[ltp] Debian on a 380D

[Victor Wagner]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Tod Harter wrote:

>
> Well, they are somewhat "windows-like" but then again I don't see any other
> UI's out there that are demonstrably superior in design. While Apple loves to
> tout their desktop I know one of the big Apple magazines did some objective
> studies (putting users in front of windows and MacOS and having them perform
> various routine operations like installing software, connecting to an ISP,
> etc) and they had to admit that users had no better or worse luck on average

What?!!! You think this is USER operations? I think you are totally
rotten by Windows way of doing things!

Installing new software is system administrator's or support personnel
operation. User is there to use software, preferable integrated, and
do the job, not waste time searching for it.

Of course I'd rather give user sudo for apt-get install. But it is not
"installing the software" in windows sense of word. It is just adding
prepackaged and proved to work component to the system.

Connecting to ISP is system operation, which should be totally transparent
for user (and it is on my home machine. On my notebook it is not so
transparent, just becouse connecting via GSM phone is a bit costly to let
system do it without explicit user permission. But when connecting it to
the local net in home or office only thing I've to do is to plug jack in)

When user does routine job, for instance edits movies, writes
documents and such (and all of them simulateously) MacOS GUI is better.
For instance, having one big menu on the top line of screen is more handy
- you always move mouse to the menu with the same movement of hand.

There are only one thing which MacOS lacked comparing with Windows -
command prompt.  (as for multitasking, which I think essential thing
for multi-windowed environment) Windows (not counting NT) lacks it as well
as MacOS (not including X).l

> with either system.  I know there are projects like Berlin and some others
> that are aimed at creating better GUIs, but they are far from useably

Unfortunately, it seems that everybody who tries to create "better GUI for
Unix" forgets about its network transpartency.

When my notebook is connected to some LAN I seldom use its keyboard or
screen. Properly set up dhcpd to give it static IP regardless of the
network card in PCMCIA slot, ssh and X window - and every bit of
information on my notebook drive is accessable from big X terminal screen.

When I've tried to do the same with KDE 2.1 I've encountered problems
becouse it doesn't use X11 protocol for all interprocess communication.
So, if I start conqueror from other host session, and then try to open
KDE session from another display, something broke.

I suspect that it is the same with GNOME. CORBA is not for desktop
environments, it is for communication between servers and middleware.

> QPL and KDE's stand on the linking issue was never resolved anyway. RS had a
> big hissy fit about the QPL and came up with some VERY arcane logic as to why
> you couldn't link QPL and LGPL code together. Frankly I thought his logic was
> entirely flawed and it was rather disheartening to see the Debian people

I'm almost disconcerned with RMS complaints. He seems to exibit some kind
of fanatism, which is never good thing.

But note, that license is not only issue which prevents modification of
the code. Qt is big, Qt is complicated, Qt is not really written on C++ -
it requires special preprocessor (moc) to be translated into C++ proper.

> > good old software for years until my requirements change and I would
> > really need to learn something new. Alas, it is virtually impossible.
>
> YES. I agree. Personally I think what we need is maybe for the Linux
> Standards Project or some sort of "Linux Core Team" to take charge of

Hm, we already have LSB.

> network configuration, startup, and a "standard desktop" environment. Certain

Oh no,  please, no  "standard desktop environment"!!!
In Russia we have proverb which can be translated as
"There is no comrade for taste and  colour". Each user should be able
to choose kind of GUI which suits his habits most.

Availability of such choice is the thing I love in Linux most.

If you'll look on X terminal screens in our office, you'll find desktops
with totally different look and feel - I have toolbar at the top of
screen, my collegue hasn't but it has keyboard shortcuts for everything,
and even need no buttons in window titlebar.

I think that keyboard layout (Russian/English) is the property of
keyboard, and should be switched globally, other guy thinks that it is
rather property of window, and have small Russian or English flag
displayed at the corner of titlebar.

(of course we both use fvwm2,  but it by no means is desktop environment).

I'd rather put my .fvwmrc somewhere on the Web to be able use it for
anywhere, then learn how to work in "standard" environment.

It is main advantage of true multiuser system that each user can have
environment which is most productive for HIM.




> dependencies. NOTHING made me more irritated than installing a new Mandrake
> and finding that Kmail was totally broken. The Kmail developers only answer

I agree. That is why I don't use Mandarake and KDE. In Debian, when
configuration layout of some package is changed, you always get a screen
of explanations of advantages of new layout and option to leave it as it
was before.


> is "well, we're 5 revs past that in development now, go get the newest CVS
> archive of KDE, build it, and THEN report bugs, otherwise go away". I can

I'd rather get old proven to work version and recompile it if needed with
new library.


> understand that, but its ridiculous! I need a Kmail that works, and the one I
> have is the newest one available in any stable release of a Linux distro.
> Somehow we HAVE to solve this mess if we expect to put Linux in the hands of
> regular people.

You've created this mess yourself, choosing to use poorly designed
software. Of course you are perfect example of "regular people" you are
caring about, so something must be done. That is why I've appreciated
Debian decision to ban KDE. Not becouse it non-free, but becouse it
is not mature enough for everyday use. (and probably would never be given
its design flaws, and lack of feedback from experienced people who are
quite  happy with their good old software).


> > kernel, but do not fit in the standard kernel source tree.
>
> Yeah, well in the case of ALSA its pretty easy to add it. If you had OSS
> installed properly you can replace it with ALSA with no kernel rebuilds (at
> least under 2.4.x kernels, 2.2.x is a different situation).

Kernel 2.4.x were not stable enough even for carefully supervised servers,
not mention desktops. At least until 2.4.13. I'd think I'll wait for
Debian maintainers to decide that it may be included into stable
distribution.

I think that it would be around 2.4.15-2.4.17.



-- 
Victor Wagner			vitus@ice.ru
Chief Technical Officer		Office:7-(095)-748-53-88
Communiware.Net 		Home: 7-(095)-135-46-61
http://www.communiware.net      http://www.ice.ru/~vitus


----- The Linux ThinkPad mailing list -----
The linux-thinkpad mailing list home page is at:
http://www.bm-soft.com/~bm/tp_mailing.html