It ain't software if it doesn't come with source code. How am I supposed to compile it? I'm not going to rely on something that in turn relies on proprietary platforms.
If the Ogg format has any drawbacks what so ever (relative unpopularity being one), you'll experience them, while simultaneously experiencing the drawbacks of mp3 (primarily crappy crappy sound).
It's lossy on lossy. Like viewing something through two filters simultaneously. Like rebroadcasting a movie from a homerecorded VHS-tape.
MP3 is a subset of a Motion Picture industry standard, thus it had industry backing.
Yeah, but it definitely wasn't pushed for audio-only applications and portable music players by it's original industry backers/creators.
if your company spend $100,000 and two years helping to develop a standard for low bandwidth audio, are you going to junk what you've done just because some amateurs come up with a really good way of doing it?
Yeah, I would. Why throw good money after bad?
If you're going to compete with a commodity, you have to be either:
better (in at least some (not necessarily all) aspects, be it freedom, sound quality or effectivity)
or evil/cynic enough to use advertising to push an inferior product.
On the other hand, maybe my fictious company could leverage these amateurs codec somehow? When the wind blows, the wise build windmills.
Thank you, but as you may have inferred from the sibling post, I meant something a bit less restricted. At the very least, source code and redistribution rights.
Don't bother replying about the degradation in quality; I didn't notice it, and I prefer the oggs anyway for other reasons.
As per your request, I won't reply about the degradation in quality, but I do hoped you marked the files as converted from mp3. (Maybe with a 'filename.mp3.ogg'-style suffix, as well as a comment.)
Not as easy as those who want to reach it want it to be. And it seems more than 50% want it easier to reach.
It also seems that a lot of those haven't actually used the thing, or if they did, they didn't find the "browse filesystem menu entry".
My reason for wanting the option in gconf is that I thing gconf is a place where there can be more advanced options than the dialogue, and I want to avoid a slippery slope.
I think I heard something about this debate leading to the option being added, so (if that's true) I guess the flamers won.
Imagine Gnome makes browser mode the default
It was the default and during that time, I didn't even use Nautilus.
But if the spatial interface was also available, without needing to go into gconf, just like the browser mode is today (and gconf was only needed to completely disable the browser mode), the analogy would be more correct. If that were the situation, would you want that option in the preferences?
The gconf option is for completely disabling one interface to the file manager. My hypothesis is "that opinionated = gconf-savvy".
I like gconf to have the more esoteric options and while this is a border case, I'm afraid of the slippery slope. But maybe it will all be fine after all.
I also have a hard time seeing how it would be phrased. "Disable the spatial interface" doesn't ring so well with non-tech-savvy users, especially if the (admittedly a little flawed) theory that "the window is the folder in the eyes of newbs" holds.
Anyway, you make a argument that's, unlike some (but not all) others in this debate, not founded in misunderstanding, so I don't have so much beef with you.
I, for one, would be perfectly happy to pay for an iTunes-like service
Aren't we getting tired of that obligatory Simpsons joke by now?;)
Personally, I don't like restrictions. I chose a free OS primarily for the freedom. I think Audio Lunchbox is fine but slow - it has non-DRM:ed oggs, with some records that are quite hard to find in physical record storse (notably early April March stuff).
I guess it only goes to show that/. is a heterogenous community.
I was shopping around for a good 12" this winter, but couldn't find anything cheaper than the iBook. The X40, which I like, quickly rise in price as you add stuff (and it was a lot more expensive then than it is now).
I'm running Debian anyway so x86 vs ppc doesn't matter to me. I do like Apple hardware but dislike many of the company's policies.
Personally I changed the gconf key because I want to be able to browse my filesystem when I open a nautilus window. I don't ever want to have to use spacial nautilus by accident.
OK. I figure (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong) that most people that are tech enough to have that strong an opinion on file manager philosophy are tech enough to learn (or have a friend who's tech enough to learn) gconf-editor. Your case doesn't disprove this. (Again, I think that the gconf-editors difficulty has been overrated in this discussion.)
Here's an example. [... snip example...]
OK. If you want that, and you absolutely don't want those folders to be spatial, disabling it is the way to go.
I figure that a lot of people wouldn't mind using the browse-filesystem for heavy filemanagement, as well as opening a few spatial folders every now and then.
(As far as personal annoyances go, my filesystem structure is both wide and deep - so wide that using the tree view becomes meaningless since it doesn't fit in screen.)
Anyway - there are bigger fish to fry. such as why I need to resize the file selector every single time I use it because I can only see a three files at a time by default.
Yeah, I've been bothered by that as well. Did you report it to the bugzilla?
I meant no insult when I wrote "religious or nostalgic". I meant it in the way you seem to do, in the way most people use it in the FOSS crowd.
(For example, I'll readily admit that I, along with some gnome devs, have gotten a case of "HIG-religion".)
I dislike your portrail of users in these terms.
But I am a user myself. I'm not some Gnome-dev:er being condescending from an ivory mountain. I'm a user, and I liked the changes they made (some might say that I like them for "nostalgic/religious" reasons). Throughout this thread, I've tried to correct a misunderstanding. (Someone did put me on their foe list for it, which bummed me out a bit.)
The reason I've spoken up is because if you're urging for the nautilus dev:ers to add that option I want you to be damned sure what you mean, and how it works today. Some, but not all, of the people I've debated with seems to've been unaware that the navigational nautilus was still available. I've gotten the (perhaps mistaken) impression that some of the vocal opinionaters thought that if you wanted a navigational window, you had to go gconf-digging.
Unfortunately, some people are not constructive and others are rude while expressing their views.
On both sides.
even if I wanted to dip my toes into the spacial pool I shouldn't be forced to learn everything at once and I should be able to move between the two with ease.
But the gconf-option in question that people have moaned to make easier to reach makes it difficult to move between the two. The readily available "browse filesystem"-interface is what I generally recommend to people that seem to fit the description of yourself you give above. No need to muck with gconf.
I am, strictly speaking, religous about this. Nostalgic, nope.
I meant "religious and/or nostalgic", not "religious and nostalgic".
There are lots of people who don't like spacial nautilus because it doesn't work like they want to work.
And they can use the old UI which is readily available without any gconf-fiddling needed.
Given the amount of backlash there is towards the spacial environment I think that a check box in nautilus itself is reasonable.
I believe the backlash is due to the very condescending and somewhat ill-informed article in OSNews, and also due to the (otherwise very nice) article available here, in which the impression is given that you need to open gconf-editor if you don't want spatial.
but when you put mundane and common stuff in there [gconf]
But this isn't a mundane option. The "navigational" browser is readily available. You don't need to disable the spatial browser for that.
This option is only for those who passionately hate the spatial mode and wants to completely remove it.
Those users aren't mere "power users". They're people who've, most likely, used old versions of Gnome and wants it back.
I see three kinds of people here.
People happy with the spatial nautilus.
People who prefer the navigational nautilus - who can reach it easily enough from the gnome menu, or even from within the spatial nautilus itself (it's in Start Here -> Programs -> Browse the file system. Drag that icon to your desktop. Be happy).
The utter few who really wishes the spatial nautilus was never invented. These can use gconf-editor. It's not so dangerous, and you've used a computer long enough to try it.
A lot of people seem to think that category 3 is larger than it is, and that category 2 is smaller than it is. "My dad migrated from windows at age 12 and will go blind if he ever opens spatial nautilus by mistake"? Yeah, I think he'll do fine with being in category 2, thanks. Category 3 is the very vocal OSNews / Slashdot crowd. Learn gconf-editor, dammit, since you're geeks already.
Yeah, I know. Non-programmers, but people who know their UI (and the filesystem) well.
I do believe that these can bloody well be able to figure out what I've been writing in this thread; that
You don't need to open gconf-editor to reach the "explorer" filesystem, and
the gconf-editor isn't that impossible. It isn't regedit, it isn't M-x customize, it's just a tree-based config dialogue. A windows support person should never tell the users to open regedit, and people who edit it regularly make backups of it. But gconf-editor isn't so dangerous. It's a good place to put options that you don't want users to change by mistake.
Using the "browse filesystem" feature requires right-clicking and making a selection from a drop-down menu. Using spatial view, by contrast, requires only a double-click. In other words, there is under the current situation a small penalty attached to browser view that becomes non-trivial when compounded over multiple instances.
Or you could view it like this: the system default is that there exists a few launchers for the spatial nautilus on the desktop (e.g. the home folder). You want a launcher for the browse-file-mode? Just put one there. Open the gnome-foot-menu, release the mouse, then drag and drop the "browse filesystem" icon from the menu to the desktop, or right click the desktop and choose the "create launcher" option.
Windows wins because it aggressively cultivates power users. These are the people who shut off spatial view as soon as they booted up Win95.
So, you're saying that bad defaults is good for users, since they then can turn it off and be happy?
They are also the people who drive purchasing decisions.
I think Microsoft's sucesses have more to do with (percieved) network externalities than software quality, but YMMV.
Using the "browse filesystem" UI that's readily available, you have a toolbar and you have one navigation window, and you have "open in new window" readily available on the right click menu.
The esoterica/danger of doing it like win 95 did is that person A would have her computer set up to open new windows by default, and shift-click (or whatever it was) to open in the same one, while person B would have her system set to the exact opposite, while looking exactly the same. Hilarious annoyance ensues.
Gnome 2.6 provides one UI that fits person A to a tee, and one that fits person B, but they look differently and are intended to complement each other. No need to permanently choose - use the spatial mode some days and the "navigational" mode some. You have both modes readily available. Try it, you'll like it.
Yeah, Steve changed his tune when he was at NeXT, which introduced the (rather interesting) side-way-scrolling file manager that Mac OS X still uses today.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good example, yeah. I was thinking of WMA and Real, but ATRAC's right there in the league with them.
It ain't software if it doesn't come with source code. How am I supposed to compile it? I'm not going to rely on something that in turn relies on proprietary platforms.
If the Ogg format has any drawbacks what so ever (relative unpopularity being one), you'll experience them, while simultaneously experiencing the drawbacks of mp3 (primarily crappy crappy sound).
It's lossy on lossy. Like viewing something through two filters simultaneously. Like rebroadcasting a movie from a homerecorded VHS-tape.
Yeah, but it definitely wasn't pushed for audio-only applications and portable music players by it's original industry backers/creators.
Yeah, I would. Why throw good money after bad?
If you're going to compete with a commodity, you have to be either:
On the other hand, maybe my fictious company could leverage these amateurs codec somehow? When the wind blows, the wise build windmills.
Thank you, but as you may have inferred from the sibling post, I meant something a bit less restricted. At the very least, source code and redistribution rights.
Would you please provide links to free (as in -dom) high-quality industry-standard encoders for QuickTime?
As per your request, I won't reply about the degradation in quality, but I do hoped you marked the files as converted from mp3. (Maybe with a 'filename.mp3.ogg'-style suffix, as well as a comment.)
Mp3 made it and it had less clout behind it than those volunteering behind vorbis.
WMA and Real (yuck!) has corporate support and are fairly widespread, but not as much as mp3.
It also seems that a lot of those haven't actually used the thing, or if they did, they didn't find the "browse filesystem menu entry".
My reason for wanting the option in gconf is that I thing gconf is a place where there can be more advanced options than the dialogue, and I want to avoid a slippery slope.
I think I heard something about this debate leading to the option being added, so (if that's true) I guess the flamers won.
It was the default and during that time, I didn't even use Nautilus.
But if the spatial interface was also available, without needing to go into gconf, just like the browser mode is today (and gconf was only needed to completely disable the browser mode), the analogy would be more correct. If that were the situation, would you want that option in the preferences?
The gconf option is for completely disabling one interface to the file manager. My hypothesis is "that opinionated = gconf-savvy".
I like gconf to have the more esoteric options and while this is a border case, I'm afraid of the slippery slope. But maybe it will all be fine after all.
I also have a hard time seeing how it would be phrased. "Disable the spatial interface" doesn't ring so well with non-tech-savvy users, especially if the (admittedly a little flawed) theory that "the window is the folder in the eyes of newbs" holds.
Anyway, you make a argument that's, unlike some (but not all) others in this debate, not founded in misunderstanding, so I don't have so much beef with you.
Aren't we getting tired of that obligatory Simpsons joke by now?
Personally, I don't like restrictions. I chose a free OS primarily for the freedom. I think Audio Lunchbox is fine but slow - it has non-DRM:ed oggs, with some records that are quite hard to find in physical record storse (notably early April March stuff).
I guess it only goes to show that
I figured it was network externalities.
I was shopping around for a good 12" this winter, but couldn't find anything cheaper than the iBook. The X40, which I like, quickly rise in price as you add stuff (and it was a lot more expensive then than it is now).
I'm running Debian anyway so x86 vs ppc doesn't matter to me. I do like Apple hardware but dislike many of the company's policies.
OK. I figure (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong) that most people that are tech enough to have that strong an opinion on file manager philosophy are tech enough to learn (or have a friend who's tech enough to learn) gconf-editor. Your case doesn't disprove this. (Again, I think that the gconf-editors difficulty has been overrated in this discussion.)
OK. If you want that, and you absolutely don't want those folders to be spatial, disabling it is the way to go.
I figure that a lot of people wouldn't mind using the browse-filesystem for heavy filemanagement, as well as opening a few spatial folders every now and then.
(As far as personal annoyances go, my filesystem structure is both wide and deep - so wide that using the tree view becomes meaningless since it doesn't fit in screen.)
Yeah, I've been bothered by that as well. Did you report it to the bugzilla?
(For example, I'll readily admit that I, along with some gnome devs, have gotten a case of "HIG-religion".)
But I am a user myself. I'm not some Gnome-dev:er being condescending from an ivory mountain. I'm a user, and I liked the changes they made (some might say that I like them for "nostalgic/religious" reasons). Throughout this thread, I've tried to correct a misunderstanding. (Someone did put me on their foe list for it, which bummed me out a bit.)
The reason I've spoken up is because if you're urging for the nautilus dev:ers to add that option I want you to be damned sure what you mean, and how it works today. Some, but not all, of the people I've debated with seems to've been unaware that the navigational nautilus was still available. I've gotten the (perhaps mistaken) impression that some of the vocal opinionaters thought that if you wanted a navigational window, you had to go gconf-digging.
On both sides.
But the gconf-option in question that people have moaned to make easier to reach makes it difficult to move between the two. The readily available "browse filesystem"-interface is what I generally recommend to people that seem to fit the description of yourself you give above. No need to muck with gconf.
The thing that seems to be so hard to understand is that the non-spatial, "navigational" Nautilus is already easy to reach.
To completely disable it belongs, IMHO, among the semi-"dangerous" options in gconf.
Fluxbox is a window manager. We're discussing the file manager.
Feel free to bring up Fluxbox in arguments against Metacity (which I think should be replaced by Openbox, anyway).
Currently? Geeks (or corporate users). People who can be expected to use gconf-editor. (Or people with nearby friends who do.)
In the future? Yeah, newbies. Computers are for everyone.
I meant "religious and/or nostalgic", not "religious and nostalgic".
And they can use the old UI which is readily available without any gconf-fiddling needed.
I believe the backlash is due to the very condescending and somewhat ill-informed article in OSNews, and also due to the (otherwise very nice) article available here, in which the impression is given that you need to open gconf-editor if you don't want spatial.
But this isn't a mundane option. The "navigational" browser is readily available. You don't need to disable the spatial browser for that.
This option is only for those who passionately hate the spatial mode and wants to completely remove it.
Those users aren't mere "power users". They're people who've, most likely, used old versions of Gnome and wants it back.
I see three kinds of people here.
A lot of people seem to think that category 3 is larger than it is, and that category 2 is smaller than it is. "My dad migrated from windows at age 12 and will go blind if he ever opens spatial nautilus by mistake"? Yeah, I think he'll do fine with being in category 2, thanks. Category 3 is the very vocal OSNews / Slashdot crowd. Learn gconf-editor, dammit, since you're geeks already.
Yeah, I know. Non-programmers, but people who know their UI (and the filesystem) well.
I do believe that these can bloody well be able to figure out what I've been writing in this thread; that
Or you could view it like this: the system default is that there exists a few launchers for the spatial nautilus on the desktop (e.g. the home folder). You want a launcher for the browse-file-mode? Just put one there. Open the gnome-foot-menu, release the mouse, then drag and drop the "browse filesystem" icon from the menu to the desktop, or right click the desktop and choose the "create launcher" option.
So, you're saying that bad defaults is good for users, since they then can turn it off and be happy?
I think Microsoft's sucesses have more to do with (percieved) network externalities than software quality, but YMMV.
And the slashdot crowd that's been harshly bashing this article the last few hours aren't part of the FOSS community?
Gnome 2.6 provides one UI that fits person A to a tee, and one that fits person B, but they look differently and are intended to complement each other. No need to permanently choose - use the spatial mode some days and the "navigational" mode some. You have both modes readily available. Try it, you'll like it.
People who can find their files can enjoy the Ctrl-L feature, which IMHO is much nicer than in a single-window-exploralike interface.
People who can't find their files don't have to be annoyed with a flimsy tree-thing. They just get a window with their files and that's it.
And we also have a large group of people who fall somewhere in between.
Yeah, Steve changed his tune when he was at NeXT, which introduced the (rather interesting) side-way-scrolling file manager that Mac OS X still uses today.