Shuttleworth's Take On GNOME 3.0, Coordination with Debian

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shuttleworth's Take On GNOME 3.0, Coordination with Debian

Posted by timothy on Sunday July 12, 2009 @08:54PM from the why-can't-numbers-jump-like-this-at-my-credit-union dept.

suka writes "In a fresh interview with derStandard.at, Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth talks about GNOME 3.0 — its strengths, but also about what he thinks is missing. He also mentions ongoing talks for a common meta-release-cycle with Debian which could delay the next LTS."

259 of 320 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The only thing I got out of TFA... by fractoid · 2009-07-12 20:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

The only things I really got out of reading TFA were "We have a release coming up" and "Files and folders confuse people". Oh, and "Jaunty was broken but it was Intel's fault and they fixed it." And "Kubuntu will have the same release schedule" which isn't really about Gnome.

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
1. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by X0563511 · 2009-07-12 21:11 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Yea, and I like how the "Files and folders confuse people" comes across. Seriously, if files and folders confuses you, you might want to reevaluate your need to use a computer.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
2. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by lilrobbie · 2009-07-12 21:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ever watched someone who hasn't grown up on computers use files and folders? The physical notion may not be confusing, but the computer implementation definitely leaves a lot to be desired. I have had a 60minute discussion with someone about the distinction between copy & cut, and when it does and doesn't work. So yes... files & folders as used by computers can be enormously complex for those who are not accustomed to remembering large tree-maps ;-)
3. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by hattig · 2009-07-12 21:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Or you could be less elitist and realise that we're far beyond having to manually file things in this day and age, indeed that is something the computer was meant to eradicate.
  A tagged document repository (with versioning history) would be best. Coupled with desktop search and changing the system file open window to be one that lets you use said search and tags to find the file instead of clicking through folders. Most files people want are more recent, so a default view of reverse chronological for the filetypes the application supports would be best.
  You do, of course, still need a traditional filesystem view of this repository, and that is probably where the work will go in. Sure, tags could be folders, and you could have multiple ways of drilling down to the same file. You'd probably have a folder hierarchy that shows the most used tags at the highest level, then each subfolder is really a tag filter.
4. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Norsefire · 2009-07-12 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  So you're going to give people who don't understand files and folders "A tagged document repository"?
5. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by noundi · 2009-07-12 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well it's not about files and folders in general. It's more about how application files are placed on different locations instead of one particular folder. Of course I'm not referring to all files, the bins should still go under e.g. /usr/bin but we all know how some applications prefer certain locations and others on other locations. There should be a more "official" standard to this. It wouldn't disallow any application to place itself wherever it pleases, but it would ease the user experience by having a majority of application files collected under the same tree. I see no harm come out of this.
  
  --
  I am the lawn!
6. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by hattig · 2009-07-12 21:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yeah.
  It would be a file library like itunes is a media library. File management would be done by the implementation instead of directly (unless you wanted to, we shouldn't take functionality away).
  Some applications could use tag-discovery libraries to automate tag generation.
  I'd hope it wouldn't be called "Tagged Document Repository" in the end-user documentation or presentation.
7. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by X0563511 · 2009-07-12 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  OK, a little explanation:
  Why is it so hard for people to grasp files and folders?
  You have a folder. You put files in this folder. You may put other folders inside this one.
  Really. Someone gives you a confused look, throw a couple manila folders in their face and ask them to put paper in them. Then, if they continue to be confused, slap them.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
8. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by value_added · 2009-07-12 21:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Seriously, if files and folders confuses you, you might want to reevaluate your need to use a computer.
  A bit harsh, but I'd agree otherwise. I think the problem is that for those that do understand the concepts of files and directories, they balk at the idea of having to use them.
  Granted it's possible that the average person in daily life has an aversion to organisation, but what I see is a relatively recent and often shrill insistence that their computer (and, by extension, the applications they use) should do their work for them and magically organise everything behind the scenes.
  I consider that kind of thinking sheer laziness. And given that everyone is a system administrator (whether they like it or not), I'd suggest it's also shortsighted.
9. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MichaelSmith · 2009-07-12 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  I think we should recognise that the file naming and organising semantics we have known for 40 years might not be the best way to go. When using a graphical user interface I don't see why several files should not have the same name. Versioning could be provided by the file system. This has been in RSX since the 1970s and VMS since the 1980s.
  
  I think it would be interesting if gnome users could create folders with similar semantics to the garbage bin. You could put multiple files in the container regardless of their file name.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
10. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by ubernostrum · 2009-07-12 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think there are multiple ways to take this.
  One is whether you can answer a couple simple questions: where is this program's executable located, and where is its configuration located? Though in theory there are standards for this, in practice they're not followed or don't really solve the problem. The executable may end up in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/bin, /opt/local/bin, etc., etc. The configuration may be in a dotfile in your home directory, it may be in multiple files in one or more directories, it may be site-wide in /etc and customizable (or not) on a per-user basis, etc., etc.
  The only platform I've seen tackle this in anything approaching a consistent way is OS X, where you know that there's a directory where the applications live, and you can easily predict where the configuration will be (Library/Application Support/(name of application), either top-level for global config or in the user's directory for per-user config). Simply getting a consistent standard for this on Linux distros would be a big win.
  Organization of files created by end users is tougher; various platforms have tried different approaches -- "My Documents", specific locations for different types of media, etc. -- and so far nobody's really managed to beat this, with the result that every user either ends up with their own ad-hoc organizational system or (more commonly) ends up with a single directory holding "UNTITLED-1", "UNTITLED-2", and so on. And this isn't really related to users being dumb or not knowing how to use a computer; it's due to the fact that (1) we still impose a physical metaphor (a desktop, with files organized into folders inside) even though it's increasingly irrelevant and (2) we still haven't noticed that managing individual pieces and collections of data is a tedious and repetitive task, and that automating such tasks is a big part of why we use computers in the first place.
11. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Yoozer · 2009-07-12 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  By using a computer you manipulate the graphical representation of a Turing-complete symbolic language while performing vast amounts of integer calculus. All of this I do when I open MSN. Just because I explain it in a complex way doesn't mean it has to look complex by default.
  
  A tagged repository can be shown as a set of folders. Where a document is actually located on the computer is not something I should be concerned with unless I manage files manually, as long as I can find it. Having a set of Word documents that show stuff like "Procedure THX1138, last revision by John, 3 days ago" tells me far more than the botched "Untitled Document Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy 0003 DO NOT DELETE.docx" actual humans can produce, or the horror people inflict on their poor inboxes by using Outlook PST files as some kind of botched MSN.
  
  Tags solve the problem of having different folder names for everything or homebrew structures. They just don't force unified tags or the act of tagging it at all, so you have to make this a habit for people new to computers. It is however far less difficult to do than dealing with baroque folder structures and nomenclature dating from the time 8.3 filenames were radical.
  
  Organization requires talent. Ask them to come up with some representative tags of what they just typed, and they'll do a better job.
12. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Fred_A · 2009-07-12 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, and I like how the "Files and folders confuse people" comes across. Seriously, if files and folders confuses you, you might want to reevaluate your need to use a computer.
  It certainly would be nice if only people qualified to use a computer did so, but it won't happen any time soon.
  Even people who have lived with computers all their lives still have no idea how they work. All they know are a handful of applications and MSN messenger.
  That's because to most of the population, computers are utterly boring.
  
  --
  
  May contain traces of nut.
  Made from the freshest electrons.
13. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Homburg · 2009-07-12 22:12 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Coupled with desktop search and changing the system file open window to be one that lets you use said search.
  The GTK file open windows do in fact integrate desktop search, as well as a recently used file list, although the standard folder view is the default, and the search and recent options are not especially prominent. I've only recently got into the habit of using them, and they certainly are, a lot of the time, far superior to digging through some confusing mess of folders.
14. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MrNaz · 2009-07-12 22:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is exactly why I hated it when MS started ramming the new term "folders" down our throats. The word "directories" suited better, as it did not conjour up invalid analogies in the minds of newbies. Now instead of just having to explain what a directory is, I now have to explain what a folder is AS WELL AS how it's not like a real folder.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
15. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by IBBoard · 2009-07-12 22:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  what I see is a relatively recent and often shrill insistence that their computer (and, by extension, the applications they use) should do their work for them and magically organise everything behind the scenes.
  And then there's the bit that always gets me (and which annoys me with some of the Firefox 3 results and can be a touch annoying with too many Gnome Do extensions): They also want to to magically understand what they meant when they try to find files from the magical file system.
  People have these fantastic ideas about "intelligent applications" that guess what you want, but there are just too many times when they can't/don't get it right because I know what I want and could do it quickly with a "dumb" system, but it is ambiguous to a "smart" system and so it returns excess cruft that I need to filter out.
  And before anyone mentions "learning" with smart systems, that's all well and good until I want to do a different but similar behaviour, at which point it is more buried than it should be because it has "learned" that I only ever do the normal thing ;)
16. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by quadrox · 2009-07-12 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Would you care to enlighten me on what exactly is the problem? As an experienced computer user I probably don't see the forest for all the trees, so could you please describe what the problem is?
  Thanks.
17. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Daengbo · 2009-07-12 22:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've been pushing this for the last six months. I think that the best example of how to use a tagging system already exists in programs like F-Spot. A tree-like tag system goes on the left. A time-line goes on top. The files are in the main pane in reverse chronological order. Double-clicking takes the main pane into "view" mode and embeds a document, image, or video viewer. Click the "edit" button to open an editor.
  The "open file" dialog in applications would be the file browser with a filter for supported files.
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
18. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MrMr · 2009-07-12 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  we're far beyond having to manually file things in this day and age
  Exactly, so the whole 'Desktop' metaphor, including the silly unintuitive dragging about of pictures to various obscure effects on the underlying file-system has come and gone.
  Good riddance to bad rubbish. Glad I can still type things like 'cp -a' and 'mv'.
19. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MichaelSmith · 2009-07-12 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see why users should care about what goes in /bin, /usr/bin and so on. Thats for the operating system and package manager to take care of.
  
  My wife has her own filing system. Everything she is currently working on goes on the desktop. Her files are arranged geometrically into "folders". She has a hierarchy in her mail system. Everything outside there is pretty ad-hoc. He system drives me mad, but what can I do? Its her system.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
20. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by dyefade · 2009-07-12 22:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sounds great to me - obviously you wouldn't call it that though!
  Consider gmail "labels" vs traditional email/imap folders - labels are both easier to use for novices and more flexible for capable users.
  YMMV, as ever.
21. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by slim · 2009-07-12 22:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  In meatspace:
  a file is a container for storing paper
  a folder is a container for storing paper
  They are almost synonymous. So someone with a non-computer background won't intuitively know which one is supposed to contain which.
  In computer lingo:
  a file is an entity that might be analogous to a wad of paper (e.g. a word processor document), but might not (e.g. an MP3)
  a folder is a container for zero or more files
  So it's completely unintuitive.
  I think the word 'file' has its roots from the days when a 'record' was still a fundamental concept. So a 'record' is a sheet of paper, a 'file' contains a bundle of records.
  I prefer 'directory'. At least then it doesn't push a false analogy on an already confused mind.
22. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by slim · 2009-07-12 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Really. Someone gives you a confused look, throw a couple manila folders in their face and ask them to put paper in them.
  Here in the UK at least, many people would call those manila folders "files".
  And since when have you called paper "file"?
23. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by quadrox · 2009-07-12 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  I see, thank you very much. That would also suggest that most of the icons representing directories are bad, because what they usually represent is a folder/file in meatspace terms. Am I right?
  Hmm, I guess I never really thought about this stuff, but I can see how somebody deeply entrenched in meatspace terminology would have a problem with this. But does that really apply to most people - or won't most people have no problem learning the new meanings?
24. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MichaelSmith · 2009-07-12 22:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  Since we are going to have non technical people using linux I think it would be better to have everything in / except /home under a folder like /linux. So you would have...
  
  /home
  /home/smithm
  /linux
  /linux/etc
  /linux/bin
  ...and so on
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
25. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MichaelSmith · 2009-07-12 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  I don't put manila folders inside other manila folders. They don't fit.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
26. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by value_added · 2009-07-12 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  The only platform I've seen tackle this in anything approaching a consistent way is OS X
  And the BSDs.
  where you know that there's a directory where the applications live, and you can easily predict where the configuration will be ... Simply getting a consistent standard for this on Linux distros would be a big win.
  The above isn't relevant to the article as Shuttlesworth was talking about the "every-day user experience" relative to the "Where is my stuff?" question. Feature-filled desktop environments is what most people concentrate on, but unless you're using a terminal (or prefer to think of the computer as an appliance), it's still the case that the file manager presents the most useful interface to the computer.
  That said, I'd agree that the consistency you're referring to would be a big improvement for Linux distros. Consistency is the chief reason why I use FreeBSD wherever possible (and why others who do consider Linux a bit of a mess). That, and the completeness of the documentation. Consistency, documentation and ... ruthless efficiency. I'll come in again.
27. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by ericrost · 2009-07-12 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and there'll be a new theme by the next LTS.
  
  --
  My Babylon
28. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by jonbryce · 2009-07-12 23:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  In computer-space we have either directories/files or folders/documents.
  In any case, word excel and powerpoint documents can contain multiple sheets of paper, and I see a lot of people take that to extremes - for example having all the day's letters contained in one word document, or every single spreadsheet they work on in one excel document.
29. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by jonbryce · 2009-07-12 23:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Or you could do what MacOS does to hide the unix filesystem from the user.
30. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by stevied · 2009-07-12 23:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Arguably a Unix filesystem already is a tagged repository.
  
  In Unix-y filesystems, you don't put files in folders. You put files in the filesystem, where they get a number (inode number). Then you can set up other special files (directories) to act as indices, linking names to the inode number - as many as you want. Voila - nest-able tags (albeit not versioned in most filesystems.)
  
  (Actually, if Unix hadn't insisted on banning '/' and NUL from filenames, a directory could in fact link arbitrary binary data to inode numbers. Bit of a missed opportunity there ..)
31. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by RiotingPacifist · 2009-07-12 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  in practice they're not followed or don't really solve the problem. The executable may end up in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/bin, /opt/local/bin, etc., etc.
  Thats up to package maintainers and generally they are followed,
  sbin = executables for root only
  / (core os) /usr (everything else) /usr/local (locally compiled stuff)
  I'm yet to see anything use /opt unless i unpacked it there in which case it goes /opt/program_name/whatever_the_developer_wants
  
  The configuration may be in a dotfile in your home directory, it may be in multiple files in one or more directories, it may be site-wide in /etc and customizable (or not) on a per-user basis, etc., etc.
  This is down to each program so very hard for a distro to change, but generally its also simple
  if its a system setting its configured in ./etc, some programs prefer a flat rc file, some prefer a subdir with all the settings in seperate files (whatever fits the task best tbh), but generally /etc/prgname+tab will list the correct file/dir. per-user configs vary more but anything kde based is in .kde/ anything else is in .prgname/ (i think gnome is a bit more of a mess as they decided to switch to .settings but not everything has yet, however gnome3 will probably finish the transistion)
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
32. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by davetv · 2009-07-12 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  I live in bris and would be interested in 1 phone mike ... how do we get in touch?
33. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Tenebrousedge · 2009-07-12 23:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Waitress: Morning!
  Man: Well, what've you got?
  Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and meatspace; egg bacon and meatspace; egg bacon sausage and meatspace; meatspace bacon sausage and meatspace; meatspace egg meatspace meatspace bacon and meatspace; meatspace sausage meatspace meatspace bacon meatspace tomato and meatspace;
  Vikings: meatspace meatspace meatspace meatspace...
  Waitress: ...meatspace meatspace meatspace egg and meatspace; meatspace meatspace meatspace meatspace meatspace meatspace baked beans meatspace meatspace meatspace...
  Vikings: meatspace! Lovely meatspace! Lovely meatspace!
  Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and meatspace.
  Wife: Have you got anything without meatspace?
  Waitress: Well, there's meatspace egg sausage and meatspace, that's not got much meatspace in it.
  Wife: I don't want ANY meatspace!
  
  --
  Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
34. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Tontoman · 2009-07-12 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds good. Also, I'd like to see some of the Versioning file system installed by default, and built into the GUI so that it is accessible and easy for even the common user. Maybe use Subversion as a back-end to make it work, and it could look a little like Tortoise SVN.
35. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MichaelSmith · 2009-07-12 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  I will keep a link to your id and wait to see if there is more interest. So far you are the only person who has expressed interest. I only want one or two myself so I will wait for more replies and get back to you when/if we have the numbers.
  
  Thanks.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
36. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by davetv · 2009-07-12 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  thanks mike ... been keen to muck with one of these thingies.
37. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by RiotingPacifist · 2009-07-12 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  as has been pointed out files and folders are bad terms. ATM directories containing files are good for most stuff, IF you know what your doing, however that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved on. There is nothing pure or good about folders, on your disk you only have files, a while ago somebody decided to implement hierarchical trees to simplify the mess you end up with by just listing files on the system, there is no reason to stick with it just for the sake of it. When gmail came out with its tags only method of sorting mail people thought it was stupid and pointless, overtime most people accept that in a worst case scenario it's as good as folders, but can be much better for many scenarios. Personally i like folders, the first thing i do is get rid of autofolders like Documents/Pictures/Music as my ~ is organised by other critera, but for many people a few "virtual folders" would be great, even i would use them over normal folders for certain sets of files (e.g music collections). If virtual folders are going to be done right then its going to take collaboration and planning to get it implement at the right level, this isn't something the filebrowser should run off and do by itself, but its also not something kernel devs will be wasting time on, that's why it's great that somebody like shuttleworth is asking the right questions (how can we improve on the directory/folder metaphor), even if he doesn't have any answers
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
38. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by pizzach · 2009-07-13 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the UK at least, many people would call those manila folders "files".
  Question: Do you call these manila folders "files" when they are empty? Or does the concept of a file include the contents as well as the container? When you go to an office supply shop, do you buy files or folders?
  
  --
  Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
39. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MancunianMaskMan · 2009-07-13 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  Since we are going to have non technical people using linux I think it would be better to have everything in / except /home under a folder like /linux.
  that would surely break posix compliance?
  non-technical users of gnome (etc.) are steered away from the real path names and just click on the "smithm's home", "Desktop", "Shared files", erm, folders. or whudduyacallits.
40. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by pizzach · 2009-07-13 00:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Oh noes. People are getting back to be being overly pedantic. Might as well start the "Untitled Folder" convo here. How can a folder be untitled yet have the title "Untitled Folder"? Because it is short for "Untitled Folder (by you)" you clods. Now that is out of the way...I shall hide under my rock again.
  
  --
  Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
41. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by lilrobbie · 2009-07-13 00:32 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Just to add a bit more information... one way I think of this is in terms of native languages. Most people who learn a second language, always need to translate through their primary language. E.g., if I learnt chinese, it might go: input in chinese => translate to english => concoct reply in english => translate to chinese => output in chinese
  This is a lot of overhead. Compare this to a native chinese-speaker... who simply hears in chinese, and thinks & responds in the same language.
  People who didn't grow up with computers don't develop the ability to "think" in computer terms like those of us "native" speakers. As such, dealing with files & folders, they need to go through this long translation process to a real-world analogy and back.
  The problem is, the files & folders analogy is very thin. Have you ever lost a hand-written letter because the power suddenly went out?! Or mis-placed a single document in a huge huge stack of papers and photographs (e.g., more than 200). The answer to both is probably not... because a stack of paper 200 documents long is unmanageable in the real world... and a hand-written letter autosaves every change you make ;-).
  So yer, from this, a few breaks between the user's expectations of how folders and files work, and pretty soon it seems like a mystical cave. The user doesn't remember the exact folder sequence (after all, you can layer them ridiculously deep), and forgets where things are saved, and pretty soon they create a gnarly mess of their files & folders... and are lost!
  Something that is perhaps more predictable is the idea of time-based or activity-based files (without folders). Gmail tags I find are also far more useful (means the user can simply search as they think of it, such as computer > essay > 2009 > university, or 2009 > university ...etc.)
  Either way, I would highly recommend observing some beginner users discretly if you can... I feel strongly it has helped me better understand how my users may see the programs I write :)
42. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by slim · 2009-07-13 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Question: Do you call these manila folders "files" when they are empty? Or does the concept of a file include the contents as well as the container? When you go to an office supply shop, do you buy files or folders?
  Well, here's the Filing and Archive supplies page for staples.co.uk.
  Notice you can buy lever arch files, box files, flatbar files, suspension files, as well as plastic folders and square cut folders.
  I went to staples.com, and noticed that the products are called "file folders" throughout.
43. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by El_Muerte_TDS · 2009-07-13 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In computer-space we have either directories/files or folders/documents.
  MS Windows uses "Files" and "Folders". Actually, the type of a folder is "File Folder". A "document" is a subtype of "file", because a "file" can also be an "application" or "program". A "file" could also be an "archive", which contains "files" and "folders". Some "archives" are called "cabinets". And of course all these files, folders, archives, cabinets, etc. can be seen in windows. Of course to be able to see those windows you first need to use a key, to open the lock. And to add protection from outsiders to see you files, etc. we have walls of fire. All the files, folders, etc. are stored on something called "drives"... why on earth are they not called "rooms"? And I wonder where the "roof" is in all this stuff.
44. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by jonbryce · 2009-07-13 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  A firewall in the real world is not a wall of fire, it is a type of wall that prevents flames from spreading from one side to another.
45. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-07-13 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In meatspace:
  * a file is a container for storing paper
  * a folder is a container for storing paper
  I don't think so. How many times have you heard someone say: "Put that paper in the file" or indeed, "Put those papers in the folder".
  You'll find people are more likely to say: "Do you have those files?", or "What's in that folder?".
  A file was always a ordered collection of papers/photos/data on a singular topic. A folder was always a place where you put papers and files. The file/folder analogy in computing is actually a very good one, and the only people who are ever confused by it are the find of people who would be confused by real files and folders anyway.
  The problem isn't actually with the system. It's actually with users who cannot and will not adopt any method or organisation over their own files. Admittedly, the default folders most programs obnoxiously set complicates things, but the proof of the pudding is when you ask someone where their files are and they give you a helpless stare. Sometimes they have been using computers, and these very files, for years. yet they have absolutely no idea what a file is, where their files are, or even of their existence outside of the context of the exact program that manipulates them.
  As they proceed to recite the unique set of incantations they use to access a particular file type, you begin to see why "cloud computing" and web based software is not going to be a huge leap for these users.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
46. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by crimperman · 2009-07-13 01:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  In any case, word excel and powerpoint documents can contain multiple sheets of paper, and I see a lot of people take that to extremes - for example having all the day's letters contained in one word document, or every single spreadsheet they work on in one excel document.
  During the late 80s/early 90s I worked for a firm that had a satellite office with a single PC which was running Wordpress on DOS. The secretary there had a single document containing every single letter she had typed over the past three years. She typed letters for an office of 15 engineers and regularly wrote several every day.
  Worse still, when she opened it (fortunately just the once per day) she would press the down cursor key repeatedly until she got to the last line. She spent approximately half an hour doing this I asked her how she found an old letter to check, and she replied it would be in the filing cabinet behind her. No matter ho many times I tried to show her how to use individual files, she went back to this single document. I once discovered we had no backup of this single file (it was saved outside of the document directory) and I still have the occasional nightmares about it.
47. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MooUK · 2009-07-13 01:08 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I think more people would expect it to be a wall of fire.
48. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by russotto · 2009-07-13 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sounds good. Also, I'd like to see some of the Versioning file system installed by default
  Sooner or later, everyone re-invents VMS.
49. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by slim · 2009-07-13 01:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't think so. How many times have you heard someone say: "Put that paper in the file" or indeed, "Put those papers in the folder".
  You'll find people are more likely to say: "Do you have those files?", or "What's in that folder?".
  We *may* have stumbled on a US vs UK issue here. Where the rest of the world sits, who knows?
  Definitely in the UK, you would go to a stationer's and buy a "file" in which to keep paperwork. "Put that paper in a file" is something you'd expect to hear, and is exactly equivalent to "Put that paper in a folder".
50. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by russotto · 2009-07-13 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  The problem isn't just with computers, it's with English. A file is a bunch of documents. But it can also refer to the container which holds them. Or even the container which holds containers of them (such as a suspension file, which holds file folders).
51. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by m.ducharme · 2009-07-13 01:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It certainly would be nice if only people qualified to use a computer did so, but it won't happen any time soon.
  Would it be nice? I don't think it would. If only people who are "qualified" to use a computer did so, we'd still be paying $3000 for Pentium I-era technology. The vast majority of computer purchasers buy their computers to do something else with them, not to become computer experts. It's that large market that allows for the economies of scale that drive processing power up, and price down. Without those "unqualified" computer users, computing would still be an expensive hobby.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
52. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by slim · 2009-07-13 01:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The problem isn't actually with the system. It's actually with users who cannot and will not adopt any method or organisation over their own files. Admittedly, the default folders most programs obnoxiously set complicates things, but the proof of the pudding is when you ask someone where their files are and they give you a helpless stare. Sometimes they have been using computers, and these very files, for years. yet they have absolutely no idea what a file is, where their files are, or even of their existence outside of the context of the exact program that manipulates them.
  This is true, and in a way the "File->Save" UI reinforces it. You type in a name, you don't think about where the CWD is, and when you "File->Open..." all your documents are there.
  Sun's old OpenWindows had a nice UI which might have helped with this. The text editor app had an icon in the corner representing the file you had open. To save, you dragged that icon to a file window. To open, you dragged an icon from the file window on to that part of the text editor. It means your save is not separate from your filesystem.
53. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by bami · 2009-07-13 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Then how do you call "files" on a flash medium?
54. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by slim · 2009-07-13 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  I have seen commercial firewalls that use a wall of fire as their icon.
55. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Tontoman · 2009-07-13 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds good. Also, I'd like to see some of the Versioning file system installed by default
  Sooner or later, everyone re-invents VMS.
  Yes, VMS did this really well! The versions were invisible to a running application unless you needed to revert then they were a lifesaver. This is kind of a "trash" or "recycle bin" except better because are automatic and were created when file was modified for any reason (rather than the "recycle bin" where the previous version is created only when a file is deleted through the gui).
56. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by drinkypoo · 2009-07-13 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like it to me. In the USA, they don't keep a dossier on you, you have an FBI file :)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
57. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by RiotingPacifist · 2009-07-13 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  wait that's the opposite of what he's saying!
  him: uk -> you buy files to store papers/documents (thus breaking the metaphor)
  you: us -> people keep files (collections of papers) on you (thus breaking the metaphor)
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
58. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by drinkypoo · 2009-07-13 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  The file is stored in a folder which is stored in a file cabinet (or on one of those rolling library shelves, just dropped in a hanging file folder. But yes, sometimes "file" means the whole folder. Also, we almost never put folders into folders, so calling a directory a folder is still stupid.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
59. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-07-13 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Also, we almost never put folders into folders, so calling a directory a folder is still stupid.
  I think that I would either love, or hate, to work in your office.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
60. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-13 02:33 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  During my short adventure with Win7 I'm pretty sure I also noticed that subfolders of My Documents are now called "libraries".
61. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by cerberusss · 2009-07-13 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  No matter ho many times I tried to show her how to use individual files, she went back to this single document
  She was a secretary. They are the most powerful force in the universe, overpowering even things like supernovas, Ozzy Osbourne and the appetite of a pregnant penguin. The way she worked was superior to everything and anything, aeons before time existed and uncountable millenia after the final death croak of the galaxy.
  Do not ask me if I have ever tried to explain something to a secretary. I double-dare you.
  
  --
  8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
62. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by drinkypoo · 2009-07-13 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  The average user never needs to see anything outside their home directory anyway, which is what the OS8-like "places" dialog in GNOME is about anyway. Typically they will only ever access a small handful of locations. Want to browse some images? You don't open a folder, you open Picasa (or whatever) which handles the metadata for you.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
63. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Knuckles · 2009-07-13 03:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  http://live.gnome.org/GnomeZeitgeist
  
  --
  "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
64. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-13 03:28 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Almost. You can build a tag system with hard links, creating a folder for each tag and linking your files there. But a key thing is missing: back-links. It's difficult (if not impossible) to discover all the links that lead to an inode.
65. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by pem · 2009-07-13 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, if ATSC and HDMI confuses you, you might want to reevaluate your need to use a television.
  
  There. Fixed that for you. I mean, are you seriously arguing that non-techies shouldn't be able to surf the web, use email to swap photos, and then print them out?
66. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Zashi · 2009-07-13 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Firewalls do not refer to walls made of fire, but of walls made to contain the spread of fire.
  
  --
  Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
67. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by pizzach · 2009-07-13 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. :)
  I don't think the American English term is totally different than the British English term. Someone said earlier something about documents vs file/folders was probably the original intent of the paradigm which eventually went out of control. After all, a lot of the word usage eludes to file being a container of some sort. File->open and File->close for example. It's hard to open a sheet of paper. Hmm.
  
  --
  Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
68. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by multi+io · 2009-07-13 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  In computer lingo: a folder is a container for zero or more files
  (or folders)
  Which it isn't, anyway. It's a directory of links to files, much like an address book is a directory of links to people. So it *is* a directory, not a "folder". If you have to come up with a metaphor, why not with the correct one?
69. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by AliasMarlowe · 2009-07-13 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Do not ask me if I have ever tried to explain something to a secretary. I double-dare you.
  So, have you ever tried to explain something to a secretary?
  [I was double-dog-dared to ask]
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
70. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Almost-Retired · 2009-07-13 04:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In any case, word excel and powerpoint documents can contain multiple sheets of paper, and I see a lot of people take that to extremes - for example having all the day's letters contained in one word document, or every single spreadsheet they work on in one excel document.
  And for those types, I recommend a clue bat be applied, liberally until they get the message that one mistake and the whole day is gone. Sheesh. Makes me more FOR a license to run a computer all the time. If they are so fond of a format they've cobbled up, then save the SOB as a template so they don't have to feel like they will have to re-invent the wheel to do their next proposal. That 'creation' drudgery may be putting a lot of the dummies off from doing it right.
  --
  Cheers, Gene
  "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
  -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
  The NRA is offering FREE Associate memberships to anyone who wants them.
  Seize the day, put no trust in the morrow!
  -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace)
71. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Khashishi · 2009-07-13 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  This is like how Windows hides system files and program files by default. It might keep the user from accidentally trashing the system, but hiding information from the user is harmful. The user stays ignorant about what's going on in the computer and needs to call eir geek friend or a computer shop in order to do anything a little more involved with the computer.
  *nix has it mostly right, with the system files shown to the user, but the user can't trash them without entering the root password. Files starting with . are hidden, but it seems like *nix hides files out of convenience, while Windows hides stuff for security.
72. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by DuckDodgers · 2009-07-13 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Also, I think the term 'folder' in meatspace generally implies no nesting. People don't usually take a blue folder and stuff four red folders into it, and three green folders into one of the red folders, and so forth.
73. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by spitzak · 2009-07-13 05:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think the word 'file' has its roots from the days when a 'record' was still a fundamental concept. So a 'record' is a sheet of paper, a 'file' contains a bundle of records.
  This makes sense, some historical information can be found by looking at the ASCII control character assignments. Look at the end of the control characters, in reverse order they were supposed to be larger and larger block separators:
  SPACE (word separator)
  US (unit separator, like between columns in a table)
  RS (record separator, a row in a table)
  GS (group separator, equivalent to an XML grouping, but they never thought of hierarchy?)
  FS (file separator)
  I think the figuring was that any larger grouping than "bunch of files" would be "a different tape" so there was no need for a larger separator.
  I think it would be nice to reuse these control characters for markup so we don't have to worry about escaping things all the time, too.
74. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by stevied · 2009-07-13 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  True. NTFS does this, though, and IIRC allows (in the sense that the on-disk structures permit it - don't know if there are any implementations that support it) you to define and index on arbitrary attributes.
  
  That always felt like a bit a design flaw to me, though - requires updating the FILE object (inode) for any change in any of the directories it appears in.
  
  After the ext4 dust-up recently, I think we need a bigger debate about providing alternative types of storage subsystems as a core part of the OS. Traditional filesystems don't do a good job of providing the indexing capabilities that you get with a DBMS, and as the ext4 thing proved, don't do a particularly good job of providing reliability in the face of consumer-grade hardware and "optimistic" application writers. Given that, as discussed elsewhere, they don't seem to do a good job of providing a comprehensible model to end-users either, perhaps it's time to move on to something else.
  
  I've always felt a first step would be to dump filename handling out of the Unix VFS: just store wodges of data with associated inode numbers, and let user space decide what they mean. Replace */bin with a index of inodes that provide commands and names, provide some mechanism for doing the same for app specific data, and then maintain the user's data separately as well. Why should all the config stuff stored in ~/.* appear in my word processor's file chooser (whenever the "hide hidden files" option inexplicably toggles itself behind my back)? It's not relevant, and gives click-happy users too much opportunity to destroy things ..
75. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by nschubach · 2009-07-13 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Search is all fine and good, but what of those of us that prefer to categorize and sort our own files? Like creating a file cabinet of organized tax forms and other documents? You can't search your file cabinet, but you know where things are. Windows 7 and many other OSes are moving to a search feature and leaving out the ability to effectively use the file system to organize our own files. Personally, the trend I hate is the removal of hierarchy lines in the tree views that make it nearly impossible to have several directories open and tell what the parent is at a glance without closing the structure up to align the dots.
  In my ideal OS, I wouldn't have a file system per say, but a sort of advanced key/value storage system... but you'd still be able to create containers to store things with the ability to make containers in containers like directories today. When you install a program, it would ask you where you want to store your data and you'd grant it rights to a specific container which will contain the settings and data you use and have no access to anything else unless you explicitly granted it. I'd still want an advanced tree view for those times when I want to re-organize something though and if I moved a container being used by a program, the program would never know but continue to use the same container... basically, an indexed storage system that uses IDs internally so you could change folder names, locations, etc without breaking everything.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
76. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by nschubach · 2009-07-13 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Expect, or hope?
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
77. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by nschubach · 2009-07-13 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  We should just start referring to directories on a computer as "Bags of holding" or "That thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is"
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
78. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by nschubach · 2009-07-13 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  It it's part of the file system, a save is a check in and a load is a check out... history can be shown on a file using common dialogs. If a program chooses not to use a common dialog, you could have a file pretend to be a directory with the version information as files of that.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
79. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by nschubach · 2009-07-13 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'd also be for the argument of placing settings in a common hidden folder of home called .settings or .config
  Some apps already do, but I have quite a few that like to create their own hidden directories instead of using .config/programname ;)
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
80. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by musicalwoods · 2009-07-13 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, you have nailed why I dislike iTunes and the iPod firmware so much. I meticulously organize my music into the categories I want and iTunes will not properly categorize the music the way I want. Sure I could make a lot of playlists, but I cannot create "sub-playlists."
81. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by molnarcs · 2009-07-13 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  How would you cope with copying to/from USB/CD/DVD etc...? Where or how would I find the file I need and where would I copy it? Your concept seems interesting, I'm just curious about how you would move data b/w PCs (exluding the Internet of course).
82. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by molnarcs · 2009-07-13 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think it IS about files and folders in general. While should we care where application X puts its bin file? Opt, /usr, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin - I don't really care as long as they work. And they do on all recent distroes I have used (suse, mandriva, fedora). The only directory exposed to your typical desktop *nix user is your home directory. And that's where I find myself spending time organizing and reorganizing my growing number of documents. Now I'm not sure any other alternative would work better - it might be something we just have to live with.
  Amarok is a good example. You have numerous options for accessing your collection - tags, genres, albums, whatnot - all done automatically - seems easier, more user friendly, right? And yet, I still find using the file view a lot more confortable...
83. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Hatta · 2009-07-13 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  "Files and folders confuse people".
  Say what? What confuses me is how you can compute without files and folders. WTF are we going to keep everything as one big string now?
  Files and folders are an extremely simple metaphor everyone should recognize from daily life. If you can't handle that, you not only have no business using a computer, you have no business having a job, or any sort of responsibility whatever. Even the 80yo guy I work with (who can't even double click) understands files and folders.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
84. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Ant+P. · 2009-07-13 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  If only people who are "qualified" to use a computer did so, we'd still be paying $3000 for Pentium I-era technology.
  A lot like cars, then.
85. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by bigngamer92 · 2009-07-13 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Would be interesting if Chrome OS went and used Labels. That would be very interesting indeed as a Gmail like system would probably work better than the current Docs system.
  
  --
  Common Sense
86. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by dbcad7 · 2009-07-13 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Directories and folders are somewhat equivalent in function, but usually there is a base structure in the OS to make looking for and finding things easier.. So a directory is really an "organized" folder of related files and folders... A document is a file, but a file is not necessarily a document.
  
  --
  waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
87. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · 2009-07-13 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  I propose to use 'ceci n'est pas un titre' or 'This is not a title'. Gotta love Magritte...
88. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by lilrobbie · 2009-07-13 10:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I definitely agree that the tree-hierarchy has it's place in the computing world. As you said, there are some things that are so solidly orthogonal that you want to restrict them to only one folder.
  But I don't believe that forcing everyone through the same system is helpful. I know many things I have that simply don't fit well in folders. My music collection for example... how do I sort this? If I go by artist, it doesn't hold collaboration volumes very well, if I go by album, it is difficult to remember the artist... If I want to go by genre, I must choose only one, and this makes categorization of some artists very difficult where they seem to entirely change style over the course of a single album.
  What I am saying is that hierarchical tree storage has it's place, but I don't think it is the most intuitive way of storing things :)
  I agree that search-only functionality sucks btw. I even went so far as to make an interface in java that behaves like a folder interface, only it uses a tag system. In this view, a sub-folder is a tag that isn't already in the hierarchy, that is present on one or more of the child items. Allows folder navigation for those who like folders, addresses your point about easily seeing parent levels if desired... but also allows a file to live in multiple hierarchies... it worked nice. Not sure if you could base an OS on it though xD
89. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by nschubach · 2009-07-13 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have a site or a place I can see this interface? I'm curious.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
90. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by swilver · 2009-07-13 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, not gonna work.
  I've got literally hundreds of thousands of files. I cannot be bothered to tag these in any way. Any tags derived from these files "automatically" are going to be completely pointless and will not help me locate anything.
  Tagging is a nice concept... for something limited like Letters I wrote and Family Photos and the like. Go beyond just a few "thousands" of files, and the tagging itself is gonna consume more time than I'm willing to spend.
91. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by Tacvek · 2009-07-13 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  We should just start referring to directories on a computer as "Bags of holding" or "That thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is"
  By the way, how was one supposed to figure out that "That thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is", was some form of container? I believe I only came to realize that through spoilers for the puzzle that required it.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
92. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by lilrobbie · 2009-07-13 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not on me unfortunately. It wasn't terribly complex... It looked like a windows explorer clone, the key difference was the sub-folders were a little more dynamic. I used it successfully for about 6 months before it got lost in the great harddrive crash of 2003... unfortunately this was before I'd learnt the lesson of external backups :(
  It wouldn't be hard to recreate if you're really aching for a test drive though...
93. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by jbolden · 2009-07-13 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. I learned about directories long before I learned about folders and files. I never realized that. Maybe
  file -> binder -> shelf -> cabinet -> row -> room for:
  file -> parent directory -> grand parent....
  might work better.
94. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by jbolden · 2009-07-13 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  There is really 2 issues.
  1) Translation issues
  2) People stink at imagining large numbers.
  For example we were discussing the probability that no out of 2000 people had a property. It turned out to even 50/50 chance this characteristic had to 5x less likely than being hermaphrodite. In a group of 2000 people essentially everything present in the population is present in the sample. But that doesn't jive with our intuition because we don't think of 2000 as a huge number.
95. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by nschubach · 2009-07-13 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that important. I just like seeing what is done with interfaces recently as I've been doing a lot of that for work.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
96. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by FrankieBaby1986 · 2009-07-13 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a secretary who needed either training or replacement.
  
  --
  ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
97. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by FrankieBaby1986 · 2009-07-13 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  You've just re-invented symbolic links! (with ones that might auto-update for access time, and be easier to administer)
  
  --
  ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
98. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by peetm · 2009-07-13 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  From the OED
  file, n 2
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. a. A string or wire, on which papers and documents are strung for preservation and reference. In recent use extended to various other appliances for holding papers so that they can be easily referred to.
  c. A catalogue, list, roll. Obs.
  4. a. A collection of papers placed on a file, or merely arranged in order of date or subject for ready reference.
  b. Computers. A collection of related records stored for use by a computer and able to be processed by it. Also attrib. and Comb.
  1954 Jrnl. Assoc. Comput. Mach. I. 8/2 A 'master' tape..contains the file of unit records as at the last date of processing. 1967 COX & GROSE Organiz. Bibl. Rec. by Computer 19 A file sequence may contain only one file, and this is generally the case when updating procedures are being carried out. 1969 Computers & Humanities III. 132 This search (once through the file), whether for a single interrogation or for several, is called a file-pass.
  Sounds like a file is a queue - or, is that a list!
  
  --
  @peetm
99. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by peetm · 2009-07-13 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  From the OED
  file, n 2
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. a. A string or wire, on which papers and documents are strung for preservation and reference. In recent use extended to various other appliances for holding papers so that they can be easily referred to.
  c. A catalogue, list, roll. Obs.
  4. a. A collection of papers placed on a file, or merely arranged in order of date or subject for ready reference.
  b. Computers. A collection of related records stored for use by a computer and able to be processed by it. Also attrib. and Comb.
  1954 Jrnl. Assoc. Comput. Mach. I. 8/2 A 'master' tape..contains the file of unit records as at the last date of processing. 1967 COX & GROSE Organiz. Bibl. Rec. by Computer 19 A file sequence may contain only one file, and this is generally the case when updating procedures are being carried out. 1969 Computers & Humanities III. 132 This search (once through the file), whether for a single interrogation or for several, is called a file-pass.
  Sounds like a file is a queue - or, is that a list!
  
  --
  @peetm
100. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by hattig · 2009-07-14 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. And if there was a tagging / search failure, you would still be able to view the last umpteen files of type X in the system. Auto-tag and search is what matters, and whilst desktop search / spotlight is there or thereabouts already, the filesystem is still underneath, and still the only option within applications. System default file dialogs need to tie in to desktop search with a file browse via tags mechanism, and the file structure abstracted away.
101. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by thinkloop · 2009-07-15 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  I would also like to add apps: /apps /home /linux That way you can nuke /linux whenever you want and keep your apps. Also, often you have to mess around with config for apps, maybe copy in a plugin etc. No need for it to be mixed up with core linux. To take it a step further, it would be nice to completely get rid of /opt, /var, and other non-human oriented fragmentation that was only there to be able to partition them separately and enforce different computer-related rules.
102. Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... by MichaelSmith · 2009-07-22 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Hi davetv. I am using my journal to keep track of people interested in the phones. It looks like I have enough interest to go ahead so if you are still interested please reply there.
  
  Regards,
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Pulse Audio is what I worry about by wrook · 2009-07-12 21:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not worried about X breakages, personally. I even have an Intel 945G and I can live with the problems its causing. What I can't live with is the extreme instability of Pulse Audio. It crashes my apps contstantly from broken pipes. OK, people should be checking their pipes. But Pulse Audio itself crashes very frequently (about every hour or so on my machine). Rhythmbox won't go for more than 10 minutes without either crashing or audio failing. This is incredibly bad for me.
I realize that it's probably due to older, underpowered hardware (3 year old cheap laptop), but this should not be happening. I've yanked Pulse Audio from my machine altogether now and it's a lot more stable. I was also getting lock ups in Firefox every hour or so. Now that I've dumped Pulse Audio, I've only had one lock up in the past 3 days (still can't figure that one out -- related to video drivers???).
So, I plead with Ubuntu developers: either fix Pulse Audio, or punt it. The extra features it has is *not* worth the massive pain that some people experience.
1. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by plasmacutter · 2009-07-12 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  What I can't live with is the extreme instability of Pulse Audio. It crashes my apps contstantly from broken pipes. OK, people should be checking their pipes.
  
  Everyone wanted to run ted stevens out on a rail, but he could have made laws to protect us from defective tubes!
  
  I realize that it's probably due to older, underpowered hardware
  
  they're not lead are they?
  BAM.. yeah.. i just did that..*cheesy music and stage hook NOW*
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
2. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-12 22:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There's more problems than just pulse audio, there are too many daemons appearing in general. Stuff like gnome-pty-helper, gnome-keyring, ssh-agent, consolekit, hal-addon-storage, gconfd. All this stuff is fine on general purpose machines when the user mainly engages in browsing, multimedia, IM and office apps. The problems arise when you want to do something demanding like A/V work, with distros increasingly integrating services for the common usage case it's becoming increasingly difficult to get a usable setup on older hardware.
  A few years back, I could successfully do multitrack audio and video editing on systems that struggle just to run todays desktop environments. I'm not talking about underpowered hardware per se, I'm talking about having to strip out ever increasing amounts of bloat and replacing the wm with something sane (currently I use openbox). As for pulse audio, that's one of the first things I yank from an install in favour of jackd.
  There's also something very wrong with the intel drivers. Something to do with the in-kernel mode setting where the kernel configuration refuses to let you disable framebuffer if you've enabled DRI or AGPGart (can't remember which). I had to manually hack the .config through 7-8 recompiles just to get X up and running with these drivers. Ridiculous.
3. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by dyefade · 2009-07-12 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  I left Ubuntu at the start of the year after 4 relatively happy years - PulseAudio was one of my biggest complaints.
  Even if I could have got it working properly, I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get my computer to play sounds.
4. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by RiotingPacifist · 2009-07-12 22:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Whats the point of it? my problem with pulseaudio is I'm getting all these bugs but i cant see a singe case where its better than a tricked out alsa setup (well actually it does deal well with simultaneous log-ins, but I'm sure that could have been edged into alsa without as many problems as PA brought). Perhaps the problem is distros have invested a fair bit of time in it, and now they're in the longest que for the bar but don't want to switch because while they would get served sooner, they'd have to accept they just wasted 5minutes in that que.
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
5. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by quadrox · 2009-07-12 23:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  DITO - with 8.10 I had to buy a webcam just so I would not get delay on my microphone when skyping. After 9.04 not even that workaround worked any longer. I have since switched to Arch even though that is likely not what I want either. I wish I was a millionaire and had money to hire a dev-team to create a proper linux distro.
6. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by ericrost · 2009-07-12 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  So why not use the alternate installer and only install what you want? start with a minimal install and build from there. You aren't locked into the "desktop cd install" ffs.
  
  --
  My Babylon
7. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by RiotingPacifist · 2009-07-13 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  try debian lenny (im fairly sure debian lenny kde3.5 didn't use PA for anything) or suse (I've not hear anything specific but I get the impression they are better at dealing with upstream snafus like networkmanager/compiz/etc (as they created many of them)), fedora11 has given me a few PA problems but since i fixed turned modesetting off it seams ok (yeah i know it doesn't make sense but hey).
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
8. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by gbarules2999 · 2009-07-13 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's trying to cover up the issues with Alsa - that it's hard to develop for and has a completely lack of documentation. Unfortunately, it hasn't done a swell job.
  
  This is where Ubuntu's dictator model comes in. Shuttleworth says, "We're switching to OSS." Transition for a year or two, and most issues are fixed.
9. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · 2009-07-13 01:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There's more problems than just pulse audio, there are too many daemons appearing in general. Stuff like gnome-pty-helper, gnome-keyring, ssh-agent, consolekit, hal-addon-storage, gconfd. All this stuff is fine on general purpose machines when the user mainly engages in browsing, multimedia, IM and office apps. The problems arise when you want to do something demanding like A/V work, with distros increasingly integrating services for the common usage case it's becoming increasingly difficult to get a usable setup on older hardware.
  While a multitude of daemons might be a problem from the perspective of memory usage (if they're not properly written), they should have almost zero effect on your CPU and A/V work.
  The reason is that the vast majority of system daemons sit waiting for input via sockets or pipes. There is no polling involved because this is an OS-level task. The daemon tries to read from its socket/pipe and it essentially goes to sleep. The kernel doesn't even need to touch it because it knows what the daemon is waiting for. Once some new input arrives, the kernel will wake the daemon and pass the data through the socket/pipe.
  This is why it's not at all a problem for every user to have ssh-agent or gnome-pty-helper running. They'll all be loaded only once into memory, and the CPU will only ever touch them when they actually have something to do (which is not that often for most daemons).
  Now, that may work fine for user-space daemons, but what I would like to see more of is daemons loaded on the fly from inetd (or whatever your distro uses to replace that). For example, on Debian, ever since Exim 4 was released, you can't have it spawn via inetd when something actually opens port 25. Instead, it stays running all the time. On a regular home machine, most of the system level daemons, even things like ssh, are used so infrequently that the additional loading time needed to run them from inetd would be unnoticed.
  
  --
  Elrond, Duke of URL
  "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
10. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by rainmaestro · 2009-07-13 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, I've tried doing the stripped down install myself (being an old-time Gentoo man). By the time I pull in all of the dependencies (only half of which make sense), my system is probably 90-95% as bloated as a vanilla LiveCD install would have been.
  I miss the old Gentoo days. They and Slackware were by far the two best options for stripped-down installs. Sadly, slack is too far behind the tech curve for my needs. If Gentoo could ever get their shit together, I'd go back in a heartbeat. They need to stop trying to become a mainstream distro and return to the days of being a specialized setup.
11. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by drinkypoo · 2009-07-13 01:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The pathetic thing is that I've never had trouble with it because I go to the website and read the Pulseaudio/Perfectsetup document. It's too bad none of the distribution or even package maintainers seem to want to read it, ESPECIALLY Ubuntu which does things WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
12. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by Late+Adopter · 2009-07-13 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny because I've been using Gentoo and had too many problems with ALSA (mostly from simultaneous playback. I don't want to worry that I'm missing IMs just because I'm watching a fullscreen movie.)
  
  Switching to Pulse fixed things for me and I've never looked back. My Pulse-compatible apps all play nice with each other, and when I have to use an ALSA app I still can. The distros must be seriously fucking things up for people still to bring up Pulse as a problem these days, and not a solution.
13. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by louiswins · 2009-07-13 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  now they're in the longest que for the bar but don't want to switch because while they would get served sooner, they'd have to accept they just wasted 5minutes in that que.
  Qué?
14. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by RiotingPacifist · 2009-07-13 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  How do you handle per-application volume levels in alsa?
  softvol, isn't perfect but surely its better than this and can be improved on, OSS4 also implements per-app volumes at API level.
  
  How do you use another machine on the network as a sink in alsa?
  google it. Outside of thinclients i don't see how that is particularly useful anyway, so giving everybody else glitchy audio, instead of just using PA on thin clients seams stupid.
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
15. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by Dan+Ost · 2009-07-13 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a happy Gentoo user.
  What "Shit" are you referring to?
  
  --
  
  *sigh* back to work...
16. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by miknix · 2009-07-13 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  I installed OSS4 on my laptop just for the sake of trying it. What I was not expecting was the fact that I later on removed ALSA from the kernel and purged any traces of pulseaudio from the filesystem.
  I really liked OSS4, the kernel level mixing works perfectly with every app (even those who still use the old OSS API).
17. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by __aasqbs9791 · 2009-07-13 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  There's likely something more specific about the OP's setup. I'm using Pulse on Ubuntu and not having any problems with it at all. It is a newer machine, but it is a pretty cheap, budget build. I spent about $600 for the entire thing about 5 months ago, including the monitor. They only problems I'm having are with severe shearing on fullscreen video, mostly just in Flash (God I hate Flash!).
18. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-07-13 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Whats the point of it? my problem with pulseaudio is I'm getting all these bugs but i cant see a singe case where its better than a tricked out alsa setup
  
  The ironic part there is that a "tricked-out" ALSA setup is in turn inferior to OSS4 by any measure - because OSS4 really Just Works - and is also properly cross-platform, unlike ALSA.
  Frankly, the introduction of ALSA in the first place did a lot of evil by fragmenting sound systems between various Unix-likes (most notably Linux and BSD), and making it so much more complicated to write sound-outputting applications. OSS really did (and does) it "the Unix way" - open and write.
19. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by Dan+Ost · 2009-07-13 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Portage now will remove blocking packages if it notices that a new package fills the same dependency. I don't know when that happened, but I haven't had to manually resolve a block situation for several months now.
  As to configuration options, the only options I'm aware of that there aren't use flags for is prefix and related. However, if you're unhappy with the use flags available to you, you can create your own ebuild and put it in your local overlay.
  That's how it was designed to work and, in my experience, it works quite well.
  
  --
  
  *sigh* back to work...
20. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by metamatic · 2009-07-13 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. I just decided to try OSS4 in the hope it would solve some sound performance issues in Ubuntu 9.04, and suddenly my sound is dramatically improved. Thank you.
  
  --
  GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
21. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by schweinhund · 2009-07-14 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  If you are looking to do A/V, you might consider the dyne:bolic distribution which is tailored for this use.
22. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by 3vi1 · 2009-07-15 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  sudo apt-get remove pulseaudio
  Problem solved.
23. Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about by ericrost · 2009-07-22 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  So you sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop before you sudo do-release-upgrade. Boy that's hard.
  
  --
  My Babylon
Not the KDE4 way, plase by VincenzoRomano · 2009-07-12 21:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

I only hope they will follow a different path than KDE team.
They rushed to release 4.0 and since then I'm still struggling to have all the features I used to have in KDE v3.5.
And, more important, I hope that Ubuntu people won't trash GNOME v2 from night to day like they did with KDE v3.5.

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
1. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by mrtommyb · 2009-07-12 21:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What KDE4 proofed is that you can also sit down and have really interesting conceptual changes that get introduced as big shifts.
  What KDE4 proofed is that if you make really awful software that is full of bugs even long term fans will switch to using an alternative.
2. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by Razalhague · 2009-07-12 21:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They release a 4.0 and are surprised people start using it? WTF?
3. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by bmo · 2009-07-12 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hardy's support doesn't end until April 2011.
  > but for some reason the end users started using it
  The blame for that lays squarely on the shoulders of the Kubuntu team and others like it that shoved 4.x down everyone's throat and cut off 3.5 support. It wasn't the users' fault. With anything later than Hardy, you either use 4.x or you use Gnome. Some choice.
  Running Hardy, because every release since then has sucked.
  --
  BMO
4. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by VincenzoRomano · 2009-07-12 21:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I would say that when you release something to the public (especially with large "marketing battage") it is for the public, unless stated differently.
  And then, what about all subsequent releases untill now? Are all of them "not for the end user"?
  
  --
  Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
  For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
5. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by TheTurtlesMoves · 2009-07-12 21:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well I am using kde 4.2 now on just one of my machine and its awesome. It is so snappy and uses far less resources than kde 3.5 which i use on the other machine. But still not as lightweight as iceWM that i use on yet the other machine. In fact once the new slackware comes out I will probably switch all machines over to kde 4.2.
  
  What went wrong was that distro put in the new version far too early.
  
  I have never really liked gnome... It always seems to consume the ram like a windows desktop...
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
6. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by squoozer · 2009-07-12 22:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The KDE 4.0 release was a total management cock up from start to finish but it did have some positive sides. If they hadn't released it as 4.0 a lot of people wouldn't have tried it out and therefore they wouldn't have found as many issues as they did. They certainly should have worked more closely with the main KDE distributions to make it clear to end users they 4.0 was going to be a dog. With hindsight I think it would have been better to have held off on 4.0 until it was 4.1 quality. That way they would have got most of the user testing but without so much of the "I want to stab you in the eyes for making me ruin my machine".
  I don't hold out much hope for Gnome bringing great new things to the party. I try it out every now and then but it just doesn't do it for me in the same way that KDE does. All the Gnome LAFs look terribly dated dumbed down. While I don't spend my days admiring the widgets used in my applications I prefer to look at something that is pleasing to the eye just like I would rather the view from my house was green fields rather than a rubbish dump.
  
  --
  I used to have a better sig but it broke.
7. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by segedunum · 2009-07-12 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  The KDE 4.0 release was a total management cock up from start to finish.../blockquote> Hmmmm, it wasn't from KDE's perspective. It's the way things have always worked. The KDE developers set themselves some goals for KDE 4.0 and they achieved them - mainly API and ABI stability. What happened was that distributors then blindly started compiling and packaging it and then whinging when they found out that their users weren't too happy with it. Virtually all distributors are braindead when it comes to putting together a whole system and looking intelligently at the software they want to use. It's why we have PulseAudio being thrown into desktop systems today. That thing isn't stable at all, let alone feature complete.
8. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by noundi · 2009-07-12 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  More like they released 4.0 and are surprised that people assumed it would be stable. If they hadn't the bugfix process wouldn't have been as quick, this is how FOSS development works. One cannot expect FOSS development to be like properietary development and then get disappointed by the differences.
  
  --
  I am the lawn!
9. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by tapanitarvainen · 2009-07-12 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately Hardy's long term support ends in October so I'll have no choice but to upgrade to Karmic.
  You can run KDE3.5 with Jaunty, see https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/Kde3/Jaunty -- I've been doing that for a few months and it works quite well. Whether it'll be possible with Karmic, remains to be seen.
10. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by segedunum · 2009-07-12 22:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  HTML malfunction.........
  
  The KDE 4.0 release was a total management cock up from start to finish...
  Hmmmm, it wasn't from KDE's perspective. It's the way things have always worked. The KDE developers set themselves some goals for KDE 4.0 and they achieved them - mainly API and ABI stability. What happened was that distributors then blindly started compiling and packaging it and then whinging when they found out that their users weren't too happy with it. Virtually all distributors are braindead when it comes to putting together a whole system and looking intelligently at the software they want to use. It's why we have PulseAudio being thrown into desktop systems today. That thing isn't stable at all, let alone feature complete.
11. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by RiotingPacifist · 2009-07-12 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think this is what hes trying to address
  
  Debian release team. So the Debian release team has indicated that they are very open - not about a release date but a freeze date. That freeze date would be the time where we sit around and look at all the major components and decide what the major versions would be that we collaborate around. There is no pressure that we have to agree on everything, but just actually having the conversation is useful for any upstreams who care about this information.
  I understand why kubuntu choose to jump the shark (they thought it was easier to shift people to kde4.x and help get it working*, than "waste" time supporting an old version of their second rate DE), and while i belive they were wrong, i switched to debian, I'm glad that they are moving to address the problem.
  *Probably not the best call as ubuntu has more end users pre developer(esque) people than most distros.
  
  so I'll have no choice but to upgrade to Karmic
  There are other distros *cough*debian lenny still has 3.5*cough*, I used kde4 as an excuse for a wander and i do despite what some upstream devlopers claim, ubuntu really is a pretty good distro. But im generally under the impression KDE4.3 will be much more useable for end users than 4.0/.1 (.2 is ok but a bit slow and buggy on fedora)
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
12. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by pz · 2009-07-12 22:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  people pick up a .0 release and are surprised its not as polished and featureful as a .5? WTF?
  The kde4.0 snafu really highlighted a problem in ubuntu->KDE communication, other distros got that kde4.0 would be rough around the edges and at least offered kde3.5or shipped their 4.0 with a lot of patches ect. I tend to follow kde developement from afar and I've always know that kde4.3 is the first kde4 that is end user ready.
  No, distribution packagers decided KDE 4.0 was good enough to include in their releases so it got sent out to a lot of people. I don't know if you tried 4.0, but I did. It was horrible. Saying, "it was not as polished and featureful," does not describe what happened with 4.0. KDE 4.0 was a huge, massive step backwards in functionality that should never have been considered for release. It was barely alpha-grade software at release time. It still contains idiotic major achitectural mistakes (like what amounts to an entirely new, and needlessly separate windowing system for the Plasma widgets) and requires a major reorganization to what goes where (I can never find the right submenu / screen to make adjustments because they're split over too many unrelated interfaces).
  Blaming the users is shortsighted. Blaming the distro packagers makes some sense. But placing blame on the KDE team for the total cockup that was 4.0 is putting it where it is due. KDE4 is inching toward consistency and usability, but what we have NOW is what should have been the original release -- ignoring the massive mistakes in the redesign that remain deeply baked into Plasma.
  The message here is simple: if you're going to radically redesign a product with a large user base, don't release the replacement until it's in much better condition than for minimal changes. With 4.0 and the introduction of Plasma, the KDE team should have (beyond being struck repeatedly with a two-by-four for being frelling nincompoops) skipped a release cycle in order to get things into better shape.
  
  --
  
  Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
13. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by Fred_A · 2009-07-12 23:03 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Since 4.2, KDE works just fine. I use it all day long and have no trouble with it.
  The early releases were majorly broken though. Why they made it into the distros is beyond me.
  
  --
  
  May contain traces of nut.
  Made from the freshest electrons.
14. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by nutshell42 · 2009-07-12 23:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Gnome 2.0 was just as unusable. They just pretended is was for philosophical reasons.
  OSX 10.0 was crap, hell even Microsoft needed 3 years after Vista (with some major architecture changes).
  It just takes too much time the achieve feature/stability/usability parity with the old system no matter how needed those major under-the-hood changes were.
  So sorry, Gnome will take the same path as everyone else and sites will rush to declare 3.0 "A Major Disappointment". What you can hope for, though, is that distros won't be so braindead to drop Gnome 2 immediately after the 3.0 release.
  Honestly, there was a time when distributions were concerned about providing a usable user experience instead of just grabbing all the latest stuff, add their configuration tools and ship that crap. See PulseAudio, great idea, terrible execution on every single fucking distro I've tried.
  
  --
  Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
15. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by ericrost · 2009-07-12 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  From what I've heard EVERYTHING is a bit slow and buggy on Fedora these days. *duck*
  
  --
  My Babylon
16. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by bmo · 2009-07-12 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  > Since 4.2, KDE works just fine.
  No, it doesn't. Especially packaged as it is by Kubuntu. I had gone off to SuSE to find a working KDE 4.x and got it, mostly. I then updated to 4.3Beta and was encouraged even more, but when fish:// broke, I went back to Hardy.
  4.3 Final will probably be the actual "good release" in my estimation *if it is not rushed*. 4.0-4.3RC were in no way, shape, or form ready for release to the world.
  > Why they made it into the distros is beyond me.
  If they were to be in the distros, they should have been clearly separated from KDE3.5, labeled as "Testing", and put into Multiverse. The real sin was removing 3.5 from the repos entirely. There was no reason for that except pure bloody-mindedness.
  --
  BMO
17. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by DNS-and-BIND · 2009-07-12 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  A 4.0 isn't exactly the same as a 1.00. To me, 4.0 says that we've been around for a long while and this is our latest greatest release that's stable as hell. Oh, there might be a few issues with the new features but the underlying technology is good.
  Evidently, my problem is trusting a release.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
18. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by IrquiM · 2009-07-13 00:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If people had listened to what the KDE community said they'd still be on 3.5.10.
  Slackware is probably one of the last ones to switch, as it's 12.2 is still KDE 3.5, but current is on 4.2.
  Don't blame KDE for the mistakes of stupid distro-admins with no respect for their user community.
  
  --
  This is blinging
19. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by pizzach · 2009-07-13 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  So you're one of the boneheads that installed KDE 4.0, eh? I'll just write that down in my little book here. ;-)
  
  --
  Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
20. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by street_astrologist · 2009-07-13 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Out of curiousity, what issues were you having with KDE 4.2 on Kubuntu? I've had no problem that wasn't shared with Gnome (PulseAudio, I'm looking at you.)
  4.1 was noticeably buggier, and I didn't use it for long. 4.0 I didn't dare try, because I read the reviews.
21. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by street_astrologist · 2009-07-13 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  "shitty-cashew"? What??
22. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by QCompson · 2009-07-13 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  KDE 4.0 was CLEARLY labeled as "WILL EAT YOUR CHILDREN" everywhere...
  Everywhere as in random developer blogs and obscure mailing lists?
  
  ...except for in the release notes which someone screwed up.
  Which is probably the most important place to notify people that the release is barely alpha quality.
  
  Why do people have such short memories? The KDE developers pimped KDE4 as being the best thing since sliced bread for months before the 4.0 release. They dismissed criticism that the beta and RC weren't close to being ready by claiming that they were just beta and RC releases. Then they attended a big release party held by google when 4.0 came out.
  
  It wasn't until there was a tidal wave of negative reviews that the KDE team started to backtrack and claim that 4.0 wasn't ready for anyone.
23. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by kojot350 · 2009-07-13 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I did, after being supportive and forgiving from 4.0 to 4.3beta, I'm tired of KDE4 trying way too hard too reinvent everything, braking usability and killing my productivity.
  Maybe after 4.5 it will be mature enough, like 3.5... oh wait
  
  --
  [ $[ $RANDOM % 6 ] == 0 ] && rm -rf / || echo *Click*
24. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by gbarules2999 · 2009-07-13 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, if you were an OpenSUSE KDE user, that's what floated down the river. If you didn't like it, oh well.
25. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by gbarules2999 · 2009-07-13 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  But even then, the package managers for the distros should have been testing it and known it wasn't prime time. A lot of these packagers are KDE developers as well, so they would have seen these obscure mailing lists and posts.
26. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by gbarules2999 · 2009-07-13 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps I'm just using the wrong distros. KDE 4.2 had fairly mediocre performance for me, on my 4 GB of RAM and Core 2 Duo. Whose implementation are you using?
27. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by rec9140 · 2009-07-13 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  OK..... heres my first problem.
  I have disable idiotic plamsaoid and returned to the NORMAL desktop interface.
  I have disabled the $!^$!%!^% dolphin and Konqi is now the file manager.... How the ^&%#^&@!%$!@^& I am supposed to see the other drives etc. in my system!????!!!!?
  Please don't tell me its under places! ITS IS NOT &*!^#&*@!^#&*!^ THERE!
  The ONLY WAY to get Konqi to show these is to access them at least once via that !^&!$%!^&% dolphin and then they show via mount.
  I should be able to: media:/ in Konqi and see my drives!
  So how do you do this ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
  Remember dolphin is out I hate it! Konqi is my browser and file manager, period.
  
  --
  1311393600 - Back to Black
28. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by AceofSpades19 · 2009-07-13 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are being a bit too harsh on the KDE dev team. They had big signs plastered all over their website that kde 4.0 wasn't usable but yet the package maintainers still put it in. The kde dev team couldn't be any more clear that kde 4.0 wasn't for regular users but everyone ignored them.
  
  The kde dev team had to make a release at some point, otherwise KDE 4 would be stuck in beta forever. I place the blame on the package maintainers because they were stupid enough to ignore the various warnings and still put it in the distros as a default DE when it was obviously not ready yet.
29. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by Razalhague · 2009-07-13 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  They had big signs plastered all over their website that kde 4.0 wasn't usable but yet the package maintainers still put it in. The kde dev team couldn't be any more clear that kde 4.0 wasn't for regular users but everyone ignored them.
  Yes, they could've been more clear. Plenty. By not calling it 4.0. The version number is the single most important place for the "not ready for users" information. Plain 4.0 with no qualifier (such as beta) is saying "this is ready for users".
  
  The kde dev team had to make a release at some point, otherwise KDE 4 would be stuck in beta forever. I place the blame on the package maintainers because they were stupid enough to ignore the various warnings and still put it in the distros as a default DE when it was obviously not ready yet.
  "Being stuck in beta forever" is not a good reason to leave beta, especially when you don't think the software is yet ready for users.
  Yeah, the package maintainers could have acted smarter, but it was the stupid behaviour at KDE that enabled them to act stupid.
30. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by Bambi+Dee · 2009-07-13 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  I think KDE 4 is coming along nicely now. I do still have some problems, though:
  
  Konqueror: (1) Ctrl-C doesn't copy the selected text; I have to use the context menu. This only seems to affect pages in frames. (2) Websites seem to use the KDE-wide "View Background" colour as the default background: this can lead to black text on a dark/black background. Decoupling the default website background colour and the View Background colour would help.
  
  Application launcher (classic, not Kickoff), "Computer" submenu: (1) displays storage media along with Places under "Places", not under "Removable Storage" (which displays the Places instead). (2) Both types of misplaced entry are dead to mouse clicks.
  
  Kate: (1) I don't think the "Open Recent" list is working properly. (2) Sometimes cursor colour = background colour, especially (exclusively?) after (highlighted?) braces and after search or replace operations (which may also highlight text... hm).
  
  KRunner/Quicksand: In the "Task oriented" interface mode, results are displayed in black no matter the background colour.
  
  Windows List widget: Right-clicking an entry and picking "Move" or "Resize" just teleports the pointer over to the respective window without going into move/resize mode. It works fine via the taskbar.
  
  PowerDevil: DPMS settings don't seem to take effect. Can use separate Display control, though. (Haven't tested this on 4.3 RC2 yet.)
  
  Kwin cube: With "hovering windows" activated, panels sometimes poke through or overlap windows on rotate.
  
  kded4: Sometimes this process jumps to about 50% CPU and stays there until I kill it. (May have been fixed with the recent upgrade to 4.3 RC2, bit early to tell.)
  
  KNode: It seems the article composer has its own hardwired colour scheme, at least for quoted text? That green isn't easy to read on a dark background. I can't figure out where (or how) to change it.
  
  Kwin cube/pager widget: Unbug. On switching desktops (but not on manual rotate), the cube seems to try to adapt its layout to the pager's own 2D world. With a multi-row pager this can lead to cube folding in on itself (though you're perfectly safe if you don't think about it).
  
  Switching desktops: This is not a bug, either, but isn't there a way to turn off the huge you've-just-switched-desktops "OSD" that pops up every time? It tends to blot out part of the app I want to see instead.
  
  Panels: This is not necessarily a bug, but panels don't always seem to shrink or expand with the contents (say, a growing task bar).
  
  Desktop: This is not a bug, but I really wish I could pop up a launcher menu with a middle click AND a window list with a right click AND use the wheel to switch desktops. All at the same time, too. As it is I can either have just the window list or just the desktop switching (although the paste-into-sticky-note thing is spiffy, too, I'll admit that).
  
  "Add Widgets" list and Adept: Couldn't the widgets/packages be sorted in some manner? (Alphabetically?)
  
  Desktop Theme Details control panel: Mixing & matching bits of different themes just doesn't seem to work for me. I don't know if this is a bug. Also, I wish the translucent bits could be made a little less translucent. Things can get hard to read, what with everything else shining through.
  
  There's probably more. It's nothing terribly dramatic, just a little awkward at times. I've also noticed many bugfixes over the past upgrades from 4.early to 4.3 RC2. And nothing got worse *g*
31. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by AceofSpades19 · 2009-07-13 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  I could stick any version number on any piece of software, the version number doesn't matter. I could give the program a version number of 3.14 and it could be alpha quality. The package maintainers should have at least read the giant sign posted on the website saying its not ready for end users, yet they still put it in the distros as a main DE.
32. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by TheTurtlesMoves · 2009-07-13 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  Slackware current 64 bit. Its not a release version yet.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
33. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by haifastudent · 2009-07-14 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  OK..... heres my first problem.
  I have disable idiotic plamsaoid and returned to the NORMAL desktop interface.
  As much as I hated the new desktop at first, I really like it now. But to each his own, and since you can configure it how you like it, we will concentrate on the other matters.
  
  I have disabled the $!^$!%!^% dolphin and Konqi is now the file manager.... How the ^&%#^&@!%$!@^& I am supposed to see the other drives etc. in my system!????!!!!?
  I really don't know! Have you tried asking on the KDE mailing list? Below...
  
  Please don't tell me its under places! ITS IS NOT &*!^#&*@!^#&*!^ THERE!
  The ONLY WAY to get Konqi to show these is to access them at least once via that !^&!$%!^&% dolphin and then they show via mount.
  I should be able to: media:/ in Konqi and see my drives!
  Please comment (calmly, not cursing like on /.) here:
  http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=200221
  
  So how do you do this ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
  Remember dolphin is out I hate it! Konqi is my browser and file manager, period.
  That is fine, Konqueror is still considered an official KDE file manager. Thank you for pointing out this issue, it will be taken care of.
  
  --
  Thank for reading to the sig. You may stop reading now. It is safe. There is no more content. Why are you still reading?
34. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by haifastudent · 2009-07-14 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  I am on KDE 4.3 RC2, so things may have been fixed from whatever KDE you were using. Which version have you? Can you test with KDE 4.3?
  > Konqueror: (1) Ctrl-C doesn't copy the selected text; I have to use the context menu.
  > This only seems to affect pages in frames.
  I cannot reproduce, and you point to a specific site?
  > (2) Websites seem to use the KDE-wide "View Background" colour as the default background:
  > this can lead to black text on a dark/black background. Decoupling the default website
  > background colour and the View Background colour would help.
  Again I cannot reproduce. What site, and what is your background colour setting?
  > Application launcher (classic, not Kickoff), "Computer" submenu: (1) displays storage media
  > along with Places under "Places", not under "Removable Storage" (which displays the Places
  > instead). (2) Both types of misplaced entry are dead to mouse clicks.
  Is this an English installation, or translated? I do not have that issue in neither my English nor Hebrew interfaces.
  > Kate: (1) I don't think the "Open Recent" list is working properly. (2) Sometimes cursor
  > colour = background colour, especially (exclusively?) after (highlighted?) braces and after
  > search or replace operations (which may also highlight text... hm).
  I don't have this issue, either! And I use Kate a lot.
  > KRunner/Quicksand: In the "Task oriented" interface mode, results are displayed in black no
  > matter the background colour.
  Which theme? I cannot reproduce this, either!
  > Windows List widget: Right-clicking an entry and picking "Move" or "Resize" just teleports the
  > pointer over to the respective window without going into move/resize mode. It works fine via the taskbar.
  I cannot find that widget, though I have seen it in the past. Again, I am useless!
  > PowerDevil: DPMS settings don't seem to take effect. Can use separate Display control,
  > though. (Haven't tested this on 4.3 RC2 yet.)
  I don't use those features, so I don't know. Sorry.
  > Kwin cube: With "hovering windows" activated, panels sometimes poke through or overlap windows
  > on rotate.
  I don't use those effects.
  > kded4: Sometimes this process jumps to about 50% CPU and stays there until I kill it. (May have
  > been fixed with the recent upgrade to 4.3 RC2, bit early to tell.)
  This sounds serious, please file a bug!
  > KNode: It seems the article composer has its own hardwired colour scheme, at least for quoted
  > text? That green isn't easy to read on a dark background. I can't figure out where (or how) to
  > change it.
  I don't use Knode, sorry.
  > Kwin cube/pager widget: Unbug. On switching desktops (but not on manual rotate), the cube
  > seems to try to adapt its layout to the pager's own 2D world. With a multi-row pager this can
  > lead to cube folding in on itself (though you're perfectly safe if you don't think about it).
  > Switching desktops: This is not a bug, either, but isn't there a way to turn off the huge
  > you've-just-switched-desktops "OSD" that pops up every time? It tends to blot out part of
  > the app I want to see instead.
  Ask on the KDe list, I use a single desktop (Windows refugee).
  > Panels: This is not necessarily a bug, but panels don't always seem to shrink or expand with
  > the contents (say, a growing task bar).
  I have noticed this, too, even in KDE 4.3 RC2. I think it is a bug, I will file.
  > Desktop: This is not a bug, but I really wish I could pop up a launcher menu with a middle click
  > AND a window list with a right click AND use the wheel to switch desktops. All at the same time,
  > too. As it is I can either have just the window list or just the desktop switching (although the
  > paste-into-sticky-note thing is spiffy, too, I'll admit that).
  You'll have to file that feature request yourself, it
  
  --
  Thank for reading to the sig. You may stop reading now. It is safe. There is no more content. Why are you still reading?
35. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by quippe · 2009-07-14 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  From what I've heard EVERYTHING is a bit slow and buggy on Fedora these days. *duck*
  You'd be surprisingly glad with more testing, and less listening. As a side note, there was recently an interesting FESCo meeting in which, among other things, they decided whether to make gnome the default desktop live spin, or if the choice had to be left to the "ignorant masses". Obviously, the decision degenerated in the following fedora-devel-list thread, in which the never ending flamewar we are reading about here returns, in yet another flavour
36. Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase by Bambi+Dee · 2009-07-15 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  > I am on KDE 4.3 RC2, so things may have been fixed from whatever KDE you were using. Which
  > version have you? Can you test with KDE 4.3?
  I'm using 4.2.96 (4.3 RC2) as packaged for Kubuntu 9.04.
  > > Konqueror: (1) Ctrl-C doesn't copy the selected text; I have to use the context menu.
  > > This only seems to affect pages in frames.
  >
  > I cannot reproduce, and you point to a specific site?
  Any site with frames (that I've tested):
  http://www.w3schools.com/HTML/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_frame_cols
  > > (2) Websites seem to use the KDE-wide "View Background" colour as the default background:
  > > this can lead to black text on a dark/black background. Decoupling the default website
  > > background colour and the View Background colour would help.
  >
  > Again I cannot reproduce. What site, and what is your background colour setting?
  Black or blackish. It probably affects any site that doesn't have a background colour of its
  own, for example:
  http://tldp.org/HOWTO/4mb-Laptops.html
  > > Application launcher (classic, not Kickoff), "Computer" submenu: (1) displays storage media
  > > along with Places under "Places", not under "Removable Storage" (which displays the Places
  > > instead). (2) Both types of misplaced entry are dead to mouse clicks.
  >
  > Is this an English installation, or translated? I do not have that issue in neither my English nor
  > Hebrew interfaces.
  English. The equivalent tab in the Kickoff menu works, by the way.
  > > Kate: (1) I don't think the "Open Recent" list is working properly. (2) Sometimes cursor
  > > colour = background colour, especially (exclusively?) after (highlighted?) braces and after
  > > search or replace operations (which may also highlight text... hm).
  >
  > I don't have this issue, either! And I use Kate a lot.
  Hm again. I've seen complaints about both (1) and (2) before, so it's not just me... black background
  again; it's possible the cursor turns black rather than background-coloured.
  > > KRunner/Quicksand: In the "Task oriented" interface mode, results are displayed in black no
  > > matter the background colour.
  >
  > Which theme? I cannot reproduce this, either!
  Any theme I've tried! The results list box that pops up to the right of the main search box always uses
  the "View Background" colour (black, unsurprisingly) with black text (except for the highlighted entry).
  "Command oriented" mode has readable text, although I don't understand its autocomplete function.
  I type "fetc", it completes "fetchmail" and puts the cursor at the end of it, but I still have to type
  "fetchmail" before "Run fetchmail" appears below.
  > > Windows List widget: Right-clicking an entry and picking "Move" or "Resize" just teleports the
  > > pointer over to the respective window without going into move/resize mode. It works fine via the taskbar.
  >
  > I cannot find that widget, though I have seen it in the past. Again, I am useless!
  >
  > > PowerDevil: DPMS settings don't seem to take effect. Can use separate Display control,
  > > though. (Haven't tested this on 4.3 RC2 yet.)
  >
  > I don't use those features, so I don't know. Sorry.
  >
  > > Kwin cube: With "hovering windows" activated, panels sometimes poke through or overlap windows
  > > on rotate.
  >
  > I don't use those effects.
  >
  > > kded4: Sometimes this process jumps to about 50% CPU and stays there until I kill it. (May have
  > > been fixed with the recent upgrade to 4.3 RC2, bit early to tell.)
  >
  > This sounds serious, please file a bug!
  There's this: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi
Yay! Fixing 100 Paper Cuts! by ziggamon2.0 · 2009-07-12 21:20 · Score: 4, Informative

So, it finally happened! A major effort by a distro to fix one hundred really small but irritating bugs. Also known as polish. This is what Ubuntu needs, and to be fair has been quite good at. Just fixing more and more of the tiny annoyances is what creates a well-rounded desktop. On the other hand, they are introducing Gnome Shell, which while probably cool, will certainly introduce a couple of hundred new paper cuts!

https://launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts
1. Re:Yay! Fixing 100 Paper Cuts! by gbarules2999 · 2009-07-13 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Gnome Shell is very simple. All of the "paper cuts" they're fixing should stay as they migrate. If the shell stays simple like the pre-release version I tested, you can bet Linux will have the GUI to watch out for.
2. Re:Yay! Fixing 100 Paper Cuts! by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2009-07-13 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  I do like that each release is better than the last... except after upgrading I also find a bunch of things that have been broken. Like for example, Jaunty doesn't like my camera (Kodak C330 I think) - why? - dunno, but for obvious reasons, it's a bit inconvenient to say the least!
3. Re:Yay! Fixing 100 Paper Cuts! by TheModelEskimo · 2009-07-13 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I submitted an annoying, but not critical, bug to 100 papercuts and someone submitted a fix within 12 hours. Within another week all the upstream/admin stuff was sorted and the fix was ready to go. Pretty amazing - I hope they do this again in the future. Seems like the Ubuntu team have a talent for shrugging off whatever problems critics attach to them.
4. Re:Yay! Fixing 100 Paper Cuts! by jawahar · 2009-07-13 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think giving $1 to fix 1 bug will motivate programmers to roll-out better usable FOSS.
  
  --
  Slashdot = Sarcasm
5. Re:Yay! Fixing 100 Paper Cuts! by artson · 2009-07-14 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  "Just fixing more and more of the tiny annoyances is what creates a well-rounded desktop."
  So every year there is the plaintive hope that finally, this year, linux will capture a decent share of the desktop market. Every year most of the distros and notably Ubuntu, totally ignore the dial-up portion of their potential customers. This year, same thing. Their live CD could have included gnome-ppp, to allow potential customers to reach the internet, but it didn't.
  May they sink without a trace.
  
  --
  In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS by RotateLeftByte · 2009-07-12 21:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not a Ubuntu advocate (more of a Fedora/RHEL person really) but if the well documented problems with KDE 4 are anything to go by then including Gnome 3 in the next LTS release of Ubuntu would be IMHO a big mistake.
An LTS release deserves to be of the highest quality from Day 1. To me it would be madness to base an LTS release on anything Gnome 3.0.
IMHO an Ubuntu LTS release whould be the desktop equivalent to RHEL or SLED in terms of stability. If it is not then you have shot yourselves in the foot. If this means being conservative in package selection then so be it.

--
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
1. Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS by Norsefire · 2009-07-12 21:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Long Time Service release. They have to support it for 4 years, fixing bugs, preventing security problems etc. That would be more difficult to do if the LTS ships with Gnome 2 but Gnome 2 isn't being actively supported by its developers (who are working on Gnome 3).
2. Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS by FrostDust · 2009-07-12 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  Beyond stability, also consider the category of the release, "Long-Term Support." Not nessicarily "most stable," but "most usable for the next five years," is what is being prioritized.
  If you remember back to last year, there was debate over whether it was right to put Firefox 3 Alpha in the 8.04 LTS. The few holdouts still using Firefox 2 seem to mostly be people who dislike the awesome bar; even Mozilla's dropped support for Firefox 2 last year. Imagine if Canonical had kept with the "more stable" version of Firefox, they'd have to support FF 2 until 2013.
  While stability is important in an LTS, it is also foward-looking, trying to predict the future of open-source software a few years down the road.
3. Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS by RotateLeftByte · 2009-07-12 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  The same metrics will apply to RHEL 6. If this comes out in the same timefram as the next Ubuntu LTS then I would be willing to bet that they won't include Gnome 3.0 in release.
  RHEL 5 has a service/support life of 7 years so RedHat are in the same boat and manage quite well to keep support going.
  If Canonical are going to get into long term support on a serious basis then they need to adopt the same sort of conservatism in package selection as RedHat do. Perhaps getting burnt by Gnome 3 might be a lesson worth learning in the long term but I certainly would not want to be one of their paid for support customers.
  Ok, this is very much crystal ball gazing but if you can't learn from your and others mistakes then don't even try. KDE 4.0 was released and picked up by various Distros with the consequences we all know about. All I'm saying is please Canonical, be careful about using Gnome 3.0 in the next LTS release.
  
  --
  I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
4. Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS by RiotingPacifist · 2009-07-12 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes you just have to suck it up and do the work, distros maintain stuff, thats what they do! The problem with kde4 is at the time canonial only had a couple of dedicated kubuntu devlopers so couldn't do kde3 and kde4, with gnome this isn't the case and they will likely support both 2 & 3 for a while
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
5. Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS by jonasj · 2009-07-13 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  It was a beta, not an alpha.
  
  --
  You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
6. Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS by Abcd1234 · 2009-07-13 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a Ubuntu advocate (more of a Fedora/RHEL person really) but if the well documented problems with KDE 4 are anything to go by then including Gnome 3 in the next LTS release of Ubuntu would be IMHO a big mistake.
  Why? Because you assume the Gnome developers are as hideous at project management and release planning as the KDE developers?
  Gnome 3.0 will almost certainly have it's issues. All software does, no matter what the minor release number is. But somethings tells me it won't be the quite literally half-finished bugfest that was KDE 4.0.
GTK by Haiyadragon · 2009-07-12 21:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, GTK+ is due for an overhaul. Fix the damn file picker. Get rid of all that excessive padding, maybe by making it themeable. Some consistency in menuitem dimensions would be nice.
Also, either give Metacity some features, at least the bare essentials, or switch to another window manager. That non-optional minimize effect is cringe worthy.
1. Re:GTK by Homburg · 2009-07-12 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus, the GTK file picker is not what people should be spending time on - it's already much, much better than the file picker in any other GUI framework.
2. Re:GTK by marcansoft · 2009-07-12 22:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The GTK file picker is quite possibly the worst file picker I have ever seen. Even Windows 3.1's crappy stuff was better - it might not support long filenames, but at least it didn't require one extra click in order to do anything useful.
  Seriously, "browse for other folders"? I still maintain that the genius who thought that up needs to be shot.
3. Re:GTK by IBBoard · 2009-07-12 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like it's a big divide. Personally I much prefer the Gnome file picker over any other, but it has been ages (seems like years) since I last had to use "browse for other folders". No, that's not because I only ever dump stuff in a single folder, that's just because it's always expanded on my machines. I've got a couple of QT apps installed on my home machine and the file picker in their feels like a big step backwards to the old Windows days. The "places" and the cookie crumb for location can be very useful.
4. Re:GTK by ultrabot · 2009-07-12 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like it's a big divide. Personally I much prefer the Gnome file picker over any other, but it has been ages (seems like years) since I last had to use "browse for other folders". No, that's not because I only ever dump stuff in a single folder, that's just because it's always expanded on my machines. I've got a couple of QT apps installed on my home machine and the file picker in their feels like a big step backwards to the old Windows days. The "places" and the cookie crumb for location can be very useful.
  If you have Jaunty and Gnome, the Qt apps (not KDE apps) use the Gtk file dialog by default. Try it out.
  
  --
  Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
5. Re:GTK by qupada · 2009-07-12 22:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  People who modded this troll really need to stop and think about it - parent is just about spot on. The look and feel of the vast majority of GTK apps is frankly awful.
  
  Some consistency in menuitem dimensions would be nice.
  Now admittedly maybe this only manifests when you're using small interface fonts (I'm using 7pt here, for reference). Taking GIMP's menus as an example, menu items with images are significantly larger than ones without - a full 25% larger (20 vs 16 px). I don't have a huge number of gtk apps on my system to check this in, but inkscape and wireshark seem to have the same issue.
  
  Fix the damn file picker.
  This is a pet peeve of mine too. Bearing a striking resemblance to one I remember from Apple Mac systems pre colour monitors, the current design of the filepicker was in no way an improvement.
  For some reason or another the "location" text field is hidden by default (and even when shown, is oddly not populated by default with the path to the current directory). What could have been useful breadcrumb-style navigation buttons were added, except all but the one representing the current directory is hidden until you click a different button (this is despite there being the entire width of the file picker for them to fill). The lack of switchable view modes in the file listing is mystifying, it seems to display "thumbnails" of images when browsing, but it doesn't seem to be possible to make those thumbnails any bigger than 16x16px.
  
  That non-optional minimize effect is cringe worthy.
  Also the effect that draws big bold black rectangles on your screen to indicate the borders of hidden windows while alt-tabbing. Something regrettably KDE copied. I don't need this, if I wanted to waste my time with annoying and ultimately useless visual effects I'd install compiz.
  In reality, once it has become difficult or event impossible to make the system behave in a manner conducive to it actually being useful for anything, it's time to look elsewhere. As I often have to remind people, just because they are happy with the default settings doesn't mean everyone will be.
6. Re:GTK by Haiyadragon · 2009-07-12 23:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Picking a directory is tedious and unintuitive. When I just click the OK button to pick the current directory, nothing happens. I have to click an empty space in the directory, to 'select it', first. When I use the crumbtrail to navigate to a parent directory, it automatically selects the child directory I just came from. When I click OK does it pick the current directory, or the selected directory? Who knows. When I open the file picker later it always opens in the parent directory of the previously picked one. Why in the parent?
  There are many usability problems with the current file picker.
7. Re:GTK by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-13 00:05 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  No you're wrong : he deserves being forced to watch his relatives being beaten up to death, and then, being reduced into pulp, mixed up with swine shit, and finally sprayed onto him, just before he is impaled.
  That is what this "genius" really deserves.
  But if he's also responsible for the spatial-cake, or spatial-mode, don't remember how those gnomolians exactly call it, I'm clueless as how to punish him brutally enough for his crimes.
8. Re:GTK by IBBoard · 2009-07-13 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Is that not a Qt4 thing, the same as them looking completely native with other widgets? I've got some Qt4 apps, but others are still Qt3 and aren't likely to update soon. And that's all in openSuse rather than any version of Ubuntu ;)
9. Re:GTK by street_astrologist · 2009-07-13 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  I have to click an empty space in the directory, to 'select it', first. When I use the crumbtrail to navigate to a parent directory, it automatically selects the child directory I just came from. When I click OK does it pick the current directory, or the selected directory? Who knows. When I open the file picker later it always opens in the parent directory of the previously picked one. Why in the parent?
  There are many usability problems with the current file picker.
  This exactly describes my main beef with the Gnome file chooser. It's ridiculously awkward when actually working with file-intensive applications.
10. Re:GTK by IBBoard · 2009-07-13 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  When I just click the OK button to use the current directory, it uses the current directory.
  When I use the crumbtrail to navigate to a parent directory then yes the old directory is still selected, but it saves it in that parent directory (so bad feedback, but the behaviour is as expected).
  When I open the file picker later it always seems to open the same directory, not its parent. Some of the Qt apps I use always default back to ~/. My guess is that's apps as much as the UI, as I've done similar work in WinForms UIs and know exactly how you could trigger it.
  I think you're using a slightly broken version of the file picker ;)
11. Re:GTK by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2009-07-13 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Fix the damn file picker.
  Don't forget that if you have more than about 100 files or so, the file picker slows to a crawl and literally takes about a second or so to display its contents. That has gotten a little better with recent releases, it used to take tens of seconds. It's still so terrible though that in firefox I usually switch back to the native file picker and stop using the gtk one because at least that one is fast. (Instructions here.)
  
  --
  Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
12. Re:GTK by Haiyadragon · 2009-07-13 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  File-roller, completely up-to-date. But I've had similar experiences with other GTK+ applications. Shouldn't the widget behave the same for all applications?
  The kde file picker has none of these problems.
13. Re:GTK by Quantumstate · 2009-07-13 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Your argument would be valid if the file picker did not remember than you clicked browse for other folders. But it does remember, at least on my current Ubuntu 9.04 system. So it is one extra click once which is rather insignificant since I seem to have used the file picker hundreds of times since then. I personally find I much prefer it to the windows file picker which makes it hard to jump to a different location with that annoying dropdown menu.
14. Re:GTK by IBBoard · 2009-07-13 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'd expect behaviour when using to be the same, but behaviour on first opening is down to the application. If the app sets the properties wrong then the wrong folder may be selected (e.g. the parent folder thing).
  As for the KDE file picker, the only times I've ever used it then it's been adequate but nothing amazing - much like Windows, which does just barely enough and nothing more.
15. Re:GTK by zsau · 2009-07-13 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  All file pickers are idiotic and stupid, and they all always default to the wrong folder. Gtk's has one redeeming feature not found in Windows (I'm not familiar enough with any other system's).If you already have a folder you want to go to open in another window (e.g. file manager), you can drag and drop the file/folder from there to the filepicker, and it selects that file/folder.
  Since that feature's been around/I've known of it, there's no other feature I've ever wanted in a file picker. Just that, and a box to type the name of a file in for saving. If you often have the folder your working in open in a file manager, you might find working like this is not only a life saver, but much better then anything else you've been missing. (If you don't, it's probably useless, and I'm not saying they shouldn't improve the filepicker --- just that I haven't noticed whether it's deficient since I've done it this way, and it might be compatible with your working style too.)
  
  --
  Look out!
16. Re:GTK by aztracker1 · 2009-07-13 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of those things I really think that Vista/Win7 got right. It's the first file explorer/picker that I actually prefer since NT4+IE4/Win2k. I don't care for OSX's file manager/picker myself, and KDEs isn't bad, but just not to my taste. The XP, Gnome 1-2, and others aren't what I want. I like a simple list view, with options to hot-switch to a set of common/favorite folders, and Vista/win7's navigation bar work well.
  I know there are a lot of people who hate anything copied from somewhere else, especially windows, but sometimes people get things right, and it's good to reuse those concepts. Though something skinable would be good too.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
17. Re:GTK by TheModelEskimo · 2009-07-13 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  >Get rid of all that excessive padding
  
  Please, be careful about this one. I am a graphic designer, and have taught graphic design, and what you call "padding" is one of the things that GNOME does right. Making it adjustable is fine, but most FOSS and FOSS-related websites are ridiculed by designer-types for exactly the reason that they ignore the principle of white space.
18. Re:GTK by spitzak · 2009-07-13 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Damn right they should fix Metacity, or replace it.
  In particular, fix the "don't raise windows on click" option. Currently you can get it in this mode, but that causes it to ignore raises made by the application itself!!! Those idiots then say "not a bug" because they have some bogus excuse that raises from the app should always be ignored, but that is obviously bogus because they pay attention to them when the "don't raise on click" is off!
  They also need to realize that working point-to-type and dont-raise-on-click is probably the one area where Linux desktops are vastly superior to Windows and OS/X. Instead they seem intent on breaking it as much as possible.
19. Re:GTK by westyvw · 2009-07-14 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  At least QT gets single click right. Double click pfft. What is this 1987?
20. Re:GTK by IBBoard · 2009-07-14 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  At least GTK does things properly and doesn't leave you accidentally opening something when you meant to select it or accidentally selecting something by hovering over it ;)
GNOME 3's solution for files and folders by Homburg · 2009-07-12 22:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm suprised Shuttleworth didn't mention Zeitgeist, which is a solution to the difficulty of manually managing files and folders and is, as I understand it, being considered for inclusion in GNOME 3. The basic idea is to group files (and other activities, like web bookmarks and email contents) automatically according to human-relevant criteria, like "edited last week" or "related to this document I'm writing." It's still very much a work in progress, but it looks like it could be pretty great.
1. Re:GNOME 3's solution for files and folders by Nerdfest · 2009-07-12 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ignoring good opportunities seems to be a Linux tradition. (In the marketing sense, not the technical sense). I think big inroads could have been made with netbooks with a bit of advertising.
2. Re:GNOME 3's solution for files and folders by sammyF70 · 2009-07-12 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  paid by whom?
  
  --
  "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
3. Re:GNOME 3's solution for files and folders by reallyjoel · 2009-07-12 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. When are people going to realize that the slow uptake of Linux or other free software has nothing to do with quailty, and everything, absolutely everything, to do with marketing? No year will ever be the 'year of Linux'.
4. Re:GNOME 3's solution for files and folders by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-13 01:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What's it with this "i am too stupid to put a file in a folder, and therefore it is too difficult" "philosophy"?
  I have tested every single one of those "automatic" and "intelligent" file management methods, and they always resulted in massive chaos, that was never the case with simple file systems and soft links. The problem was, that you could never be sure if a file was completely gone, in what "folders/categories/tags/whatevers" is still existed, sometimes moving files was a major hassle, and sometimes it was completely impossible to organize the files in they way I wanted (and always did with normal files and folders), because those "intelligent" methods were way to stupid, simple, and yet overly complicated. Or in other words: They had the elegance of a hillbilly Godzilla in high heels, stumbling down a red carpet at the Oscars.
  If you want to make it actually better, create an ontology. Make it a semantic system. Just let it be elegant, clean and efficient at the core. And then add a properly fitting new UI concept to it, that completely throws the old models and analog-analogies away.
  Then you will get a system that makes sense.
  I still wait for someone doing such an ontology right.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
5. Re:GNOME 3's solution for files and folders by ThatsNotPudding · 2009-07-17 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  From the link:
  
  Dataproviders: ...Tomboy Notes...
  Nevermind, Miguel
Re:Gnome, eh ? by MrNaz · 2009-07-12 22:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Feeding the troll, I know, but Google Chrome is not using Gnome or KDE because GC is designed to be a minimum functionality netbook distro, not a fully functional desktop. It may *become* a fully functional desktop, if Google is able/willing to take development that far, but whether Google's sprawling managerial structure will be able to concentrate the resources on that one project given their entrenched resource allocation tradition of "spread wide, spread thin" is something I don't think will happen in the near future.

--
I hate printers.
No need to be catty by LKM · 2009-07-12 22:16 · Score: 1

To most people, hierarchies are confusing. They work for programmers and technical people (the people who visit /. obviously understand hierarchies, otherwise they would be confused by /.'s comment system), but most people don't get hierarchies. My parents store all of their files into a single folder. Most people do that. Humans look at their environment in terms of spatial and temporal aspects. Humans understand where things are in space, and when things are in time. I've written a letter yesterday. I've put the printout next to the phone. Those are things people get.
But they don't get hierarchies, because hierarchies don't exist in nature.
There's no need to be catty or insulting about this. You're not like everybody else, and the fact that other people have different strengths doesn't make them idiots.
1. Re:No need to be catty by fractoid · 2009-07-12 23:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But they don't get hierarchies, because hierarchies don't exist in nature.
  I'd have to disagree with you here. The very words we use to describe hierarchies come from nature - look at 'trunk' / 'branch' / 'leaf', 'parent' / 'child', 'master' / 'slave'. Maybe they don't instantly, intuitively get the idea when it's used as a metaphor, but that's partly vocabulary. They'll get it quickly enough if you explain to them that a 'folder' or 'directory' is a box, and a 'file' is a bit of paper that you can write on, and you can put either paper or boxes in any box.
  
  If they don't 'get it' when it's explained that simply, then they're below the mental cutoff for that level of abstract thought. Many people (for instance) struggle to execute a sequence of simple instructions, and cannot solve even simple logic problems. They literally don't have the mental machinery required to visualise three different entities and the relationships between them, "A is next to B and B contains C". I'm not saying they're 'idiots' or that they're worthless, they just don't have abstract thought among their strengths.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
2. Re:No need to be catty by LKM · 2009-07-12 23:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A branch in real life is not part of a hierarchy. It's just a piece of wood attached to a tree; it's not contained in the tree in any way.
  And no, explaining doesn't fix this problem. People know how hierarchies work; they just don't get them. They are not sure how to properly categorize things, and if they decide on a given hierarchy, later, they won't remember where they decided to put things because there's no naturally correct way of categorizing files. There's no obvious taxonomy; the problem becomes even worse when people have to use hierarchies created by other people.
  The only time I've seen "normal" people successfully use hierarchies is when they created directories for years; every year got a new directory. But that's something that shouldn't require hierarchies; the OS should allow users to have temporal views on their data automatically.
  As for alternatives, tagging is easier to understand since it gets rid of the whole hierarchy aspect, and since people can just add as many tags as they want to.
3. Re:No need to be catty by Canazza · 2009-07-12 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  The trunk of a tree has large branches coming off it. Each branch has a number of smaller twigs coming off it, on the twigs, there are a number of leaves.
  The moon goes round the Earth, the Earth go around the Sun. The Sun in turn goes around the Galactic center
  Hierarchy's exist in nature if you look for them...
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
4. Re:No need to be catty by g2devi · 2009-07-12 23:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually, hierarchies really don't exist in nature. They *almost* fit how things work in nature, but every once and a while someone throws in multiple inheritance like the platypus, or someone who is both a "Student" and an "Employee", or in the family hierarchy someone will throw in a redneck or Polynesian population to gun the works. It's even worse. Sometimes, things that you thought were part of the hierarchy (e.g. in the animal kingdom, has wings versus doesn't have wings) really should be attributes since wings are "reinvented" many times in nature. Similarly, some things that used to be attributes, such as having a certain set of gene sequences at a certain locations with a certain functions, really need to be part of the hierarchy rather than the attributes. It's one reason why Ontologies are defined in declarative languages like OWL rather than a more logical hierarchal structured language.
5. Re:No need to be catty by m.ducharme · 2009-07-13 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  If they don't 'get it' when it's explained that simply, then they're below the mental cutoff for that level of abstract thought.
  Sorry, this isn't a sufficient explanation. Many professional-level people have extraordinary difficulty understanding anything to do with computers, and certainly can't comprehend the finer points of file/directory systems, while maintaining very high levels of abstract thought. Doctors and lawyers in particular seem to be incapable of grasping even the most rudimentary computer, while being able to perform other reasoning tasks on the highest levels.
  The problem with many users isn't that they are incapable of understanding, it's that they don't care. Do you remember the proles in 1984, who were illiterate or semi-literate, but could carry in their minds vast tables of winning lottery numbers, and do odds calculations in their heads? If you're emotionally invested in understanding something, you will understand it better than if it's a matter of indifference to you.
  This is not to say that there aren't plenty of users incapable of understanding the basics of computing, but I would wager that a significant number of users are fully capable of that level of understanding, but don't give a shit.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
6. Re:No need to be catty by fractoid · 2009-07-13 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Doctors and lawyers in particular seem to be incapable of grasping even the most rudimentary computer, while being able to perform other reasoning tasks on the highest levels.
  You can't tell me doctors don't comprehend "the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone, both thigh bones are connected to the hip bone".
  
  Any tree structure is a hierarchy. Not just nature, but every single profession I can think of, contains the concept of tree structures and hence hierarchy and inheritance.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
7. Re:No need to be catty by m.ducharme · 2009-07-13 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, they comprehend those things in relation to the body, but apply the same reasoning to a directory tree, and many of them will look at you, smile and say "I get it." And two days later you'll have to explain it again. Because they don't care. They want the thing to work, so they can get busy seeing patients.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
8. Re:No need to be catty by fractoid · 2009-07-13 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it's like the way that they'll explain carefully how some bipolar disorder medicines work because they're serotonin reuptake inhibitor antagonists. And we smile and nod and say "so they stop Suzy from going hyper and insisting that we eat the coffee machine with chopsticks... right, I get it". ;)
  
  They're quite capable of understanding, they just can't be bothered. That's reasonable given that it's really not important to them to perform their function. I guess that's what sets us geeks apart - we care about how EVERYTHING works, within (or sometimes not) reason.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
9. Re:No need to be catty by fractoid · 2009-07-13 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken with the ignorance and arrogance of youth, I guess? I've seen several well-educated, smart people struggle with the concept of directories containing directories... It is a very natural, or at least easy, idea to me but it wasn't to them.
  Your "ad annus numerus" doesn't address the statement at hand. The ability to deal with abstract entities and relationships between them is fundamental to abstract thought. If someone is 'smart' in any reasonable sense, and they're having trouble with the concept of nested containers, then they haven't had it explained well enough.
  
  You're of course free to think of these people as "not capable of abstract thought" but my experience says you would be really, really wrong.
  If they're not capable of understanding and mentally manipulating an abstracted representation of the real world, then they're not capable of abstract thought, by definition. It doesn't mean they're not intelligent in other ways, as I've taken some pains to point out.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
10. Re:No need to be catty by FrankieBaby1986 · 2009-07-13 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Humans understand where things are in space, and when things are in time.
  I remember from years ago (win98 days i think), a program that would make your desktop a 3D box room and your files where icons that you could move around the room and move in the z axis. you could rotate your view around the room, and have other kinds of objects in the room. Thus, you could put all your text files in one corner, jpegs in another, etc.
  
  It was gimmicky, but interesting.
  
  --
  ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
11. Re:No need to be catty by LKM · 2009-07-14 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  They're quite capable of understanding, they just can't be bothered. That's reasonable given that it's really not important to them to perform their function. I guess that's what sets us geeks apart - we care about how EVERYTHING works, within (or sometimes not) reason.
  Yeah, that may be the main difference between us and normal people.
12. Re:No need to be catty by LKM · 2009-07-14 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  We use hierarchies to explain these things, but really, they're not there in the real world. It's just a bunch of things floating through space; they are not really contained within each other until we start creating hierarchies to explain them.
13. Re:No need to be catty by LKM · 2009-07-14 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, there are a lot of interesting spatial user interfaces. Personally, I think 3D interfaces are not too great because they reduce three spatial dimensions into two screen dimensions, and most people not used to videogames get confused by that. But there are cool 2D spatial interfaces, like Microsoft's Canvas for OneNote.
Re:mod parent up by RiotingPacifist · 2009-07-12 22:51 · Score: 1

Nice troll, but chromeOS is also ditching fluxbox! and i bet you can't justify your hatred of X either! I'll give you PulseAudio, expanding/improving alsa would have been a better call, but AFAIK neither you nor I are good enough to do the actual development of audiosubsystems, those that are got to make the call.

--
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
GNOME 3.0 sneak preview by a09bdb811a · 2009-07-12 22:54 · Score: 5, Funny

You login, which you don't actually have to do anymore because it was too complicated, and you're presented with a fullscreen dialog box that says:
"You are too fucking stupid to use this computer. You don't understand files and folders and things. Click OK to shutdown your computer. Your computer will shutdown in 28 seconds anyway, because you're probably too stupid to work the mouse. That's the thing underneath your hand. What? That's the thing attached to your arm. Ah, fuck it. 20 seconds."
That's pretty much the entire GNOME 3.0 experience. The dialog box has been in development for the last 18 months, but obviously there's still a lot of usability testing left to do, mostly by Redhat and Canonical "engineers". The OK button logic was originally written in C but they've redone that in C# running on Mono, and Miguel de Icaza is already calling the work "superb".
Meanwhile, the KDE people have been busy readying the next batch of widgets that you will never add to your exciting K desktop experience.
Future plans for GNOME involve reducing the 3.0 dialog box down to a single pixel, then translating the status of that pixel into the power LED on your computer. This will remove the need for a display, further simplying the desktop experience and reducing enterprise costs. KDE plans to turn its entire desktop into a widget of itself, allowing you to remove it entirely with a single right-click.
Yes, my friends: the future of the Linux desktop is no more fucking Linux desktop. What a relief.
1. Re:GNOME 3.0 sneak preview by Norsefire · 2009-07-12 23:31 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  ... and it will still be better than Windows.
2. Re:GNOME 3.0 sneak preview by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-13 01:55 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  This is due to the technologies under both desktops.
  On GNOME, the productivity is very low. No, let's be honest, there is no such things as productivity when developing on GNOME. So developers tends to plan carefully any features and try to do the minimum required feature set to minimize the pain of coding. The guys of GNOME need to drop GTK, stop digging their grave with Mono, and move toward more flexibility for the development.
  On KDE, the flexibility is high. So developers tends to code every feature they can imagine. In the end, we have 50% of totally useless features in each releases of KDE.
  The guys of KDE need to admit when an idea was wrong and just drop the code. KDE 4 could be made much better just by dropping features...
3. Re:GNOME 3.0 sneak preview by MadFarmAnimalz · 2009-07-13 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Rarely is this troll topical...
  
  --
  Blearf. Blearf, I say.
(OT) smart systems that suck: Wolfram Alpha. by quadrox · 2009-07-12 22:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

you might enjoy this article (or perhaps you've already read it?): http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/wolfram-alpha-and-hubristic-user.html
I know I did.
1. Re:(OT) smart systems that suck: Wolfram Alpha. by IBBoard · 2009-07-13 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Very good article, and I definitely agree with most of it. Things like the search in the Firefox "Fantasmical bar" are all well and good, but I don't always want to search and sometimes searching is less efficient. Unfortunately, my experience with the Firefox bar is similar to the comments in the article - someone comes up with what they think is a great new UI and because they know how it works then they assume it'll work for everyone in every situation and don't want to give it up or accept criticism of it.
Same on OS X/PPC by Ilgaz · 2009-07-12 23:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

I use that version on OS X, thanks to Fink project. While they don't promise any kind of 'final' version at this state, I can easily keep KDE 4 applications in my OS X Dock, using them instead of iTunes for example.
They are linked to actual OS X frameworks, down to Quicktime and very interestingly they use far less CPU and resources than regular OS X apps.
There are similar reports from Windows users who binary installed it and using Amarok 2 etc. right now. While on it, is there any reason why KDE 3.5 given up when KDE 4 installed? I keep using KDE 3.5 suite on OS X too. It doesn't conflict with anything at all including KDE 4.
I think what KDE 4 is and what a huge revolution it is will be understood in 1-2 years. For example when Nokia and other members of open source Symbian foundation starts using it in some form in their smart phones.
Re:Gnome is hopeless with leaders like this by nostriluu · 2009-07-13 00:13 · Score: 1

Speaking of which, no idea why using the editor was so painful (firefox 3) nor why this was posted anonymously. Go Slashdot. Happy Monday.
Delaying the RTS may not be the best idea... by joaobranco · 2009-07-13 00:16 · Score: 1

The idea of delaying the RTS release to 10.10 instead of 10.4 may not be the best one (although I can see the advantages of Ubuntu/Debian release synch).
The RTS is supported 3 years on the desktop,so if they make the next RTS 10.10, it will mean that the orgs that are running RTS will have just 6 months to upgrade to next RTS before the previous is EOLed. I know most people don't really care about that, but for large deployments, to force that kind of change schedule is not really nice.
Folders before windows by MancunianMaskMan · 2009-07-13 00:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wasn't the folder analogy part of GEM and MacOS, predating "Windows" by years?
Wouldn't surprise me if it goes back to xerox alto.
That doesn't mean that it's ultimately helpful, but it's so entrenched it seems harder tho change it than to fix it.
Re:Gnome 3.0? by gbarules2999 · 2009-07-13 00:20 · Score: 1

Vapourware? Dude, you can go and test the Gnome 3.0 prereleases right now. You'd be surprised how far along it all is.
Developers have the most influence over releases by deadkennedy · 2009-07-13 00:21 · Score: 1

Not necessarily related to the Ubuntu + Gnome topic, but in TFA, Shuttleworth makes a good point in noting that the developers hold the most sway in terms of release management. Also, developers aren't necessarily in touch with how their code is functional across all potential systems. Double-edged sword that I see quite often.
Gnome is hopeless with leaders like this by nostriluu · 2009-07-13 00:28 · Score: 1

It starts with calling design "art." Art is what you find in the Louvre, not the consistency of visual messaging on the desktop. Every once in a while they decide they're going to reinvent how desktops work. Well, we've all been dealing with their half baked reinventions for a long time. Things that mostly work but have strange bugs preventing you from doing essential stuff. Incomplete components, like the horrible default music players and photo viewers (you can't even view pictures by date). Companies like Apple and even Microsoft do a much better job of at least pushing out products that have all the essential features, and if they have some brilliant new idea it's there in full. I hate to say it, but these guys should stick to copying. Religiously copy the best features and low level functioning of Windows and Mac OS, including the best ideas of Linux predecessors. Because sticking to good designs is a much better choice for the end user, and when your brilliant journal mode break down, nobody wants to go into a creaky half functioning file browser. If they could really get the basic ideas, they might even be able to take them farther sometimes. But I'm not holding my breath.
don't laugh at the 18 month file dialog project by tjstork · 2009-07-13 00:37 · Score: 1

If you actually went through, every little single thing the file dialog in Windows 7 does, it might actually take 18 months to replicate all of that functionality, especially if it was in C.
But be that as it may, if Gnome decides to go and give me a bunch of b.s. about metaphorical problems and then ultimately clone the Windows 7 dialog but with some twist to make it somehow different, then, honestly, it would be an improvement over what they have now.

--
This is my sig.
Re:Developers have the most influence over release by tjstork · 2009-07-13 00:38 · Score: 1

makes a good point in noting that the developers hold the most sway in terms of release management.
Obviously you've never written financial software.... deadline... uh, ship it!!! I saw one guy release something that he never even ran...

--
This is my sig.
"folder" considered harmful by Kartoffel · 2009-07-13 00:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

MS-DOS has DIR command, not FOL. Can't blame the early DOS jockeys for this though, cause they just borrowed the convention from VMS.
At least this is one thing that MS, DEC and Unix can all agree on: "directory" is correct, and "folder" is dumb.
1. Re:"folder" considered harmful by value_added · 2009-07-13 02:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  MS-DOS has DIR command
  LOL. Speaking of consistency (or the lack thereof), consider the following Powershell commands and their respective aliases (I'm going by memory here so someone correct me if I'm incomplete):
  
  Get Child-Item (aliased to 'ls') Set-Location (aliased to 'cd' and 'chdir') New-Item c:\foo -type directory (no alias) New-Item c:\foo\file.txt -type file (no alias) Remove-Item (aliased to 'rmdir')
  
  The default aliases seem to include both DOS and *nix commands, and DOS (or some stench of it), seems to be alive and well despite being officially killed off when Win2000 was released.
  So, in the Microsoft world, we've gone from using 'directory' in DOS, to 'folder' in Windows, to 'Items', 'Locations' and '-type Directory' in PowerShell. No wonder everyone's confused. ;-)
2. Re:"folder" considered harmful by Kartoffel · 2009-07-13 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Amigas kept everything in 'drawers'. This is clearly the best system for storing hot grits.
3. Re:"folder" considered harmful by rliden · 2009-07-13 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  They're just aliases so people can use the terms they're comfortable with. Haven't you ever made your own custom aliases in Bash? It didn't invalidate the old ones. No one new using a system with custom aliases gets confused because they can still use the default terms they are used to. I love that Powershell makes these aliases for you. It makes using the shell on Windows much more comfortable for me.
  
  --
  Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
4. Re:"folder" considered harmful by value_added · 2009-07-13 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Amigas kept everything in 'drawers'. This is clearly the best system for storing hot grits.
  And even better if you're a 15yo girl in the US who already keeps her Ibuprophen there.
5. Re:"folder" considered harmful by derblack · 2009-07-13 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, on my workbench I got stuff done!
  On my desktop everything just clutters like on my real desk. Its' the future, *yay*
  
  --
  cat /dev/null > sig
Re:Gnome is hopeless with leaders like this by FudRucker · 2009-07-13 01:08 · Score: 1

sadly i have to agree, i love Linux, as a platform it is excellent (under the hood) but the desktop is a damn fustercluck the best/closest it ever got to makeing a usable desktop for granma and JoeSixPack was just retired = KDE-3.5.x which was not perfect but quite usable and was just starting to get a nice collection of third party apps (k3b, kmplayer, konversation, & others). kde-4.x is an abomination compared to kde-3.5.x.

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
correction by m.ducharme · 2009-07-13 01:42 · Score: 1

should be "even the most rudimentary computer concepts" and now I'm off to get more coffee

--
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Actually, they will. by Chibi+Merrow · 2009-07-13 02:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Linus did.

--
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
1. Re:Actually, they will. by bh_doc · 2009-07-13 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes he did, and we all know that a single data point proves a general trend.
2. Re:Actually, they will. by Chibi+Merrow · 2009-07-14 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  A single contradictory result does disprove a hypothesis, however.
  I could also point out that myself and the eight or so other people who are in my office that primarily use KDE either put off upgrading or switched to Gnome after my experiences with it, but no one would care.
  
  --
  Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
  Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Re:getting out what you got in... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-13 02:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, but the secretary has a measure of intelligence, a computer does not. She is able to adapt her methodology on-the-fly as the executive requires, a computer is not. That's why the secretary costs tens of thousands per year, and the computer costs only a thousand or so (plus electricity, Internet, etc). Until technology advances to a point where the computer is able to intuit the user's preferred methodology (instead of having a default and a number of possible alternatives buried in some option panel somewhere), we're going to have to learn to use a computer IT'S way. Which I don't think is such a bad thing. Just like a car, a modern computer is a very powerful tool, and should be used responsibly. And just like a car, that doesn't always pan out in real life, but that doesn't mean we should abandon an ethos of responsibility.
That's my guess, also. by Futurepower(R) · 2009-07-13 05:01 · Score: 1

That seems correct to me.

Mark Shuttleworth has been wonderful for Linux, but he has not shown the kind of intense leadership necessary to get the job done. You can see that even in the interview. Somehow he has allowed an interview to be published that has numerous grammatical and typing mistakes.

Also, the interview doesn't provide the expected information that would give an impression of sufficient leadership. Quote: "We delivered a couple of interesting things in Ubuntu 9.04, some of them are controversial, like the notification piece and the messaging menu. But I think in principle it's going well."

Notice also the poor use of language. "Couple" means two and doesn't fit with "some".

From the inside, participating in KDE, GNOME, and X.org may seem like a lot of fascinating fun to developers and technology enthusiasts. Frankly, from the outside Linux desktop development seems like it's moving very slowly. Linux has been a 6-step process for a lot of people: 1) Want to install Linux. 2) Get involved in a lot of time-consuming, self- and other-defeating debate over KDE and GNOME. 3) Make a choice. 4) Install Linux and discover that you can't set the proper resolution for your monitor. 5) Spend a lot of time learning the reasons why. 6) Decide to wait until the Linux desktop is more mature.

Years of that has been very bad publicity for Linux as a desktop OS.

In my opinion, finding some way to work around the present Linux desktop self-defeat is in the best interest of Google.
1. Re:That's my guess, also. by dave87656 · 2009-07-17 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  4) Install Linux and discover that you can't set the proper resolution for your monitor.
  Huh? I've never had any problem with Linux recognizing my monitors. I've got it on a netbook, laptop and two desktops at home and on 60 desktops of various sizes and manufacturers at work.
  I also had to reinstall a Windows laptop for a friend recently and was surprised at just how little hardware Windows recognizes. If you lose your manufacturer's restore disk with the drivers, you have to find them and download them from the internet. Window itself only recognized a VGA screen. You can waste a good weekend doing it.
For a true overview, read the comments. by Futurepower(R) · 2009-07-13 07:11 · Score: 1

Anyone doubting that the Linux desktop discussion is still very primitive can read the many, many comments below. Here are some:

GNOME 3.0 sneak preview (Score:5, Funny)

Gnome is hopeless with leaders like this. Quote: "Every once in a while they decide they're going to reinvent how desktops work. Well, we've all been dealing with their half baked reinventions for a long time. Things that mostly work but have strange bugs preventing you from doing essential stuff. Incomplete components, like the horrible default music players and photo viewers (you can't even view pictures by date)."

... let's be honest, there is no such things as productivity when developing on GNOME. Quote: "The guys of KDE need to admit when an idea was wrong and just drop the code."
Drop gnome and ms fan boi miguel! by rec9140 · 2009-07-13 07:16 · Score: 1

Until the main Ubununtu drops gnome and its ms fan boi miguel to the curb I will continue to look for and use alternatives that are KDE based, and no thats not the disaster that is kubunutu... I use Linux Mint KDE Version Elyssa (they've since drank the KDE4 koolaid, so I am looking for a replacement).
Also you need to drop the mono/moonlight crap from the distro too.

--
1311393600 - Back to Black
Hierarchical appropriateness depends on context by zooblethorpe · 2009-07-13 07:30 · Score: 1

A branch in real life is not part of a hierarchy. It's just a piece of wood attached to a tree; it's not contained in the tree in any way.
I think I get your point about hierarchies being a human cognitive construct, but a branch is a _part_ of a tree...?

People know how hierarchies work; they just don't get them. They are not sure how to properly categorize things, and if they decide on a given hierarchy, later, they won't remember where they decided to put things because there's no naturally correct way of categorizing files. There's no obvious taxonomy; the problem becomes even worse when people have to use hierarchies created by other people.
I would argue a slightly different angle. I think most folks do actually "get" the idea of hierarchies; I think the problem is more what you describe later in the paragraph: people are not sure how to properly categorize things ... there's no naturally correct way of categorizing files. There's no obvious taxonomy. And, for that matter, which hierarchy makes more sense depends on the context, further complicating the issue.
This is where systems closer to what we see with iTunes come to the fore -- you get different hierarchies as different contexts, all at the click of a button: by year, by album, by artist, alphabetically, what have you. Part of the difficulty in expanding this to be usable for a full filesystem, rather than just for media files, is that doing so expands the number of relevant contexts -- who created the file, who modified the file, versions, perms, file type, usage frequency, yada yada.

As for alternatives, tagging is easier to understand since it gets rid of the whole hierarchy aspect, and since people can just add as many tags as they want to.
I agree that tagging is infinitely easier -- but I would also argue that it doesn't remove the idea of hierarchies, but rather that it allows for more specific and flexible hierarchies -- which is still a good thing.
Cheers,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
1. Re:Hierarchical appropriateness depends on context by LKM · 2009-07-14 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  A branch in real life is not part of a hierarchy. It's just a piece of wood attached to a tree; it's not contained in the tree in any way.
  I think I get your point about hierarchies being a human cognitive construct, but a branch is a _part_ of a tree...?
  Yes, but I would say it's a different kind of "part of."
  A subdirectory is contained within its parent directory. A branch is not contained within its tree in the same way. You can't collapse a real-world tree, thus getting rid of all the branches; a real-world tree is not a hierarchical list of tree parts. A real-world tree is always a full tree, and every part of the tree has a clearly defined spatial position. For example, you can never get confused by where a tree's branch should be, because it's always obvious where it is; it never disappears into a taxonomy of tree parts. We can make up such a taxonomy and look at the real-world tree as a hierarchical structure, but only programmers and biologists do that :-)
  Thus, people can't apply their real-world knowledge of trees to virtual tree structures; even though we use the same words, they are vastly different things, and virtual tree structures require skills humans don't naturally acquire by studying real-world trees.
  
  I would argue a slightly different angle. I think most folks do actually "get" the idea of hierarchies; I think the problem is more what you describe later in the paragraph: people are not sure how to properly categorize things ... there's no naturally correct way of categorizing files. There's no obvious taxonomy. And, for that matter, which hierarchy makes more sense depends on the context, further complicating the issue.
  This is where systems closer to what we see with iTunes come to the fore -- you get different hierarchies as different contexts, all at the click of a button: by year, by album, by artist, alphabetically, what have you.
  Yes, that is true. But I would argue that the fact that this is shown as a hierarchy in iTunes is incidental. What you're really doing is applying more and more filters to your list. "I only want to see audiobooks... Okay, now I only want to see audiobooks written by Connelly... Okay, now I only want to see Audiobooks written by Connelly called "Black Echo".
  It's not obvious to the user that there is a hierarchy, and he doesn't have to worry about the hierarchy, and the hierarchy shown by iTunes is ephemeral. If the user started out with "I want to see everything written by Connelly", the hierarchy would look differently; as you say, it depends on context. That is different from the rigid type of hierarchy you find in a file system.
  So I will agree that users are capable of getting hierarchies used to filter down on metadata. I was overreaching when I said that users don't get hierarchies; in some cases, hierarchies are useful and easily understood by users.
  
  Part of the difficulty in expanding this to be usable for a full filesystem, rather than just for media files, is that doing so expands the number of relevant contexts -- who created the file, who modified the file, versions, perms, file type, usage frequency, yada yada.
  I believe operating systems should default to a temporal view instead of the current hierarchical view. Instead of putting files into a specific place inside a hierarchy, users should just create and save the file, and the operating system would display that view attached to the date it twas used, perhaps in a calendar view. In my experience, most people simply throw files into a single directory and sort by date anyway.
  All those other contexts - users, versions, types, "heat", tags - could be shown as filters, similar to what iTunes does.
  
  As for alternatives, tagging is easier to understand since it gets rid of the whole hierarchy
Icon hit-boxes by WML+MUNSON · 2009-07-13 10:00 · Score: 1

Will I be able to stop having to explain to my users what a 'hit-box' is when their drag-and-drop attempts result in two icons piled on top of each-other on the desktop?
They already did by melted · 2009-07-13 10:35 · Score: 1

>> KDE plans to turn its entire desktop into a widget of itself
They already did. In KDE4.
Files and Folders ... by DougReed · 2009-07-13 14:40 · Score: 1

Much of the problem is that the whole thing is BS. Microsoft, and Apple, and everyone except Commodore Amiga messed it up. On an Amiga, your desktop was the root of your file system. If you created a directory it showed up on your 'desktop'. If you opened a file browser the file was exactly where you put it! People are confused because their desktop makes no sense. If the analogy worked, people would not be confused. If a user opened a file browser and found the file right where they put it, there would be no confusion. Sadly ... and as an old school guy, this makes me cringe .. most of the world would have all kinds of garbage in their 'root' , but at least the analogy would work and would not be complete nonsense.
My father is pretty good with computers, but can never find anything because his desktop is in lost a bunch of directories south of 'C:\Documents and Settings'. As a technical guy, I would NEVER think to look for my desktop in a place called 'Documents and Settings'! So naturally my father has problems wrapping his brain around a concept that is completely arbitrary.
Re:Gnome 3.0? by segedunum · 2009-07-13 21:02 · Score: 1

Dude......... There is no Gnome 3.0 or GTK 3.0. What you have is Gnome 2.2 with some plasticine bits stuck on.
Re:Gnome 3.0? by segedunum · 2009-07-14 05:50 · Score: 1

Because there is no GTK 3.0 anywhere one the horizon anywhere. There is nothing to underping Gnome 3 other than a few existing projects added on to Gnome 2.2.
Re:Gnome, eh ? by dave87656 · 2009-07-17 18:36 · Score: 1

There are other problems with X that I think they wanted to solve as well. I read a list of these somewhere but I can't remember what they were. I do know that JavaFX has been delayed on Linux and Solaris for the same reasons.