quote:Original post by -vic-
I don''t understand why you seemed to get so mad at what i said.

I wasn''t mad. I was curious why you seem to often single out my statements for contention.

@Nypren:
man -> info -> HTML help pages. You''re waaaay behind the curve.

quote:Original post by Russell
Agree here. I dislike how you have to learn a file format (such as XF86Config) to even modify stuff. I''ve tried modifying this stuff from the GUI, but it never makes any modifications (resolution doesn''t change), and then the GUI promptly refuses to even load the next time.

I dislike this too. Personally, I wish they''d all adopt XML, because the metadata XML supplies would allow a generic config application to provide a graphical interface with appropriate selections/limitations/etc. A pair of XSL scripts could be available for generating a "classic" text config in the application-specific configuration language for console editing and then reading it back into the XML.

But I''ll have to scratch my own itch.

To zfod:
I think some of your comments show a common misunderstanding of what some people (myself included) are trying to say. Please do not confuse "Linux needs to change if it wants to be a decent desktop OS" with "Linux needs to change". Also, it sounds like you consider Windows users to be idiots. Please do not confuse Windows users with idiots, nor people who do not have the time to learn the in''s and out''s of Linux with idiots. I do not believe anyone would argue that someone is an idiot because they need the services of a mechanic to fix their car.

quote:Original post by -vic-
There''s a good and a bad side about that. You only see the bad side. The good side is that when you read manuals, search on the internet, you learn a lot of other related stuff. Some people (me included) find it fun figuring out how to do things, it''s like a challenge.

I agree, overcoming an obstacle can be fun, but the problem is that "getting a working Linux desktop" is not the obstacle everyone wants to overcome. For me, getting Linux working would be a means to an end. For you, it is the end.

quote:
Hmm... yeah, that''s just a matter of finding someone with patience to implement that. But then again there''s a good and a bad side about that. And you''re only seeing the bad side... the good side is that since the configurations are human-readable files, you can configure via ssh, or you can write scripts to making something automatic, etc; which you can''t do with the mouse. Ok, you *can* do, but it''s not that simple.

In this instance, you can have your cake and eat it, too. Why not have GUI tools that manipulate human readable files?

quote:
Oh, ''man'' is so great, why change that... again: you can view man from ssh (for example), which it wouldn''t be so easy if it was a gui application.

I do agree here, man is great. Centralized documentation for everything. The only problem is that it''s not so centralized with info and such.

quote:
Well here''s the nice thing about Linux: you (yes, you!) can be "the people who develop for it". So, you think Linux should have these features? Go for it, implement it. I bet many people will be greatful.

Here''s the bad thing about Linux: no sympathy from programmers about usability concerns. I know that some do it for themselves, then I have no problem if they write software that doesn''t fit my needs. It''s when they do it for others and then don''t care about usability that I get concerned.

I really wouldn''t mind trying to make things better. Problem is time. Do I have the time to make Linux a better desktop? I''ll look into it...

quote:Original post by Way Walker
To zfod:
I think some of your comments show a common misunderstanding of what some people (myself included) are trying to say. Please do not confuse "Linux needs to change if it wants to be a decent desktop OS" with "Linux needs to change". Also, it sounds like you consider Windows users to be idiots. Please do not confuse Windows users with idiots, nor people who do not have the time to learn the in''s and out''s of Linux with idiots. I do not believe anyone would argue that someone is an idiot because they need the services of a mechanic to fix their car.

I understand that some of you are saying ''things need to change to be a great desktop OS''. Although, I don''t think that''s quite the tone of everyone. I do interpret some of the dialogue here as ''Linux is trash because I can''t use it for every little facet I''m used to in Windows.''. I also understand that people are saying ''Linux needs to change'', when they really mean that a distribution that addresses these issues needs to come to life ( or be morphed from an existing distribution ). Linux at its core doesn''t have a whole hell of a lot to do with Desktop features ( the changes will have to take place higher up ).

This is what I had to say regarding idiocy of any kind:

quote:Use Linux or *nix because of whatever reason you want. No distribution of Linux or any other *nix OS is obligated to make a desktop that is just like Windows so the average idiot can migrate to it.

That is simply saying that nobody is *obligated* to make a distribution of Linux that meets the needs of the general populace who don''t want to know anything about what they are doing when they press the power button. This didn''t say anything about all Windows users being idiots ( hello, I''m a Windows user and nearly everyone I know is a Windows user to some extent for *something* ).

Your analogy regarding the mechanic is a bit off. Would you need a mechanic to drive your car for you everyday? Surely, when things break you might need to consult your mechanic to have things replaced or tuned. However, daily operation doesn''t require a mechanic when things are working properly.

If something is not inherently easy or intuitive to the extent of being usable by intuition then you need to spend time figuring it out. If you don''t have the time you should stick to what you know until the aforementioned usability is acceptable, or until you have the time to apply towards figuring it out.


.zfod

Excuse me for being slightly off-topic.

quote:Original post by Kylotan

SDL isn''t perfect either. There''s no sound input facility, no real equivalant of DirectPlay (if you like that sort of thing - I''m a Berkeley sockets guy myself), no DirectMusic... SDL is great, and that''s what I use on Windows, but you have to be honest and admit it''s not equivalent.

Of course, SDL is not perfect, but then again, few things are... Anyways:

I thought you could do music with SDL_Mixer?
http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_mixer/

I also thought SDL_net could be used as a portable way of doing sockets.
http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_mixer/

quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
I thought you could do music with SDL_Mixer?
http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_mixer/

SDL_Mixer doesn''t come close to having all the stuff that DirectMusic has.

quote:I also thought SDL_net could be used as a portable way of doing sockets.
http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_mixer/

I think you meant http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_net/. Documentation is here. And SDL_Net doesn''t come close to having all the stuff that DirectPlay does. In fact I barely see the point of SDL_Net as it''s a pretty thin wrapper around standard sockets anyway.



[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

quote:Original post by Flarelocke
I like how virtually everything people are complaining about is being fixed.

Emphasis on being. Fixes aren''t exciting work, so they progress slowly. Do you know how long ago the GNOME/KDE FreeDesktop.org adoption hype was being bandied about, or how long ago the debate supposedly ended on C&P interop between the two environments? Where are the actual fixes that solve these problems for users? Where''s the integration into distros?

Talk is cheap.

quote:Confusing preferences? Try GConf. It stores in whatever backend you want (I don''t remember the default, but it''s something simple like db or plaintext files) It''s available for all apps to use, and it''s standard for Gnome apps to use it, but not for KDE apps to use it. (silly kde people) For those configuration files for non-gui apps, (none of which are really that confusing except for emacs and sawfish) there''s always linuxconf or webmin.

Under Windows, the presence of standard APIs for storing and retrieving configuration information mean that the info is stored in the same format - parseable by a generic third party app - even if some applications choose .INI files over the registry. GConf is standard for GNOME, but not for KDE - which isn''t good enough for desktop users. Linuxconf and webmin have been around for years (the first Linux distro I installed, in 2000, came with both) but this issue persists - clear indication that neither of them is a no-brainer solution, and possibly a suggestion that the configuration tools themselves aren''t as usable as the users might like.

Remember that FreeDesktop.org is largely a draft, alongside LSB. We''re yet to see the full-scale adoption of either body of work.

quote:Really, the KDE vs. Gnome inconsistency argument is somewhat overblown. Both have internally consistent applications, and neither have significant counterintuitiveness problems anymore, even when switching between the two.

Look and feel are significant counterintuitiveness. Inability to cut text from one app and paste into an app from the other suite is significant counterintuitiveness. Confusion over what exactly constitutes selection/yanking is significant counterintuitiveness. The code is out there, probably in CVS, the work is done, but until the users get it in their distros'' major and minor revisions, the argument is definitely not overblown.

I''m not disagreeing with you per se, I''m just saying that those of us who are advocates of Open Source Software and capable of integrating recent modifications into our systems and workflow independently should not count that as achievement. Only when a non-technical individual can use Linux for productivity on the desktop without any more pain that the alternatives, and preferrably with less pain, can we say that Linux on the desktop has arrived.