Re: Be respectful and considerate. A complaint.
On Di, 03.07.2012 00:20, John Stowers wrote: >> And here is the same feature, but at the window manager level (and for all >> the other apps too): >> http://andreasn.myownb3.com/temp/nau-side-by-side.png >> >> Same thing, just on a different level and now desktop-wide. > >Not quite. > >With split planes > >select complex combination of files with ctrl -> right click -> move >to other pane. Unless this feature appears nautilus wide (right click >-> move to ) this represents a >usability loss for me. Exactly. Split-view is NOT a workaround for window manager limitations. If it was, I would have proposed a patch to the window manager, not to Nautilus. Split-view introduces the concept of "source and target". The two panes are inherently connected, and are not two random unrelated windows displayed side-by-side. This introduces the possibility to have single menu items for copy/move operations, as you mention. Or, in combination with the recently removed but fortunately re-accepted can-change-accel functionality, single button press file moves. Another feature is that the relation between the panes can also be used within Nautilus Scripts. I have a trivial single-key-press diff script which just "diffs the right thing" according to the current selection (be it two files in a common directory, two files in two distinct directories, or two locations). It helps me to work. A lot. Holger ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Be respectful and considerate. A complaint.
I was baffled to see the extra pane feature from Nautilus silently removed. The story of this feature has a lot to do with communication and respect, and sadly enough, this mail is an addendum to other recent and not-so-recent topics on this list - so it fits better here than on Nautilus' ML. I always wanted a split-view mode in Nautilus, so some time ago I did a design and proposed a patch on the nautilus mailing list. Various aspects were discussed, ranging from "Why is this useful?" to implementation details. After a few discussion / redesign loop iterations during the following 10 months it was finally merged and anounced in GNOME's 2.30 release notes. Many reviews of that release mentioned that feature prominently and favorably, and I got lots of positive user feedback. What also came along was my first encounter with the design team - and it was not a pleasant one. Interestingly, it only took place _after_ all discussions and after the merge. Appearantly, they had a UX hackfest. That they didn't follow the discussion was pretty obvious (as certain false claims that they repeated were in fact discussed), but that didn't stop them to post their "results" on Planet GNOME-aggregated blogs. I wouldn't treat contributors that I don't know personally like that - but hey, I guess name-calling their work as "total crack rock" is just how the internet works. However, if people spread accusations like "messy code - extra pain" on a widely visible forum like planet GNOME [1] and don't answer my repeated questions what's messy about it then that's not a discussion anymore. It's also not criticism. It's outright slander. But hey, I wasn't bitter. I thought "Talk is cheap, show me the code". But now that the design team managed to remove this feature after all, silently, without a remotely comparable public discussion like it underwent before going in, I wonder if that's the way the GNOME community really wants to work and treat one another. Holger [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/mairin/4382707014/in/set-72157623492365266/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: taking features away (compact view removed from Nautilus)
On So, 01.07.2012 16:11, Andreas Nilsson wrote: >> I'd like to end on a constructive note. I propose that GNOME adopt >> the following policy. No major feature will be removed from a core >> GNOME application before a discussion has occurred on a public mailing >> list such as this one >You probably want nautilus-list for nautilus specific discussions. >https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list His proposal was a desktop-wide policy on feature removals, taking a recent change in Nautilus as an example. As such, it's not Nautilus-specific. I've also been unpleasantly surprised by this and other removals. I liked Colin's mail about regressions due to systemd/gnome-settings-daemon back in January [1], and the general idea that regressions should be avoided and only put into place if they really warrant a sufficiently large step forward. Holger [1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2012-January/msg00136.html ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
Hi Gendre, On Di, 04.01.2011 18:47, Gendre Sebastien wrote: >Le mardi 04 janvier 2011 à 16:27 +0100, Holger Berndt a écrit : >> As it puts your posts into context, you could have mentioned that >> you're actually the maintainer of Sawfish. In all of your posts in >> this >> thread, I don't hear a concerned user, but an annoyed WM developer, >> angry that the GNOME Shell doesn't work with his "baby". >> >> That also explains why your perception of the amount of users who want >> to replace their WM differs from others. I'm absolutely sure that you, >> as Sawfish maintainer, know a lot of users of Sawfish and other 3rd >> party WMs. I doubt that you're representative for the general GNOME >> user base, though. >> >> Non-IT users don't know what a WM is. They don't want to know, and if >> they need to know what it is and how to replace it, something is >> broken in the first place, and work should be spent on fixing >> the problems instead of abstracting them. > >Please, if you have no good arguments, don't try to marginalize and make >personal atttak on people with whom you are desagree. I'm not personally attacking people with whom I disagree. I just described where the different perception of how many users want to replace their WM might come from. Which is quite a central point when discussing whether it's hugely important to be WM agnostic, or not. Holger ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
On Di, 04.01.2011 12:13, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: >I'm also a maintainer As it puts your posts into context, you could have mentioned that you're actually the maintainer of Sawfish. In all of your posts in this thread, I don't hear a concerned user, but an annoyed WM developer, angry that the GNOME Shell doesn't work with his "baby". That also explains why your perception of the amount of users who want to replace their WM differs from others. I'm absolutely sure that you, as Sawfish maintainer, know a lot of users of Sawfish and other 3rd party WMs. I doubt that you're representative for the general GNOME user base, though. Non-IT users don't know what a WM is. They don't want to know, and if they need to know what it is and how to replace it, something is broken in the first place, and work should be spent on fixing the problems instead of abstracting them. Holger ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Moduleset Reorganization -- Take two
On Di, 12.10.2010 14:59, Vincent Untz wrote: >For example, if Tomboy moves out of Core, then we will still talk about >it the way we talk about it today. We would want to keep mentioning cool >new features in the release notes, and I guess that should address >concerns about the perception. Maybe it's just me, but I'm afraid that the release notes might end up delivering unwanted messages. Say there is videoplayer 1, with new features A,B and C. Then there is videoplayer 2, with new features D and E. Maybe it had features A and B before anyways, but not C. So, if a user is interested in all that cool stuff in the release notes - what's he supposed to use? So what message does this convey about a GNOME release? That it offers a consistant, tightly integrated desktop user experience? Or that it's a loose collection of somewhat related, partly overlapping applications? Holger ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400 Ryan Lortie wrote: > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use > > our platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > In short, yes. > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to > relicense has made a significant mistake. The problem is not only with third-party apps that use the platform. There are also some significant GPLv2 only libraries that GNOME apps may want to use. As examples, Poppler and ClamAV come to my mind. So basically, if Evince wants to use Poppler, it could not legally use a library (be it directly or indirectly) that is LGPLv3 (or later). Using LGPLv3 or later for platform stuff sounds like an explosive situation to me. Holger ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
