On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:27:42PM +0800, Ma Xiaojun wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Olav Vitters <olav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That is not what he's saying. The application/game should include a > > desktop file. If it doesn't, it is a bug. > > A desktop file with a JAR file? > I don't understand how to package it properly. E.g. as an executable (e.g. shell script) that handles the installation. That is how a lot of commercial programs do it. The shell has the binary stuff appended to it. Anyway, the distribution of 'Apps' (or game, etc) was part of the Developers Hackfest that was held before FOSDEM. At the moment if you distribute something you need to put in some effort to ensure it works nicely. I've installed some proprietary software where the instructions suggested terminal use, but just as well you can open the .tar.gz and then run the shell script. Loads of GNOME/Linux advice is in the form of things to run on the command line. From that you cannot infer that for GNOME/Linux you need the command line. Only that most advice suggests that. For fun, try finding out if you can do graphically what is suggested to be done on the command line. A GUI might be more inconvenient, but usually it is just as well possible. Still, copy/pasting a command is easier than writing down all the buttons to click and where they are in some GUI. > > You seem to like to compare things with Windows. I don't recall having > > to create a shortcut to *any* Windows game in at least the last 10 > > years. > > That's your usage pattern. > There are some people who have whole desktop filled with shortcuts. > Well, I understand GNOME Shell has different pattern. No, I was not talking about usage patterns. I said that if an application is distributed within Windows, things are done to ensure that you do not need any manual steps. If you distribute things for GNOME and then do not offer a good experience (.desktop file), then it is not GNOME that is broken. > > So GNOME is bad because it does not include a device manager? I'm > > totally not understanding what you're after. Various things are not > > included in GNOME, that does not make anything bad. > > I'm not saying GNOME is bad. > I'm saying that you probably cannot use GNOME without terminal. I cannot use GNOME without a terminal, I like the terminal, I need it to administer machines, etc. If you're speaking generically: you can use GNOME without a terminal just fine. > Another use case, what would you do when facing a new USB WiFi adapter > not working out-of-the-box? Depending on my mood: a. I'd return it and buy another one b. Maybe Google for a solution I still do not get what you're after. You want to use a desktop environment designed to handle 'non working hardware'? That maybe once you follow some instructions you found via Google? That sometimes people use a Terminal? No clue, maybe they do, maybe not. I doubt the 500.000 (or so) kids in Andalucia make much use of the terminal. Cannot use GNOME without a terminal: I would not want to, but if someones does not use it, I would not find them weird :P -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ gnome-list mailing list gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
