Wednesday January 31st, 2001
Eli Goldberg writes in:
#1 Amazing demo, but problems with embedding
Wednesday January 31st, 2001 8:52 PM
I loved the demo, it is quite amazing. However, the Moz embedding is not quite full yet. For instance, getElementByID function didn't work. Example: www.vbrad.com. If you try to expand the contents section of the page - it causes an error window to popup. If you try it in Moz standalone - it works fine.
A bit off topic, but I have to say that Moz has gotten tons better in the last two weeks. If feels better and faster.
#2 Re: Amazing demo, but problems with embedding
Wednesday January 31st, 2001 10:50 PM
from bug 962
Try document.getElementById() (note the case)
#3 Re: Re: Amazing demo, but problems with embedding
Wednesday January 31st, 2001 11:07 PM
Why does it work in full Moz and not in embedded one? It is the same code, is it not?
#4 Nautilus - looks pretty, but eats a lot.
Wednesday January 31st, 2001 11:39 PM
...not only the Nautilus shell, but the medusa file indexing process takes a lot of time and memory.
I have to say that if they don't optimize it, I won't be using it. I think it would be a mistake to make it the default configuration on the Red Hat distro too.
(I was using one of the hourly builds a day or two before PR3 was released, on a PIII 500 w/256MB.)
#5 Re: Nautilus - looks pretty, but eats a lot.
Thursday February 1st, 2001 2:23 AM
They have already optimized it extremely much. When I first looked at it, opening my home directory took about 30 seconds. Now it's down to 4-5. Of course that's still too much, even if I do use the "slower but better" rendering option etc., but at least they've done a lot about it. And my home directory is fairly big anyway - most other folders I have are opened a lot faster.
#14 Re: Re: Nautilus - looks pretty, but eats a lot.
Sunday February 4th, 2001 3:18 PM
In configuration it takes about 30s to open my home-dir. This is REALY anoing. But I am shure that this will get better.
#6 Nautilus and Mozilla
Thursday February 1st, 2001 5:54 AM
This is the bright future of Linux. Excellent work Eazel and Mozilla!
#7 eazel doesn't address linux usability
Thursday February 1st, 2001 9:56 AM
The user experience problems with Linux mostly lie in the cultural values which cause almost all new code to be written to a command line and scripting interface, with no (or only a shim) GUI. A nice file manager is, well, nice, but it doesn't begin to deal with the fact that almost every other piece of software written for the system in the past (or the forseeable future) is written for hobbyists and hackers rather than for a general audience.
#8 Re: eazel doesn't address linux usability
Thursday February 1st, 2001 6:04 PM
Did you brush your teeth with A5-35 this morning? Lighten up! By your definition it seems that if one is not a general audience member one is a hobbyist and hacker. Does that mean that Windows or the Mac are not good for hackers? By extension, does that mean that Window's and the Mac's targetting of a "general audience" has hampered their readyness for enterprise tasks?
Perhaps, instead, the real world is more complicated and the existence of lots of nice command-line programs beside an excellent file manager does not speak volumes about and OS. Besides, the main point is that Eazel uses Mozilla as its browser component.
#9 Re: Re: eazel doesn\\\'t address linux usabili
Friday February 2nd, 2001 2:51 PM
So does Galeon, SkipStone, and a million other products. That still doesn\\\\\\\'t answer why I should be using Nautilus when there are a million other ways to use Mozilla. The original poster did bring up a good point, all past X file managers for Linux really miss the boat completely - Linux is still mostly a command line-driven environment, and Eazel doesn\\\\\\\'t seem to have brought much to the table here other than a bunch of bloated development libraries and Mozilla integration.
#10 Re: Re: Re: eazel doesn't address linux usa
Friday February 2nd, 2001 4:43 PM
Glad to see someone understood my point!
The pervasiveness of unfriendly assumptions about user interfaces is the main usability problem in Linux. That is a cultural issue and it can only change when Linux developers stop writing command line interfaces -- as all good Windows and Mac programmers did many years ago.
Adding a slightly spiffier file manager doesn't address that problem. What's the point in having a nice file manager if nearly every new piece of software for Linux is not at all user-friendly?
The GNOME file manager is already one of the friendliest pieces of software you can get for the platform. What we need are things like versions of Apache, GIMP and Zope that can be used by a normal person instead of a tinkerer.
#12 Re: Re: Re: Re: eazel doesn't address linux usa
Friday February 2nd, 2001 5:48 PM
I strongly disagree. The Unix command line is quite a different animal from the MS-DOS command. The latter is a kludgy in the extreme, whereas the former is a elegant, flexible and powerful interface. Make no mistake, the power of the Unix command line is what has made Unix such THE standard in the enterprise. It is not a liability, but a great strength.
Sure, graphical programs have their place. They look nicer, are usually easier to learn, and don't need much thinking to use ("click and drool" I think it's called.) But asking for the abolition of the command line is akin to asking for the abolition of power tools in favor of sticks and stones. Just because not everyone knows how to use the more advanced instrument doesn't mean we should get rid of them.
#15 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: eazel doesn't address linux us
Tuesday February 6th, 2001 4:24 AM
Which enterprise is that?
Anyway, the command line is very useful for programmers such as mys'elf. It gives us an easy way to be lazy and write programs with no interface, which saves a lot of time. It also allows use of a few convenient command-line tools. (By the way, I'm not sure how much more powerful the Unix command-line really is than NT - I don't do some of the complex command-lines in NT/2K that I used to in Unix, but that's more a matter of habit and because there are better ways to do it. I did actually have the Cygnus environment thingy installed, with bash etc., but then I found out I never used it...)
But for anybody other than a programmer, it's really essential that in any professional program there are NO comand-lines to type; NO configuration textfiles to edit; none of that. (I don't mean that it shouldn't occasionally be available, for those times when you might want to script a program for example - but in the ordinary use of all features of a program, it should never be required.)
In my view, the original poster is absolutely right in identifying the core problem with Linux usability, and the reason why it will be at least several years before Linux can seriously compete on mainstream desktops. (As opposed to on servers, where it's already doing well.)
Oh, and the elitist crap about 'not thinking' when using a GUI is just that - crap. Let's leave the bullshit propoganda to the past, and move forwards to a future in which yes, command-line tools are very appropriate to certain programming tasks (especially when you try to cobble together numerous existing tools into a dodgy but working system) and some more old-fashioned users may also prefer to use them for file management etc., so there should be an option for that... but EVERY program needs a full and complete GUI interface.
Personally I'd like to see some competition to Microsoft on the desktop, so I hope that Linux applications head towards a more usable baseline sooner rather than later.
Tuesday February 6th, 2001 1:22 PM
Yes, it's easier to write a command line-driven program than one with a graphical user interface. But it doesn't follow that not adding a gui to a program is "laziness." Programming a gui adds an extra layer of complexity, and complexity spawns bugs. Would you rather have a program that works well or one that looks pretty but doesn't?
Obviously, there are some programs that it doesn't make sense to make a command-line interface for, such as a graphical web browser like Mozilla. But in many other cases, a gui is unneccessary and should *not* be added. If a gui is desired, it can be developed separately in the form of a wrapper. As far as I can tell, this approach works well.
I'm not arguing that graphical user interfaces are bad. I am, however, taking objection to the original poster's call to stop developing command line apps. The command line is not a poor man's gui. In the haste to adopt the good features of Windows - and there are many good features, I agree - we should not abandon the virtues of Unix.
Wednesday February 7th, 2001 4:31 AM
This response was the most drivel I've seen accumulated in one place. Every programme needs a GUI? Smoked *all* your crack at once again, huh?
GUI programmes offer no improvement over command-line ones, whilst bringing into the mix the overhead of the whole GUI infrastructure. Flexibility is lost, all that is gained is bloat. Yes, a GUI is nice for _some_ things, but on the whole, command line interface offers a superior environment.
#13 Re: Re: Re: Re: eazel doesn't address linux usa
Friday February 2nd, 2001 9:23 PM
Some Linux coders will write to the GUI, some to the command line. One does not have to win over the other. MS seems to have gone out of its way to help its command line tools die on the vine. It doesn't have to be that way. I use and enjoy GNOME and also enjoy the command line. Why must one win and the other die? If the game is not rigged things work more organically than you seem to wish they would. If you don't like this, then you might be more comfortable in more controlled operating system environments. Otherwise, do things the way you want to. The options will be there.
#11 Re: Re: Re: eazel doesn\\\'t address linux usabili
Friday February 2nd, 2001 4:46 PM
I don't think all other X file managers miss the boat. Look at emelfm.sourceforge.net. It allows tons of customizability, multiple file associations, a command line interface, and doesn't have any graphics bloat (it is built with gtk, btw).