Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
No need to get personal.This is trolling, not starting debates. 2009/5/11 Michael Nielsen <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: I've been setting up my own window managers for years, and I tend to do so, however, it would be really nice if one was able to use the work that others had done, such as the menu system, etc that gnome, and KDE uses, however, I do not like the default click-to-front, that I used to be able to simply disable, however this feature is no longer trivial to find, initially I could still load a useful windowmanager, and thereby replace the underlying window manager in Gnome, nor KDE for that matter. I prefer other window managers, such as enlightenment, fwm, etc, I've used quite a lot of different ones in my time. However, it is getting rather annoying having to manually update the custom desktop environment to follow a moving target, thus it would be preferable to be able to follow one of the maintained ones, however, as I pointed out, their features are being eroded, and basic functions are being removed. I have worked with UNIX since the time where X terminals were unknown, and text terminals was the normal way of working. I know how to do it, however, the problem is the default installation of Fedora installs a lot of things which conflicts, and prevents command line configuration, as the GUI seems to try to override my "advanced" configurations, I have eventually figured out to remove the NetworkManager, and disable the GUI networking. That works, however, I find it frustrating to see that Linux is forking at this level, because it means that someone who is not a Power user (or command line freak which I'm often catagorised as), will have more difficulty in setting up a simple web server, because the network configuration is personal if you use the applet approach., Thus the person will discover that once they log off, their system is no longer online, and their webserver doesn't work. What I'm asking why not make sure, that no matter which tool you use to set up anything, that it does it fundamentally the same way, so that the tool in the GUI will change the relevant configuration file (under privileged control ofc), and the system will be able to take things down properly... I beg to differ, it is not an artifact of working in a desktop environment, but more an artifact of fundamentally choosing another approach, where everything even system configuration is focued in the GUI, rather than in the Operating System. For-instance Gnome there is the administration Network configuration, which appears to do what I'm asking, and there is the network applet configuration, which does not update the configuration files - at least I've been unable to detect the changes. So you have two views, that in principle does the exact same thing, and yet, one is a system wide configuration, the other is a local user related change. This bound to be confusing to people. Personally I just don't use those features, what I'm trying to do here is to get people to think about what is happening, because, I can see a lot of feature forking in the system, which will make the system extremely confusing for people to start using Linux. All that is really needed is to mount things properly, and logically. eg /home/mike/mnt1 instead of /home/mike/.gvfs/blablah.. which is a hidden file. What I'm trying to do here is to point out problems with the Fedora distribution, yes some things are specific to other subsystems, but the reflect back on Fedora as a distribution. I'm not complaining I'm pointing out a problem in the system, the current "design" (as you call it), prevents the management of multiple versions of an application, as they will conflict in the package manager, I have become used to manually installing all applications that I use regularly, and thus overcoming the system limitations. The annoying part is that the limitations only arise because everything is thrown into one directory - for instance 32 bit and 64 bit packages often conflict because their documentation files conflict - and unfortunately it is often necessary to have 32 bit compatibility installed. Why, the problem is related to the fact that Fedora default uses Pulse Audio, however, I've yet to see a system where it works well on, though, with work-arounds it is possible to get it to work, basically there is some configuration issue on Fedora systems, where a lot of applications become impossible for non-advanced users to install. For-instance Skype, is choppy as hell, using the default configuration that Fedora 9-10 uses, it turns out you need to explicit change the input device to be hardware, not default and not pulse. Most ordinary users would give up on running Skype on Linux, and perhaps even give up on Linux, because the configuration per-default does not work. The problems have arisen since Pulse Audio was chosen as a standard for Fedora, pre Pulse-Audio, everything worked nicely, thus as I see it, it is a distribution choice that is causing the problem, PulseAudio isn't quite ready for mainstream yet, and yet it is not trivial to remove, nor to configure - makes it hostile to less experienced users, so it is a consideration for the distribution managers, not for PulseAudio. Again, Yes I can, and I do, but what about less experienced users ? Are we not trying to get Linux to be mainstream ? It is not encouraging for people that things do not work properly out of the box! I know Fedora is defined as a "bleeding edge" distribution, which is all good and well however, it scares a lot of people away from the distribution. Oki, I need Firefox-2.0 installed, and Firefox-3.0 installed, hmm, they conflict, in the package manager. So I install them manually, now I also need to manage the applications manually. And so forth. Most UNIX systems, do not install the development environment - eg eclipsse, the desktop publishing (read open office) as a part of the system, but rather as 3rd part add ons. The problem as I see it, is that Fedora has decided that everything is an integral part of the operating system, which is creating the mess I'm trying to describe. Relying on Yum and RPM to do all the work, will eventually cause the same "Sanding up" of the operating system, that you can see on windows, in that not everyone cleans up properly, and eventually junk is left all over the place, rather than isolated. So basically you are saying that OpenOffice, Eclipse, Firefox, MySQL et. al. are integral parts of the operating system, and therefore are not to be installed as independent applications. Yes that is one view of the world, however, it is a lazy argument, for doing something in a bad way. Automatic scripting that operates on mounts created by users - sorry, user not logged, in mount point not available. Multiple ways of creating mounts, some are bound in the user interface, and has non-obvious names hidden in .gvfs (I think). Wireless configuration bound to the GUI, if you use the most obvious configuration tool, and NTP does not function because it is run before the user logs in. Network created by one user via the GUI, is taken down, before an NFS/CIFS created by another user on the system, or by the operating system, thus causing the system to hang on shutdown. Reordering startup scripts won't solve this, because once the GUI goes down and takes the network connection down, then the operating system will hang on unmounting any manually mounted mounts. Thus you can combine the manual mounting with the GUI networking, however the system does not handle the take down properly. and so forth - the list is very long. The problem is that there is a tendency to not use the normal operating system controls to take things up and down, and that results in that you are forced to use one method or another. Basically I'm pointing out that there is a consistency problem in Linux, which would scare a lot of poential users away. |
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
