffice look like on Mac?'
>>
>> Most people never use X11 apps on a Mac, but the dialogs are not "correct"
>> there, either. A non-issue for most Mac users, since they will never see
>> those apps.
>
> It's a shame - they are both good strong app's. Still, their loss.
There are some apps that might be of benefit - but for most people Mail, MS
Office (or even AppleWorks or, now, iWork), iLife and perhaps one or two
other programs is all they really want or need.
>
>>>>> Gnome is the number two WM. Try using the number one choice. It might be
>>>>> better for you (and almost certainly better for any student you might
>>>>> ply Linux on).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, I shall.
>>>
>>> It was intended as a comment/recommendation for the students as much as
>>> for you. I hope it gives what you want, and in consideration to
>>> transparency/spring loaded folders, I think it might.
>>
>>
>> I took it as something to look at to fulfill my stated purpose. :)
>
> I honestly do believe Mandrake is by far the best way for new users (if
> only for its Control Centre -
> http://doc.mandrakelinux.com/MandrakeLinux/100/en/Starter.html/drakconf-intro.
> html
> or http://tinyurl.com/59lrd). It's a shame it involves an immediate full
> install (unless you buy MandrakeMove
> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/move/ or the Globetrotter
> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/globetrotter) but it is the easiest
> Linux to learn IMHO.
Thanks - I will certainly be checking that out.
This is what I am hoping to learn - what distros should I point my students
who want to explore Linux to. Ease of use is paramount to these folks - not
having every available feature or ultimate configurability (though being
able to set configurations for poor... older... eyesight and the like is
common)
>
>>>>> FWIW I use Gnome 2.8. It is the first Gnome I have been comfortable
>>>>> enough with to use by choiceinstead of KDE. KDE is the best/easiest way
>>>>> to learn. Gnome/Xfce/Fluxbox et al are there when you are ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give a full Mandrake/KDE install a whirl. You know, Mandrake, the most
>>>>> popular distro using the most popular Window Manager. Look forward to
>>>>> your report :-)
>>>>
>>>> Do not have the spare hardware to do a full install, but will when I get a
>>>> chance. I will be playing with KDE and will report soon.
>>>
>>> The problem, as I see it, lies in the choice of distro/WM.
>>>
>>> Ubuntu is not a distro I would recommend for a migrating/new user. Given
>>> ubuntuguide.org and a lot will be explained to new ears, but, I think
>>> they would have it a sight easier by using KDE in the form of MDK or a
>>> KDE-based livedisk.
>>>
>>> No chance of creating a partition and installing Mandrake (PPC)? No
>>> spare 4Gb+ hard drives knocking around? Shame - you're missing out.
>>
>>
>> I will have access to a spare HD soon to put into the box.
>
> Mandrake, Mandrake, Mandrake.... :-)
What are you trying to say? :)
sberry
>>I thought your OP was a fair post. It pointed out genuine good and bad
>>points (which every OS has) and was as unbiased as any report I can
>>imagine being written by any confirmed user of a different OS. It was
>>refreshing to see somebody take the time to write a proper write-up and
>>show willing to discuss and reply further at equal length.
>
>
> Thank you. I find it strange how there are some people in COLA who seem
> offended by such and resort to name calling - though frankly they seem far
> more tame than some in CSMA...
I can be as bristly as the next person. It depends on the OP's attitude.
If they post 'such-and-such didn't work therefore Linux is a POS' it's
guaranteed to get all my back up. I try to talk to the person as if we
we're sat in a pub but it's easier with some than it is with others.
Such is life.
>>>>>>>* I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to suggest
>>>>>>>to students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of the
>>>>>>>complaints below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to less
>>>>>>>technical folks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The 'easiest' WM is KDE. KDE is also the most popular. Why are you looking
>>>>>>at the second favourite? Maybe it was just chance you dl'ed two
>>>>>>Gnome-based live disks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I just downloaded Knoppix and will be playing - and reporting - about that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Knoppix is the Father. Never used it but a person I know says good things
>>>>about his install. Good luck with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Have loaded the CD. So far it is impressive, but seems to be trying to be
>>>all things to all people. Will post specifically about it later.
>>>
>>
>>'all things to all people' - agreed. It comes with a wealth of stuff that
>>could overwhelm a new user.
>
>
> Very much so. I have posted that review... should be interesting and
> informative to read the replies. I know I learned a lot about GNOME from
> the replies.
I see the post listed and will read it when I've caught up with todays
posts/replies :-)
> Hmmm, a question - in order to save that link for later use, just out of
> habit, I selected your text and dragged it to my desktop. It became a
> web-link that I will merely double click to view the site. Any such
> features in Linux? Is it based on the browser? GNOME vs. KDE?
Just tried what I think you are asking - no, the text doesn't transform
from the text into a link on the desktop. I know you can drag the
name/icon from the address bar in Firefox to the desktop which is a link
but not dragging plain text, ie 'kde-look.org' there.
You should meet my ex-, she's just downright f**king dangerous. Her PC
crashes if she passes within 6 feet of it. The old girl across the road,
while better than my ex-, can really stuff her system when she puts her
mind to it.
I'm not a techie. I wouldn't even qualify as a geek. I'm just a bloke
off the street who got into computers with Win3.1 and just progressed
looking for something new to learn each day. When I was using Windows, I
was always looking for something better - for the last two years of
Linux, I stopped looking.
> I do not hold this against them - we all have areas of strength and
> weakness. While I am a techy person - as is darn near every reader of COLA
> and CSMA - I do not "get" foreign languages. I have tried, and I just
> struggle. Sure, if I had to learn I could, but not something that is
> natural or easy for me.
Foreign language lol. I bearly get by in English :-) I know what you
mean, there are complicated things we just seem to 'understand' yet
simple things that just leave us baffled.
> This is what I am hoping to learn - what distros should I point my students
> who want to explore Linux to. Ease of use is paramount to these folks - not
> having every available feature or ultimate configurability (though being
> able to set configurations for poor... older... eyesight and the like is
> common)
If they can install, Mandrake is the one. Others may say Xandros, which
is supposed to be quite impressive but I've never used it.
Distrowatch is the place to go and look at the various strengths of the
different versions available.
KDE has an Accessibility section in the Control Centre, I think. I would
imagine there are complete distro's with these kinds of features... Just
Googled and up came an Alpha :-/ http://oralux.org/index.php ('Audio
GNU/Linux distro for visually impaired persons').
>>>>No chance of creating a partition and installing Mandrake (PPC)? No
>>>>spare 4Gb+ hard drives knocking around? Shame - you're missing out.
>>>
>>>
>>>I will have access to a spare HD soon to put into the box.
>>
>>Mandrake, Mandrake, Mandrake.... :-)
>
>
> What are you trying to say? :)
>
That Slackware is the definitely the distro for you ;-)
The Ghost In The Machine
<linøn...@bone.com>
wrote
on Tue, 08 Mar 2005 07:09:30 -0600
<zcudnQ05h_y...@comcast.com>:
> Jim Richardson poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> With the GNOME filebrowser, activate the side pane, and select the
>> history tab, it's updated when you visit another location, and it can
>> have icons dropped on it for the usual reasons.
>>
>> Konqueror is nice, and I prefer a split pane filebrowser, Konqueror
>> allows this, Nautilus doesn't, but I find Nautilus almost as good, with
>> some nice features of it's own. Although Konqueror is still ahead of
>> Nautilus in most areas. IMHO.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I find all those file-browsers to be tediously slow,
> and I use them only when I want to rename files that have long filenames.
I'm not sure even that's necessary.
Here's a thought.
[1] cd to the directory with the incredibly long filename, which
for the sake of argument I'll assume is
'firstfewlettersofancrediblylongfilenamethatishopefullyuseful.txt'.
:-)
[2] Type in 'mv firstfewletters', then hit the TAB key.
[3] The filename should auto complete. If not, hit TAB twice
and you should see a list of all files matching the prefix.
It's a neat capability that I use quite often, and I don't think
they had it during my school daze... :-)
It even handles spaces in the filename correctly.
>
> Of course, I do use the file-dialogs in apps. Their behavior is indeed
> inconsistent. Some have a memory, some don't.
Probably depends on whether the app does the equivalent of
a 'new javax.swing.JFileChooser()' every time one issues
the request. (I'd have to look regarding the KDE and Gnome
variants of file requesters.)
>
> I've found these methods lead to fast navigation: cd, pushd,
> and popd, along with tab-completion, "!", and history.
>
> But that's just me.
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Snit
12:37 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "sberry" <n...@this.time> wrote in post 422d9...@x-privat.org on 3/8/05
>> 5:39 AM:
> <snip>
>>> I thought your OP was a fair post. It pointed out genuine good and bad
>>> points (which every OS has) and was as unbiased as any report I can
>>> imagine being written by any confirmed user of a different OS. It was
>>> refreshing to see somebody take the time to write a proper write-up and
>>> show willing to discuss and reply further at equal length.
>>
>> Thank you. I find it strange how there are some people in COLA who seem
>> offended by such and resort to name calling - though frankly they seem far
>> more tame than some in CSMA...
>
> I can be as bristly as the next person. It depends on the OP's attitude.
> If they post 'such-and-such didn't work therefore Linux is a POS' it's
> guaranteed to get all my back up. I try to talk to the person as if we
> we're sat in a pub but it's easier with some than it is with others.
> Such is life.
LOL... yup. I love the ones who bad mouth you and call you names and then
try to buddy up to you when they want you to answer a question. CSMA is
filled with such folks. I used to play with them a lot, but it just got
boring. I don't know about COLA, but the trolls in CSMA have just resorted
to dishonest snipping, making accusations with no support, and even creating
"quotes" from others to prove their point. Just stopped being fun to taunt
them. :)
>
>>>>>>>> * I am looking at Linux not just for myself, but as something to
>>>>>>>> suggest to students / clients of mine who are non-technical. Some of
>>>>>>>> the complaints below would not be a big deal to me, but likely would to
>>>>>>>> less technical folks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 'easiest' WM is KDE. KDE is also the most popular. Why are you
>>>>>>> looking at the second favourite? Maybe it was just chance you dl'ed two
>>>>>>> Gnome-based live disks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just downloaded Knoppix and will be playing - and reporting - about
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Knoppix is the Father. Never used it but a person I know says good things
>>>>> about his install. Good luck with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have loaded the CD. So far it is impressive, but seems to be trying to be
>>>> all things to all people. Will post specifically about it later.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'all things to all people' - agreed. It comes with a wealth of stuff that
>>> could overwhelm a new user.
>>>
>>
>> Very much so. I have posted that review... should be interesting and
>> informative to read the replies. I know I learned a lot about GNOME from the
>> replies.
>
> I see the post listed and will read it when I've caught up with todays
> posts/replies :-)
What! There are things more important that my views on KDE!
Ok.. thanks... appreciate any comments you have.
>
>> Hmmm, a question - in order to save that link for later use, just out of
>> habit, I selected your text and dragged it to my desktop. It became a
>> web-link that I will merely double click to view the site. Any such
>> features in Linux? Is it based on the browser? GNOME vs. KDE?
>
> Just tried what I think you are asking - no, the text doesn't transform
> from the text into a link on the desktop. I know you can drag the
> name/icon from the address bar in Firefox to the desktop which is a link
> but not dragging plain text, ie 'kde-look.org' there.
It is a very cool feature - I use it all the time. Much easier when you
have dual monitors, as my desktop is easy to access. I doubt my students /
clients use it often.
The fact that you post to COLA shows you are more interested in the tech
than many of my students will likely be - but in a few years who knows. You
certainly have more computer time in than most of them.
>
>> I do not hold this against them - we all have areas of strength and
>> weakness. While I am a techy person - as is darn near every reader of COLA
>> and CSMA - I do not "get" foreign languages. I have tried, and I just
>> struggle. Sure, if I had to learn I could, but not something that is
>> natural or easy for me.
>
> Foreign language lol. I bearly get by in English :-) I know what you
> mean, there are complicated things we just seem to 'understand' yet
> simple things that just leave us baffled.
Very much so...
>
>> This is what I am hoping to learn - what distros should I point my students
>> who want to explore Linux to. Ease of use is paramount to these folks - not
>> having every available feature or ultimate configurability (though being
>> able to set configurations for poor... older... eyesight and the like is
>> common)
>
> If they can install, Mandrake is the one. Others may say Xandros, which
> is supposed to be quite impressive but I've never used it.
I certainly will be looking at Mandrake when I can. From screenshots and
descriptions it is a likely candidate for something I might suggest.
>
> Distrowatch is the place to go and look at the various strengths of the
> different versions available.
Aha... did not know about it... thanks.
>
> KDE has an Accessibility section in the Control Centre, I think. I would
> imagine there are complete distro's with these kinds of features... Just
> Googled and up came an Alpha :-/ http://oralux.org/index.php ('Audio
> GNU/Linux distro for visually impaired persons').
The LiveCD wanted my root password to set up accessibility options - and
they do not give you the root PW. On a full install this would not be an
issue.
>
>>>>> No chance of creating a partition and installing Mandrake (PPC)? No
>>>>> spare 4Gb+ hard drives knocking around? Shame - you're missing out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will have access to a spare HD soon to put into the box.
>>>
>>> Mandrake, Mandrake, Mandrake.... :-)
>>
>>
>> What are you trying to say? :)
>>
> That Slackware is the definitely the distro for you ;-)
Oh, ok.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "sberry" <n...@this.time> wrote in post 422d9...@x-privat.org on 3/8/05
>> 5:39 AM:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I thought your OP was a fair post. It pointed out genuine good and bad
>>> points (which every OS has) and was as unbiased as any report I can
>>> imagine being written by any confirmed user of a different OS. It was
>>> refreshing to see somebody take the time to write a proper write-up and
>>> show willing to discuss and reply further at equal length.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you. I find it strange how there are some people in COLA who seem
>> offended by such and resort to name calling - though frankly they seem
>> far
>> more tame than some in CSMA...
>
>
> I can be as bristly as the next person. It depends on the OP's attitude.
> If they post 'such-and-such didn't work therefore Linux is a POS' it's
> guaranteed to get all my back up. I try to talk to the person as if we
> we're sat in a pub but it's easier with some than it is with others.
> Such is life.
And then there's Snit, who's used sockpuppets, posted under other
another poster's name, changed his email address multiple times within a
brief period after people kept plonking him, and has engaged in a
variety of other trolling tactics.
(I will provide urls for support of my claims if anyone, other than
Snit, would like to see some examples.)
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
ZnU
Linųnut <linųn...@bone.com> wrote:
> Jim Richardson poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
> > With the GNOME filebrowser, activate the side pane, and select the
> > history tab, it's updated when you visit another location, and it can
> > have icons dropped on it for the usual reasons.
> >
> > Konqueror is nice, and I prefer a split pane filebrowser, Konqueror
> > allows this, Nautilus doesn't, but I find Nautilus almost as good, with
> > some nice features of it's own. Although Konqueror is still ahead of
> > Nautilus in most areas. IMHO.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I find all those file-browsers to be tediously slow,
> and I use them only when I want to rename files that have long filenames.
Try OS X's column view. You can select an item by starting to type its
name. Keep typing until the item you want is selected. If the item is a
directory, you see its content in the column at the right, and you can
move the focus into that column by hitting the right arrow key.
This pretty much gives you the sort of navigation you get with 'cd' and
tab completion. But you get a lot more as well. First off, of course, it
actually shows you the items in the current directory, which is useful,
since you might not always remember. Not only that, but it shows you the
contents of a clild directory, if you've got one selected, and the
contents of the parent directory of the current directory, and possibly
the parent of that, etc. (depending on how many columns you have
displayed). So, it gives you a lot of context, to help you figure out
where you are and where you want to go.
Secondly, it shows you what item you're selecting as you type -- with
tab completion you don't know what will match until you hit tab. Often
you'll run into a situation where you'll type a few characters, hit tab
and realize you haven't typed enough to match just one item, and then
you'll have to type more and hit tab again. That won't happen in OS X's
column view.
Thirdly, you can move around with arrow keys, in any direction, or jump
in with the mouse. If you see that the item you want to select is below
the selected item, hit the down arrow. If you see it's above, hit the up
arrow. If you want to move back into the parent directory, hit the left
arrow. If you just want to click on an item, do that.
[snip]
--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 03:29:48 -0700,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in post
> q5a0g2-...@grendel.myth on 3/8/05 3:08 AM:
>
>>> Perhaps I have not been clear. From what I know of GNOME:
>>>
>>> - on the desktop you can change the size of individual icons
>>> - in folders you can not, though you can change the size of all icons
>>>
>>> I do not understand the inconsistency.
>>
>> changing them in the folders, is using the filebrowser, what you are
>> doing there, is changing how the filebrowser displays them, not changing
>> them in actual fact. Althoug amusingly enough, if you stretch an icon on
>> the desktop, then drag it into a folder, the icon stays stretched.
>
> Right - you can view your stretched icons elsewhere, but only stretch them
> on the desktop. Why?
I poked around in Nautilus, look at the edit menu, there's a greyed out
selection "Stretch icon" select an icon, and this greyed out edit
function becomes available. Also, if you select an icon that's been
stretched, an edit function "Restore icons unstretched size" is now
available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Um... right click, it's under properties, Select Custom Icon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything similar to copy and paste for arbitrary icons?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure entirely what you mean. But you can change what image your icon
>>>> uses easily, and add user defined ones and custom icons.
>>>
>>> How do you add custom ones? That is what I am looking for - for example,
>>> say I make an image in... oh, GIMP or something... how do I change the icon
>>> to look like the image?
>>
>> rt click on the file to be changed, select properties, select "Select
>> custom icon" browse to icon you have made, select it.
>
> This has been covered elsewhere - seems GNOME is comparable or nearly so to
> OS X here... and both are far better than Windows.
well, that's pretty obvious :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I
>>>>>>> know this can be changed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do know the panel can be set to automatically hide right, and only
>>>>>> popping up when needed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes... and I did not play much with that. I would assume that they can
>>>>> get in the way, much like the Dock can in OS X.
>>>>
>>>> Well, every OS has it's quirks.
>>>
>>> No. OS X is perfect in every way. There is no reason for them to even
>>> continue development.
>>>
>>> OK - that was added so the trolls could quote me later and make fun of it.
>>> :)
>>
>> Some would have made it up, if you hadn't said it (however facetiously
>> :)
>
> Translation: you were women's underwear and dance in the moonlight.
>
> Yeah, like that.
trolls are pretty much the same, irrespective of the subject matter they
troll with.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> OS X uses them, but for different purposes...
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, the functionality does not easily exist in OS X (I suppose you can
>>>>> create icons and copy and paste - but that is silly!)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, again....we basically have our own way of customizing. Plus, we can
>>>> sort and organise by emblem, which I don't think you can do on OSX with
>>>> what you are talking about...which makes it a handy feature, not just eye
>>>> candy. But it basically comes down to different useful featuresets. Every
>>>> OS is different, as is every DE.
>>>
>>> The ability to search and sort by emblem is very cool... OS X has that with
>>> labels - essentially colors - but I like the emblems. They are simply more
>>> descriptive.
>>
>> Although I am a little puzzled by the sorting order, it's not
>> alphabetical, so what is it?
>
> I will have to play at some point. I am guessing each emblem has a "hidden"
> number.
>
Yeah, that would be my guess. But it's not obvious within the edit
emblem section.
On another note, if you hadn't noticed, although the help system lacks a
search function. (a big error, in my estimation) it is context
sensitive, and clicking on help in a given panel, brings you to help,
relevent to that function or panel.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLgyad90bcYOAWPYRAqYNAKDvQhJp69gcgEzSRtDsGDj1uXYb8gCeLqKd
e7eH7T/ykMPMyVkAoBTx/XU=
=oHRB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"I think you should defend to the death their right to march,
and then go down and meet them with baseball bats."
-- Woody Allen, on the KKK
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
hm, it is. I could have sworn it wasn't sorting that way when I checked
it last night, but I must have been mistaken. Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLg0Pd90bcYOAWPYRAv+7AJ9Kt8i9ck/72POXXKXnkXI3g6XnOQCaA29Y
AKCMIahSqSbicO7BjgXfv7M=
=rxI/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I see stupid people
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 07:09:30 -0600,
Linųnut <linųn...@bone.com> wrote:
> Jim Richardson poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> With the GNOME filebrowser, activate the side pane, and select the
>> history tab, it's updated when you visit another location, and it can
>> have icons dropped on it for the usual reasons.
>>
>> Konqueror is nice, and I prefer a split pane filebrowser, Konqueror
>> allows this, Nautilus doesn't, but I find Nautilus almost as good, with
>> some nice features of it's own. Although Konqueror is still ahead of
>> Nautilus in most areas. IMHO.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I find all those file-browsers to be tediously slow,
> and I use them only when I want to rename files that have long filenames.
>
I browse with them, light stuff. If there's a lot of file manipulation
to be done, I find a good shell, far more efficacious.
> Of course, I do use the file-dialogs in apps. Their behavior is indeed
> inconsistent. Some have a memory, some don't.
>
> I've found these methods lead to fast navigation: cd, pushd, and popd, along
> with tab-completion, "!", and history.
>
> But that's just me.
>
I stand in both camps really. Nothing beats a good shell for "heavy
lifting" but the GUI filebrowser is great for exploring, and for
browsing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLgPhd90bcYOAWPYRAkxQAJ9HWJqgpXl/r2rcipbGJfhCwvWdsgCeMAnI
afM02RzqmcIYpMAmkszuTis=
=3L+J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"I think quotes are very dangerous things."
-- Kate Bush
Snit
>> Of course, I do use the file-dialogs in apps. Their behavior is indeed
>> inconsistent. Some have a memory, some don't.
>>
>> I've found these methods lead to fast navigation: cd, pushd, and popd, along
>> with tab-completion, "!", and history.
>>
>> But that's just me.
>>
>
>
> I stand in both camps really. Nothing beats a good shell for "heavy
> lifting" but the GUI filebrowser is great for exploring, and for
> browsing.
Over the years I have leaned more and more to the GUI vs. the CLUI, but
there are definitely still times I jump to the CL to get things done. I do
appreciate having the choice.
Snit
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 03:29:48 -0700,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in post
>> q5a0g2-...@grendel.myth on 3/8/05 3:08 AM:
>>
>>>> Perhaps I have not been clear. From what I know of GNOME:
>>>>
>>>> - on the desktop you can change the size of individual icons
>>>> - in folders you can not, though you can change the size of all icons
>>>>
>>>> I do not understand the inconsistency.
>>>
>>> changing them in the folders, is using the filebrowser, what you are
>>> doing there, is changing how the filebrowser displays them, not changing
>>> them in actual fact. Althoug amusingly enough, if you stretch an icon on
>>> the desktop, then drag it into a folder, the icon stays stretched.
>>
>> Right - you can view your stretched icons elsewhere, but only stretch them
>> on the desktop. Why?
>
> I poked around in Nautilus, look at the edit menu, there's a greyed out
> selection "Stretch icon" select an icon, and this greyed out edit
> function becomes available. Also, if you select an icon that's been
> stretched, an edit function "Restore icons unstretched size" is now
> available.
Thanks... still odd, but at least you can restore it - I did not see that.
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Icons can not be easily changed to arbitrary images (sim. to XP)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um... right click, it's under properties, Select Custom Icon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anything similar to copy and paste for arbitrary icons?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure entirely what you mean. But you can change what image your icon
>>>>> uses easily, and add user defined ones and custom icons.
>>>>
>>>> How do you add custom ones? That is what I am looking for - for example,
>>>> say I make an image in... oh, GIMP or something... how do I change the icon
>>>> to look like the image?
>>>
>>> rt click on the file to be changed, select properties, select "Select
>>> custom icon" browse to icon you have made, select it.
>>
>> This has been covered elsewhere - seems GNOME is comparable or nearly so to
>> OS X here... and both are far better than Windows.
>
> well, that's pretty obvious :)
Seems OS X and Linux have strengths in different areas - and XP has
popularity.
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Wasted space with the menu on the top and menus on windows (yes, I
>>>>>>>> know this can be changed)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do know the panel can be set to automatically hide right, and only
>>>>>>> popping up when needed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes... and I did not play much with that. I would assume that they can
>>>>>> get in the way, much like the Dock can in OS X.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, every OS has it's quirks.
>>>>
>>>> No. OS X is perfect in every way. There is no reason for them to even
>>>> continue development.
>>>>
>>>> OK - that was added so the trolls could quote me later and make fun of it.
>>>> :)
>>>
>>> Some would have made it up, if you hadn't said it (however facetiously
>>> :)
>>
>> Translation: you were women's underwear and dance in the moonlight.
>>
>> Yeah, like that.
>
> trolls are pretty much the same, irrespective of the subject matter they
> troll with.
Yup.
>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> OS X uses them, but for different purposes...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, the functionality does not easily exist in OS X (I suppose you can
>>>>>> create icons and copy and paste - but that is silly!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, again....we basically have our own way of customizing. Plus, we can
>>>>> sort and organise by emblem, which I don't think you can do on OSX with
>>>>> what you are talking about...which makes it a handy feature, not just eye
>>>>> candy. But it basically comes down to different useful featuresets. Every
>>>>> OS is different, as is every DE.
>>>>
>>>> The ability to search and sort by emblem is very cool... OS X has that with
>>>> labels - essentially colors - but I like the emblems. They are simply more
>>>> descriptive.
>>>
>>> Although I am a little puzzled by the sorting order, it's not
>>> alphabetical, so what is it?
>>
>> I will have to play at some point. I am guessing each emblem has a "hidden"
>> number.
>
> Yeah, that would be my guess. But it's not obvious within the edit
> emblem section.
>
> On another note, if you hadn't noticed, although the help system lacks a
> search function. (a big error, in my estimation) it is context
> sensitive, and clicking on help in a given panel, brings you to help,
> relevent to that function or panel.
I had noted that before. The lack of a search feature in help is just
baffling. I actually have to give credit to XP here - I think their help
tends to be better than OS X's - at least faster. 10.3 improved that over
10.2, but there is still lots of room for improvement here.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:35:20 -0700,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
<snip>
> Hmmm, a question - in order to save that link for later use, just out of
> habit, I selected your text and dragged it to my desktop. It became a
> web-link that I will merely double click to view the site. Any such
> features in Linux? Is it based on the browser? GNOME vs. KDE?
yes, drag a link from Firefox, to the desktop, and it asks you if you
want to copy it, or simply make a link. Konqueror makes a link. Not all
apps treat http links in the same way, for example, from slrn, I have to
"copy" the link via the cut and paste, and then click on the desktop
background, select create launcher, and paste the link into the
appropriate place.
<snip>
>> It's so easy to forget we all had to learn the basics first. As you use Linux,
>> things kind of fall into place. Like the directory structure: / is root,
>> /usr/bin is where the user program binaries/executables usually are, config
>> files in /etc and so on.
>
> For me that would not be an issue - I am mostly looking at how hard it would
> likely be for my students / clients to use. As long as they could fairly
> easily install and find an icon it is not that big of an issue. XP, after
> all, is pretty bad in this regard - the shortcut often has a different name
> than the original (iexplore.exe vs Internet Explorer). OS X handles this
> better... hmm, have not checked that out on Linux.
GNOME uses the same name, if the link (or copy, same mechanism) isn't in
the same directory, if it's in the same dir, then it uses filename(copy)
in the text for the icon. If it's a link, there's an emblem for links
that is added to the same icon used for the original file.
One thing OSX does better in this regard, is have the link follow the
file, if the original file is moved. Or at least, I think that it does.
Linux doesn't do this (at least I am unaware of support for this
feature) Such a feature does incur some overhead, and probably would
neccessitate some significant code in the VFS layer for Linux. But it
would be nice IMHO.
>
<snip>
> I do not hold this against them - we all have areas of strength and
> weakness. While I am a techy person - as is darn near every reader of COLA
> and CSMA - I do not "get" foreign languages. I have tried, and I just
> struggle. Sure, if I had to learn I could, but not something that is
> natural or easy for me.
funnily enough, I pick up foreign languages fast, especially if I can
immerse. But that's not too uncommon. What most people lack wrt tech
savvy, isn't the stuff you mention, it's the mental ability to
troubleshoot something. To break things down to discrete steps, and
analyze them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLhnpd90bcYOAWPYRAqRLAKCNKhhzodzwwweFLIiKMaNwo3121QCeINsi
WNxh8EUavwSTsNxnzVmsMsA=
=Rx80
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the
humble reasoning of a single individual.
--Galileo
Snit
>> Hmmm, a question - in order to save that link for later use, just out of
>> habit, I selected your text and dragged it to my desktop. It became a
>> web-link that I will merely double click to view the site. Any such
>> features in Linux? Is it based on the browser? GNOME vs. KDE?
>
> yes, drag a link from Firefox, to the desktop, and it asks you if you
> want to copy it, or simply make a link. Konqueror makes a link. Not all
> apps treat http links in the same way, for example, from slrn, I have to
> "copy" the link via the cut and paste, and then click on the desktop
> background, select create launcher, and paste the link into the
> appropriate place.
Thanks for the info.
>>> It's so easy to forget we all had to learn the basics first. As you use
>>> Linux, things kind of fall into place. Like the directory structure: / is
>>> root, /usr/bin is where the user program binaries/executables usually are,
>>> config files in /etc and so on.
>>>
>> For me that would not be an issue - I am mostly looking at how hard it would
>> likely be for my students / clients to use. As long as they could fairly
>> easily install and find an icon it is not that big of an issue. XP, after
>> all, is pretty bad in this regard - the shortcut often has a different name
>> than the original (iexplore.exe vs Internet Explorer). OS X handles this
>> better... hmm, have not checked that out on Linux.
>
> GNOME uses the same name, if the link (or copy, same mechanism) isn't in
> the same directory, if it's in the same dir, then it uses filename(copy)
> in the text for the icon. If it's a link, there's an emblem for links
> that is added to the same icon used for the original file.
I assume this is similar to the arrows that both XP and OS X use?
>
> One thing OSX does better in this regard, is have the link follow the
> file, if the original file is moved. Or at least, I think that it does.
OS X does this *very* well. Much better than XP.
> Linux doesn't do this (at least I am unaware of support for this
> feature) Such a feature does incur some overhead, and probably would
> neccessitate some significant code in the VFS layer for Linux. But it
> would be nice IMHO.
For me it is a very cool feature - that and the ability to move installed
applications. I often download apps, play with them, and if I like them I
create an alias (shortcut) to my Common Apps folder, then move the app to
the Applications Folder. If I were to do this in XP not only would the
links break (though sometimes they do fix themselves when you try to open
the shortcut) but also the registry would have a fit and likely go belly up
quite quickly. Even before that some apps just fail to work if moved.
From what I know of Linux their is nothing like the horrid registry that XP
has, but I might not be able to move the installed app... or can I?
>
>> I do not hold this against them - we all have areas of strength and
>> weakness. While I am a techy person - as is darn near every reader of COLA
>> and CSMA - I do not "get" foreign languages. I have tried, and I just
>> struggle. Sure, if I had to learn I could, but not something that is
>> natural or easy for me.
>
> funnily enough, I pick up foreign languages fast, especially if I can
> immerse. But that's not too uncommon. What most people lack wrt tech
> savvy, isn't the stuff you mention, it's the mental ability to
> troubleshoot something. To break things down to discrete steps, and
> analyze them.
Oh, that too... often they can do things as long as they can follow steps A,
B, and C. But if anything changes they get thrown for a loop. Even when the
silly MS Office paper clip moves... I know users who that sends into a state
of frustration and confusion.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.08....@trollfeed.com on 3/8/05 4:11 AM:
>
>>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/images/TimeDateError.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it 1:22 or 8:22? And, yes, I have pressed "OK" and then re-opened the
>>>>>>> dialog. With Gnoppix the time worked correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that the difference between those is 7 hours, and you appear to be
>>>>>> in a time zone that is 7 hours from GMT. That is probably not a
>>>>>> coincidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct. Still, it is still a bug.
>>>>
>>>> How?
>>>
>>> The time in the menu is incorrect. By 7 hours.
>>
>> You might want to check your Date/Time setup. You do understand timezones
>> and local time, don't you?
>
> Of course.
Then set the system time.
>>
>> BTW, does OS X automatically know what timezone it is in?
>
> Of course not. How would it?
Then why do you expect Linux/Gnome to automatically set the time?
--
Rick