Slashdot Mirror
Freedesktop.org on KDE/Gnome, New Goals
fdo writes "OSNews has a long and juicy interview with the freedesktop.org developers regarding many aspects of their project, including interoperability between GNOME/KDE, the new X Server, the new Hardware Abstraction Layer library, accessibility, package management and in general, all things desktop."
WOW! Linux enters the late eighties!
excellent article, the best I have read in a long time!
i love that Expose-like shot. a solid 2.6 kern plus these things will make me soo leet.
The problem with current user interfaces is that they require arcane, computer-esque input devices. Give me UI that I can control by sucking on breasts, and then I'll be impressed.
Not to mention thoroughly freaked out.
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Finally an excuse for even the most die-hard "oh no, I don't play games" programmer to go and get a decent graphics card, and not to use a Matrox G500 because it does 2 screens best
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
GNOME and vi?
How the hell can you be so contradictory?
Use the fucking console in 80x25 and vi, or use GNOME and GheyEdit v1.3443.343.4.23.2.2.4 Patch Level 3234234234. Vi is not designed for GUI.
It's all very well thinking of the technical considerations (and there's quite a lot to consider), but don't forget to consider users and the usability of the desktop. Why do people use Microsoft products? because they're either forced to (at work) or they they find them easy to use (at home). Microsoft spends a lot of time ensuring their products are very usable and open source desktops need to do the same. Usability labs, heuristic evaluation etc.. all should be used (yes I am studying HCI before you ask).
I don't know if GTK or KDE are too complex but these names sure are:
Rayiner Hashem, Havoc Pennington, Eugenia Loli-QueruWhat ever happen to Dick and Jane?
an ill wind that blows no good
Windows fanboy: "When will Linux look and behave exactly like WindowsXP and therefore be ready for the desktop?"
Linux fanboy: "When will the Longhorn fake-commandline-console look and behave like bash and therefore be ready for serious work?"
Well, the implicaction of the effort of these guys probably means that there will be two competing X11 servers, very analogous to the Linux distributions versus the *BSDs.
If the thing was designed properly, integration wouldn't be much of an issue.
Most of a 'desktop environment' important details are underneath, not the pretty GUI. ( though the importance of having a CONSISTANT GUI shouldn't be dismissed. )
They should have had mechanisms in place from DAY ONE for shared information and intercommunications.. not something that was seemingly tacked-on later.. Integration of the desktop must be done on the fonctionnality level, not on the software level.
KDE is much closer to this, as they PLANNED ahead, and didn't just wing-it since it was 'pretty'. See here for example.
The problem with GNOME is that they use GTK+ object-oriented style, but don't borrow the most important aspect of (early, anyhow) GTK... cleanliness and simplicity! Without that, the GTK-inspired GNOME macro, er object, system is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT and to put it completely blunt: SHIT.
Not to mention the fact that the numerous API libraries do not work well together and stability will _never_ be achieved since one package will _always_ depend on something that is considered beta or unstable.
Don't even get me started on the various ad-hoc configuration mechanisms and the nightmare that is CORBA and Bonobo.
Sorry to sound harsh, but it was a complaint of mine from day one of GNOME, it just wasn't professional.. They worried more about a smelly foot in the menu then making it solid and consistent.. Now they are finding out the price to be paid if they want to stick around and be more then a cute plaything...
But I'm not really sure what to think of it, honestly. That they'd have to involve money to have things that SHOULD be simple get done.
I can hardly wait for the next Freedesktop.org article FreeDesktop.org updates web pages, which by my calculations is due in about 3.4 hours.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it will be:
FreeDesktop.org dreams about a better future (code release TBD)
FreeDesktop.org builds a better X (code release TBD)
FreeDesktop.org builds a better desktop (code release TBA)
FreeDesktop.org builds a better menu (code release TBD)
What if we could take this new Xserver as an opportunity for the KDE and Gnome projects to merge into single desktop environment and embed it into the Xserver itself, or not...
The "joystick" input device was supposed to attract hordes of females into the field of computing.
I just got back from the Southern California Linux Expo in Los Angeles at the LA Convention Center. They had a seminar with Seth Nickell on "The Unified Linux Desketop" made a valid point. He talked about FreeDesktop.org and what they are doing to move linux to the desktop market.
Am I on the right website?
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
becoming an "umbrella" project for
all projects that require communication
I think this hits the nail on the head--
developers *do* need an umbrella here,
one group to push apps toward one goal.
Simple examples are needing copy and paste,
drag and drop, and consistent mime types,
all so apps can coordinate data content.
Havoc points this out, and I hope his team
can push hard for these kinds of consistency.
Cheers, Joel
POSIX rocks. It does in 130 API calls what Win32 does in hundreds more. Its actually one of the most sanely designed "standards" ever implemented. The only decent API Microsoft has ever designed was DirectX, and even that was just mediocre as far as these things go.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
As chairman of the welcoming committee, it is my privilege to extend a laurel and hearty handshake to our new ... N....
Help fight continental drift.
My predication is that we will be spending the next 15 years reconciling this fundamental misstep.
Why do people use Microsoft products? because they're either forced to (at work) or they they find them easy to use (at home)
a) It came with their computer
b) It's "free" since it came with their computer
c) They don't know anything else
d) They are industry standards
e) They're the same as at work (familiarity)
f) They've had basic Windows training at work
g) Your poweruser friends likely know more Windows
h) It runs off-the-shelf software
i) It's inherently badly designed security-wise (security vs usability)
Pick any of the above, and I swear it's more of a reason than "easy to use". I bet 99%+ have never tried using a preinstalled, well configured Linux system (like the Windows install that came on their PC) at all. Without knowing the alternative, they have no basis to know that Windows is easier - they just assume so.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The biggest problem I see for desktop interoperability is the fact that there are so many GUI toolkits, and there's a huge overhead to keep them all loaded. IMHO as a Gnome user, having to run a QT app is an embarassment - takes way too long to load the QT libraries an initialize the GUI for even a small window. Of course I could keep the libraries loaded, but that's a ton of memory wasted. I'd imagine the same is true for KDE users trying to load GTK2/+ apps. This applies to loading Mozilla and OpenOffice.org as well. OOo especially runs like a cow in the mud - I can't even pay attention to the impressive feature set since it's so unresponsive. I always end up shutting it down and going with Abiword instead.
There's one good thing about MS Windows GUI; it's very responsive. That's because everything uses the same widget set that is kept in memory with little extra overhead. The fact that it runs in Kernel mode doesn't hurt it, but Linux's improved job control should balance that out. Using Linux with a unified widget set, like GTK2, is very responsive. Adding others, like QT, motif, swing, XPT (mozilla), and whatever Sun crap OOo uses, makes it very much less so.
I know nobody would agree with any proposal to scrap QT and port everything to GTK2, or the reverse. What I'd like to see instead is a library similar to wxWindows, or maybe an across-the-board improvement of wxWindows. Port QT and motif to it, add bindings for everybody's favorite language, etc. You could even use translation libraries to ease the transition process. That way you could compile Gaim for QT, Mozilla for motif, Konqueror for GTK, and everything in between. Only one GUI library would need to be loaded and everyone could use their favorite. It would certainly help for Windows ports as well. Thoughts?
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
Actually, he doesn't look like that much of a usability expert.
Just someone that liked to hang out on usenet and get into flamewars on the advocacy groups circa 1995.
That expert never heard of lactation consultants.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
As often as I see stories like this and the tidal wave of resulting comments (and suggestions) it makes me a little frustrated that there is no on site that we can go to give 'Linux' feedback. I'd love to see the number 1 desktop complaint. We are absolutely brimming with comments (some I agree with, some I do not) and it seems like its all pretty wasted. We just end up rehashing our old opinions and Linux distro's keep doing what it is they think they need to do. Isn't that an unnecessary disconnect?
;-)
Give me a site with polls and commented stories! I think as a group we've at least got some interesting rants and I'd love for some of that feedback to be collected in some type of organised manner. Just imagine the flame wars!
Quack, quack.
Here it is once again. What is the answer to "I can't get something to work?" -I have a 11yo that can demo it.
DirectX was mediocre? Man, it was a headache compared to SDL, and I was doing only the simplest things. When I have a headache, I don't feel mediocre, I feel like garbage.
However, if you mean the uderlying performance, then ignore my comment, because I cannot honestly pass judgement on that.
I support a fork in Xfree86 because the regime that controls it has dropped the ball. There are many improvements that need to be made that have thusfar been prevented. At the same time I am very afraid that many of the things that were great about X will be lost in all of the commotion.
My greatest fear is that network transpancy will be lost because because everybody just wants to make X render faster on local hardware. Network transparency is what made X really great in the first place; without that, any replacement is totally worthless to me.
The second thing that made traditional X great was that it did not confuse its primary job as a graphical interpreter as being the window manager and middle ware. Each piece should separate, distinct, and intermatchable just like the ISO networking layers. Otherwise jobs will become so intertangled that the stack will no longer be cleanly configurable outside of a heterogenous stack of software. This is much like the situation with GNOME and KDE vs everything else is now -- great within them selves but not operable between them. The X server has a particular job to do and its new features should not try to take over what should be down by other parts of the stack
Don't just throw out the X Resource Database. Before QT and GTK came along breaking all of X tradition, the XRD was a great tool for configuring everything to behave they way that you want it to. Since these rouge widget sets have entered the scene, a vast majority of people have forgotten about what great tools these once were. I am not totally blind that XRD could use some modification but be sure to keep it in the spirit in which these tools were originally created (idea -- maybe using a structure built on an external DB like MySQL wouldn't be out of the question.)
X may be a very old technology like the first poster stated. Like unix tradition many things were very well thought out when it was created. All to often people are throwing away years of hard thought unix design for the latest fad with not even the faintest thought as to what they might be throwing away. No unix does not walk and talk just like the newer fancer interfaces of today -- there are good reasons for this. Some of these new wiper snappers are turning about and starting to do things the old fashion way because they found out that they were not so bad in the first place. Many of the things which at first seem archaic are actually built on much better paradigms then the newest fads. Advances in technology should be made in consideration of what was done before them. They should extend and enhance what has been done. They should not just throw everything out the window calling it old.
There are many things that need to be revamp in a new X server but please keep the good things in along with all of the improvements.
This is SO much better than anything I've seen in a long time on OSNews. After seeing "review" after review of what writers do and don't like about every distribution its really nice to see something on such a wide variety of important topics. It's also nice because its just not one person droning on subjectively. Really a nice article and doesn't make me think the site should have been named OSOpinions.com. More factual technology articles and less opinionated ones are the way to go.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Its not just performance. SDL's 2D video is a bit too simplistic for its own good. Doing simple things in Direct X isn't easy, but it makes doing hard things doable. That makes it mediocre. Win32, on the other hand, is bad because it makes easy things hard and hard things (layout management!) even harder. POSIX is sweet because it makes easy things easy and hard things tractable.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
OK, that's it then. XFree86 is dying.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I read the article and saw the ad for the PowerPC micro-ATX motherboard, and thought "WooHoo!", but then I clicked the link.
No Video Card -> No good for my project
G4 is on a daughter-board that sticks up ->No good for my project
And the Canadian supplier does not mention the price.
Havoc says "When you add drag and drop to an application you have a list of types that you support dragging or dropping, such as "text/plain". Applications simply don't agree on what these types are. So we need a registry of types documenting the type name and the format of the data transferred under that name."
x .html) Why reinvent that particular wheel? Most every system has a file 'mime.types' describing some portion of the IANA media types registry.
Isn't this what the IANA media types registry is for? (http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/inde
Why is "definitely" so universally misspelled? I'm not busting this guy's balls or anything, I'm just curious why "definately" or "definatly" are how most people spell that word.
Would you call an unbounded line "infinate"?
Disclaimer:This post shall not be construed as an attack on acidtrip101, his family, his friends, nor an attempt to describe the marital status of his parents at the time of his conception. Nor is it a claim by the post's author to be able to avoid all errors of spelling and grammar.
All's true that is mistrusted
btw in case anyone asks, yes I did post the same thing on OSNews. Hopefully they take it to heart.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
One big problem with POSIX is the naming of functions. They aren't descriptive at all.
What does clone() do? It creates a new thread, which is not obvious at all.
connect() connects a socket, which isn't too bad a name. But the problem is the name gives no indication of what you're connecting. You'd only know you're connecting a socket and not say a pipe by looking it up.
This becomes a problem when you're trying to learn how to do something new. You can't easily figure out what functions you need to do a task.
Things would be much simplier with function names like SocketCreate, SocketConnect, etc. You would at least be able to search for function names beginning with Socket to find what you need. Win32 at least comes close to this goal with names like ReadFile, WriteFile, etc. Too bad the help viewer in Visual Studio doesn't support regexp searches on the index.
Can you actually back any of this up, or are you talking out of your ass?
There used to be plenty of database, spreadsheets and word processors before Microsoft Office appeared. Why do you think their products have taken market share so fast? sure they have been bundled but that doesn't explain it entirely. If their design was poor then people wouldn't clone their ideas (see Star and Open Office, they look quite similar).
I'm no Microsoft fan but you have to admit they know how to design pretty good interfaces on the whole.
Actually, most users run Windows because it came "free" with their hardware.
For the minority of "build your own", they too use bootleg CD's of pirated software. From 31337 kidz running bootleg Maya/3D Studio MAX, to office lemmings running Microsoft Office.
There's plenty of good "free" software, but it doesn't compete with the "free-[wink][wink]" software.
I see she's asking the freedesktop people about autopackage. All I can say is... Why? Why does Eugenia feel the need to constantly bring this up?
Yeah, RPM/DEB aren't the best package management systems. I don't know what they'd compare to on BeOS, which was her OS of choice. I do know they're a hell of a lot better than the "click this
Give it up Eugenia.
> Last I knew a nipple was, by default, an ouput device
:-)
You must be male *and* single *and* young.
Not a bad combination, IIRC...
Microsoft simply downloads information on how you use their media player and certain applications from your computer, its stored on a database and statistics are formed.
Netscape does this, Winamp Does this, Microsoft does this. If programmers cant figure out what is easy to use and it seems Linux programmers simply can't then they need to simple ask me the user.
Learn from AOL
This is why Gnome, and Mozilla are harder to use than Netscape and Konquerer.
To make something easy to use, you don't hire an expect, you have a survey, you let users decide and you follow what they say. You also track how they use applications to follow what they do.
Even websites know this, why can't software developers?
FWIW, I work on Wine and have some experience with both Win32 and POSIX/Linux native APIs. I agree completely. DirectX 8/9 is actually pretty good. The rest of Win32, not so much. POSIX is rather spiffy.
You've obviously never tried working with win32 nor spoken to anyone who has. Win32 is just -bad-.
Its designed for people like you who care more about running servers.
Kdrive is for the Desktop.
Those are some right damn goofy looking guys.
They need a makeover by some fashion savvy people to go along with their 1337 haXoR skilz.
ViewML is a browser which uses Khtml (from KDE's Konqueror) and Fltk to achieve a smaller footprint.
Its authors devised a clever compatibility layer which makes Khtml "think" it's on Qt, instead of Fltk. They even link to some white paper which shows such layers don't mean loss of performance. That's the same case of Wine, if I'm not mistaken (otherwise please correct me).
I *think* we should be able to have a Unix-type (i.e., modular) use of toolkits. For example, Gnome and KDE would be built on a SAL (software abstraction layer), which in turn would run on GTK2 or Qt (this would be defined at distro level, for instance).
This SAL should be object of a standardization by Freedesktop. Or something.
I totally support this.
Don't do things the Microsoft way. If we become like them, we will have lost. Things like LTSP would never be possible anymore.
Modernization is ok, but let's not throw the baby with the water!
That's what is good and bad about the Open Source community, plenty of stuff going on and different ideas being tried which can be good. But there needs to be a point where things meet up and all work together well. Gnome and KDE really do need to merge at some point if systems that run those desktops are to have a good selection of apps with a fairly uniform look and feel.
I know! It's soooo annoying to like, learn how to use an API. Nothings worse than having to look things up, either.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Kde-look is an excellent model. Not being a big fan of the kde project (I'll spare you my petty gripes) I still think their site is inspiring. I go there every couple of weeks to see what they have gotten up to.
Thanks for the feedback.
Quack, quack.
The "clone" function is not part of POSIX.
I did DirectX and OpenGL graphics programming over a period of two years. I'm by no means a Win32 expert, but I know enough to know it sucks. And now I get to do UNIX programming for work, so I know POSIX. But concrete examples:
- DirectDraw is more complicated than SDL for simple things. Let's go through how to make a double-buffered surface that you can directly draw to.
In SDL:
- Call the SDL init function
- Set the video mode
- Lock the primary surface and draw!
In DirectDraw:
- Create the DirectDraw COM object
- Set the cooperative level
- Set the video mode
- Create a primary surface
- Create a secondary surface attached to the primary surface
- Now lock the primary surface and draw...
Not only does the DirectDraw model have twice as many steps, but each DirectDraw call has many more parameters (many of them optional) and has the annoying Win32-ism of requiring you to fill out large structures full of extra parameters to pass to each call. All in all, the code for the DirectDraw version is four or five times longer. Some of this stuff isn't just boiler-plate. In particular, many calls require five or ten lines of setup code before hand to fill out structures that are passed as parameters. Of course, DirectX is very powerful. For example, you can render Direct3D graphics to arbitrary DirectDraw surfaces (like p-buffers in GLX). Last time I used SDL, you couldn't do this with SDL surfaces and OpenGL. SDL also lacks anything comparable to DirectMusic, and SDL Input doesn't have the sheer flexibility of DirectInput.
As for Win32 vs POSIX:
- Hungarian notation, hungarion notation, hungarian notation.
- Parameters, parameters everwhere! The most complex POSIX calls have half a dozen parameters. The most complex Win32 calls have nearly a dozen direct parameters, plus dozens more parameters passed via structures.
- Win32 uses different functions for related things. In POSIX, mmap() can do everything from map a file to map graphics memory. In Win32, you have seperate APIs for that.
- What POSIX does with one function, Win32 will usually use three or four. Compare {CreateFileMapping, OpenFileMapping, MapViewOfFileEx, UnmapViewOfFile, FlushViewOfFile, CloseHandle} to {mmap(), munmap()}
- Featuritis. Win32 tries to do too much in each call. The WinNT security model is a pain to program. Overall, most of the APIs hare *highly* over-designed.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
POSIX is the way it is for two reasons:
1) Short names are easier to type. And when you have less than 200 functions in the API, its so easy to remember what each function does that the shortness is a net win. POSIX-style names would be annoying if POSIX had thousands of API calls like Win32, but it doesn't, so its not.
2) POSIX functions are incredibly generic. Take open(). What does it open? Everything! From a socket, to a hardware device, to a file, it doesn't matter. Or take mmap(). What does it map? Again, everything! Graphics memory, system memory, IO memory, it doesn't matter.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
can't... type... 'man'
Network transparency should not be the job of the window system. The toolkits should be the ones doing it, just like Windows does it. X relies on sending bitmaps over the network, which is slow and unnecessary. Hell, to have acceptable x performance you need at least a 10mbit connection with very low latency. Microsoft Terminal Services require orders of magnitude less bandwidth because it works at the toolkit level (as in, "draw a button and a drop-down menu" and not "draw this pixel, then this pixel, then that pixel...").
Erm, I'm pretty sure that clone() isn't a POSIX thing, rather a Linux-ism.
>lose the 1980s technology
AT&T system V was released in 1983. That's 20 years ago and the basics of unix (system api, posix) haven't really changed at all.
Why the hell is it acceptable for unix and systems
which followed it (linux) to not evolve signifantly in 20 years?
We know better and have seen much much better operating systems come along (e.g., BeOS) but are stuck with the inertia of early 1980s unix technology.
One of the stupidist things linux/unix evolved into is a complete and utter lack of updating/rearchitecting the programming api's.
Look into Mach if you are intetersted in a great first attempt. Look into BeOS if you are into a modern attempt at a decent system and graphics api.
> each DirectDraw call has many more parameters
>(many of them optional) and has the annoying
>Win32-ism of requiring you to fill out large
>structures full of extra parameters to pass to each call.
I guess you haven't learned to wrap each api call in its own function with debug flags, error return trapping, automatic structure creation, etc.
It's a godsend when debugging code, catching errors, abstracting api changes when upgrading the code to work on a newer release of the api, as well as making the code work correctly on multiple versions of the api.
Any decent systems programmer knows that.
>2) POSIX functions are incredibly generic. Take
>open(). What does it open? Everything! From a
>socket, to a hardware device, to a file, it doesn't
> matter. Or take mmap(). What does it map? Again,
>everything! Graphics memory, system memory, IO
>memory, it doesn't matter.
A simple api call for each basic operation is much more stable, much less error prone, and much much easier to debug than having 20 different uses for open().
The problem:
1. Unix wanted simplistic looking api's which did everything
2. Win32, thanks to Dave Cutler - architect of the never released Vax/VMS os successor, has optional parameters, structures as parameters, and an excessivly verbose number of api calls.
Why are Java, C#, VB.net all attempts to greatly simplify the programming environment? I'll add that the java class/api bloat makes java debatable.
Obviously, someone hasn't taken a look at NX :)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The parent is more right than he intends. I would rather a select few used Linux rather than everyone. Sure it's a nice system, but can you imagine the millions of uninformed windows users flocking to the linux camp? AHHH! TOO MANY TO HELP!!!
Seriously. Linux needs a ton of maturity before it goes huge. Or maybe i'm just an idiot.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Feel free explaining to a novice programmer how to determine which shared memory identifier to use when he has read the shmat, shmop, etc man pages.
I'm sure he will be able to divine that he needs to pick a number for all processes using the shared memory, even those which are seperatly complied binaries which do not inherit any kind of memory by using fork().
The belief that unix/linux api's are somehow easier than win32 is pure crap.
ohhhh...I'm supposed to be impressed with nroff/troff formatted text man pages. That's so cool and 1982ish.
Portable C functions are (archaically) limited to 8 characters.
Yeah, we're a long ways past that, but you didn't think they named things like atoi() just because they were feeling cryptic, did you? (N.B. I don't think atoi() is in POSIX, at least, not that I recall, it's just a good "obfuscated" function name made that way for similar reasons to clone() and connect())
WTF is NX? Link please.
I set up a computer for my wife and installed Redhat 7.2 a while back for her. After using it for 6 months, she swore off linux and went to Windows 2000. Her reason:
She can't install any software on Linux! Every time she wanted to install something, she had to call me over to her computer. I had to locate the redhat rpm's, and if there were no rpms (which was often the case) or there were only rpms for a different distro, I had to compile the software for her!
Asking a non-technical user to compile software is just crazy! With windows, she just downloads the software and run's the installer! She doesn't have to worry about what distro and version number she's running (ie RH 7.0, or RH 7.1 or RH 7.2) she doesn't have to worry about dependancy hell, or any of that other crap...
Now if linux has a standarized installer that worked for all distros, I could probably convince my wife to try it out again.
Autopackage may be the ticket?!?
All those problems reduce to the core problem with GNOME, which is that the only reason it exists is free software politics and religion.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
'Eugenia Loli-Queru: In your opinion, which is the hardest step to take in the road ahead for full interoperability between DEs? How far are we from the realization of this step?
'Havoc Pennington: I think the "URI namespace" or "virtual file system" issue is the ugliest problem right now. It bleeds into other things, such as MIME associations and WinFS-like functionality. It's technically very challenging to resolve this issue, and the impact of leaving it unresolved is fairly high. Here are some links on that here, here and here. '
OK -- so, unsurprisingly, having GNOME have one set of apps that can read one namespace, KDE have another set that can read another namespace, and a whole load of command line tools that can't read either, is a problem.
I still can't understand why this hasn't made it into a mainline kernel hook, or at least a shared library kludge. Something like AVFS
is infinitely preferable to a filesystem that can only be accessed by a small subset of applications...
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=106391 :) also see 24 novembre weekly news
Would this projects scope include input methods?
I for one, would like to see a unified locale independent and on-the-spot setting of the input method. Would this be possible within this framework?
Localization efforts in all its glory, currently the Linux desktop is multi-monolingual at best.
This is a _big_ usability issue for many multilingual people. I for one switch frequently between Swedish, English and Japanese, and I know many people (translators, other multilingual professionals) have the need to use multiple character sets, input modes in the same document and / or switch often between different modes.
Using the LANG variable to set the _input_ method for an application is not the answer, that's localization down the monolingual-lane, not true i18n.
Where would be the right place for the implantation for this? freedesktop? XFree86? As gnome feature?
A lot of the deficiencies of X over remote links lies not with the protocol, but the general suckiness and datedness of the surrounding infrastructure. NX is a framework that allows usage of the X protocol over *extremely* low-bandwidth links. It does advanced caching and compression to make X usable over links as slow as 9600bps.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Overloading a call would be something like this:
...);
enum operation {OP_FOO, OP_BAR, OP_WUMPUS};
void do_something(operation op,
That's unstable and error prone.
The big difference between the above and the POSIX APIs is that the POSIX calls all apply the same semantic actions to things that differ only at the implementation level, rather than the interface level. Semantically, writing bytes to a pipe is no different from writing bytes to a network socket, so why should you use different calls? The programmer shouldn't have to care about implementation details --- he should be thinking at a more abstract level.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Any API that requires you to wrap it before use if fundementally broken. If Win32 programmers think that's normal, well, anybody who would put up with that shit is brain-damaged anyway.
Besides, I'm a C++ programmer. Wrapper functions are of limited use when you have high-level features like exception handling and optional values.
> Win32, on the other hand, is bad because it makes easy things hard and hard things (layout management!) even harder
This is a little silly because you are complaining about things not even covered by POSIX (unless you consider Motif part of POSIX -- it is in SUS).
Sure you can have less API calls. Just leave out 90% of the functionality. haha.
I was presenting two seperate concepts.
1) POSIX is more minimal than Win32. The subset of the Win32 API that covers POSIX's functionality is indeed much larger than POSIX itself.
2) Win32 in general makes hard things even harder to do. It has no layout management, while APIs like GTK and Qt have pretty good layout management.
In the second case is independent of the first --- I wasn't comparing Win32 to POSIX in the second case.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Favorite Quote: "(Sorry BR62425!)" (On article No.5, very last paragraph)
Microsoft Terminal Services require orders of magnitude less bandwidth because it works at the toolkit level (as in, "draw a button and a drop-down menu"
I don't think this is what it does. I've worked a little on RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol), used by MS Terminal Servers, and from what I saw, it does indeed send pixmaps (and text strings, which the client renders). What the protocol does have is 2-level caching - there's a memory cache of bitmaps (so the server can say "draw cached bitmap 14 at this position"), and a persistent disk cache (so that next time you connect, the server might not have to send those bitmaps the first time it draws them).
If you're interested, check our the source code to rdesktop.
"Mozilla was never a perfect browser......heard mutterings in the past couple of months that it was becoming worse, so eventually I had to download it and see for myself. ....I am a little sad to see that Mozilla has not learned the lesson that many of us had hoped Phoenix would have taught it."
Phoenix is also an open source project. How do you get from this to the conclusion that all OSS projects are lacking? Further down the author enlightens with pearls of wisdom such as:
""Show Web Site Icons" (Some whiny little bitches put up the fight of the century when this useful and appealing enhancement was added a year or so ago, and so now we have to deal with an extra preference. Solution: a raised middle finger)"
If this is a valid example of HCI expertise it goes a long way towards explaining why I can barely tolerate IE after becoming accustomed to Mozilla and Firebird.
- Parameters, parameters everwhere! The most complex POSIX calls have half a dozen parameters. The most complex Win32 calls have nearly a dozen direct parameters, plus dozens more parameters passed via structures.
And don't forget how for every complex Win32 call, there's a nearly-identical function taking 4 fewer arguments and missing "Ex" from the end of its name.
Look at the word processors before Word [...]
...
Well, not really before Word, but before Word took over: I'm still using Ami Pro on my new XPpro notebook, while searching for a good replacement.
Word has actually destroyed word processing. By trying to make it easy for people who had no clue about computers, they kept adding features to a typewriter, until it became the monstruosity it is now and which everybody hates (but endures).
Replacing a typewriter with a word processor was what actually made me buy my first computer (around 1985). And then I started programming my own word processor because I hated was was available (among others: Word for DOS). I actually even used my own word processor for a few years, until I found Ami Pro.
But secretaries didn't want to spend 2 hours understanding style sheets, and the boss wanted to see them keeping typing. Eventually, Word took over with it's glorified typewriter-with-everythin-even-the-kitchen-sink. (People actually write emails and edit pictures in Word! I try to avoid such people, but...)
Over 10 years later, style sheets are finally becoming more or less usable in current word processors, but I still have not found a replacement as simple, straightforward and intuitive as Ami Pro (which invented the icon toolbar, as far as I know!). I tried a few times making a Word or OpenOffice template to replace my Ami Pro, but eventually the invoice or the report or whatever had to be printed and sent out now, and I just end up doing it in Ami Pro.
Have to re-try AbiWord (was terible a couple of years ago), and have a look at Lyx. And keep an eye on OOo to see if it finally stops mimicking Word.
Well, this became a boring ramble. Too bad I have neither the talent to write the tribute to Ami Pro which it would deserve, nor the time to do a serious review of current word processors, nor the money to sponsor development...
Another issue I have with Gnome, and I dont know if this is just me, is to get the programs that's supposed to open a certain file type to work. .doc ect, but no matter how I configure it, it just doesnt open. Ditto for alot of other assocs. This stuff only works if it's standard configured on install by the installer...
I would associate OpenOffice with
Or rather, they were about the low-level technical challenges that needs to be overcome in order to make the free Unix desktops easier to use.
And a quarter of those no-Ex functions are deprecated, and MS recommends using the Ex-variant instead.
But even the no-Ex functions are still overly complicated.
Microsoft Terminal Services does not work at the toolkit level, it works at the GDI32 level. Otherwise it would be useless for 90% of the programs out there, including Word, all of which bypass MFC and the Win32 toolkit in order to draw things at a lower level.
Yes X is slow because lots of programs send bitmaps, but it does this because of the lousy rendering model, where the desired picture can only be communicated as a bitmap. Not because of the toolkit. People who claim this are mistaken: a button might be "draw a box and draw this text as a label". If you actually believe the interface to the X_Toolkit_Button object is smaller and leaner than that you really should study programming a bit more, perhaps write a real application.
It seems the fastest scheme may be VNC-like, with some minimal support from the system so that the area that is changed, and when it finished changing, can be more clearly identified.
> Ami Pro (which invented the icon toolbar, as far as I know!)
I very much doubt it. The concept of a toolbar with icons is certifiably
ancient, certainly much older than Macintosh.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Well, I don'tknow. I can easily imagne the concept being old. But the first time I saw it, it was in Ami Pro (1 or 2?), and at the time, the current versions of Word, Wordperfect or other apps didn't have it.
Too bad these are preInternet days, almost like prehistory. No Google...
> Too bad these are preInternet days, almost like prehistory.
You can find discussions in some of the older parts of usenet that refer
to such things. There is quite a lot of history going back into the early
days before the web. Lots of information is out there about earlier operating
systems before Unix, for example.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.