icons look and feel
Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: icons look and feel
started by: roberts
Posted by roberts on Nov. 30 2007,02:32
This thread is from the prior thread originally about fonts in Firefox but got off topic:| Quote (john.martzouco @ Nov. 29 2007,08:35) |
...snip... To further enhance the scenario, I would really like to see the Firefox icon reappear on the desktop. One of the most helpful things that I found when I started using DSL were the big, beautiful icons on the desktop. Having the applications immediately available to me made discovering the OS and it's applications very, very pleasant. Now that I know it better, I can live without them (although I really, really miss them). If you want to attract new users, you really need to offer up palette of icons as is done in the 3.4 line. Add a cheat code to strip them off for advanced users who don't want them... but please realize how much they helped your intention of attracting Windows users if this is still important to you. And if it is, please relabel them so that they don't seem foreign... relabel Siag -> spreadsheet, relabel xZGV -> 'image viewer', relabel Sylpheed -> email (my god that looks like Syphilis). Over time, the literati will discover the true names and access the programs from their own way, but Windows users are more accustomed to a more consistent look and feel. |
I believe his post is targeted at me. Wanting these changes in the base iso.
My comments:
The closing statement "Windows users are more accustomed to a more consistent look and feel." Wouldn't that be JWM over fluxbox. Your prior post was claiming the opposite, that users were comming to Linux for something different!
Renaming Linux apps. Well, am *I* supposed to know what "outlook" is? Explorer is that the file manager or the web browser.
What is excel? iexplorer? I don't see generic names on Windows apps. What is sliverlight? I am lost on a windows machine. I thought icons were there to provide users a clue, both in Windows and DSL/JWM. Oh, but then you stated you didn't like icons or JWM. <>
Does not Windows start with very few icons on the desktop. Don't most users drag there favorite app icon to the desktop?
Does not Windows have tray icons as well?
What is so inconsistent about DSL's presentation?
Do we really want 5 base icons + 17 app icons (ala 3.x) for a total of 22 desktops icons that would have to look good a 640x480, i.e., all bunched up in upper right hand corner?
As for Firefox it is on the default desktop in the tray area.
Are you suggesting new users don't see it, or that they know to boot with desktop=fluxbox option?
I think this is falling under the statement; "You can please some of the people sometime but you can't please everyone".
With v4.x I wanted to implement drag and drop, folder and document centric computing using the same base as v3.x and being able to support existing extensions.
The icons of ~/ and / should also be a tip off that DSL is not Windows.
Do I/We want DSL to not even look like Linux and only use generic names? What's next: DSGL?
I really am open to suggestions and comments. But I am not convinced with anything so far.
Posted by john.martzouco on Nov. 30 2007,05:26
Hi Robert,I'd like to start off by letting you know that I'm a very huge fan of this product and of the work that you do! I'm sure that I've said that before, and I will continue saying it. Please keep up the good work and know that there are many of us who are benefiting directly from your efforts and guidance.
The quality of the product that you are offering is second to none. I believe that DSL is the epitome of modern operating systems and should be considered the *premiere* operating system available. There is nothing else on the planet that approaches what you've put together. I intend to use it on all of my machines in one form or another. It's mind-blowing that it can be used as the tiniest usable liveCD or a full blown installed modern OS or anything in between that someone decides they want... nothing else compares to this!
If I've delivered my thoughts in any way that seems counter-productive, please forgive me, it was not my intention. One of the things that I value most about this community is the interaction that I'm seeing between people and I wanted to give my perspective.
My personal history begins with a DOS 6 386MHz Intel DX fifteen years... upwards and onwards through Windows 95 to Windows Server 2003. I've spent the last 15 years writing commercial software using LISP, C++, Win32 API, .NET etc etc. I've spent the last fifteen years cursing Microsoft for continuously and repetitively burying beneficial features and utilities in each and every iteration of their OS and for generating useless bloat and surreptitious drain on resources.
| Quote |
| I believe his post is targeted at me. Wanting these changes in the base iso. |
Indirectly, yes. Directly, no. Let me try and qualify that...
I know that you are the keystone in the development of this product... so, yes, my comments are directed at you. But I also think that the state of the base product also lies in the hands of the people who voice an opinion and bring ideas to the table for discussion... so my comments are directed at the entire audience who participates in this forum.
I'd like to see this product survive and gain ground. I'd like to see that happen because I want to be using this product twenty years from now and I think the only way that will happen is if it consistently attracts people and they are as happy with it as I am and they want to keep using it forever as well.
| Quote |
| My comments: The closing statement "Windows users are more accustomed to a more consistent look and feel." Wouldn't that be JWM over fluxbox. |
No, I don't think that having the same look as the Windows desktop qualifies as having a consistent look. Consistency comes from a homogenous set of objects. The 3.4 desktop is very, very close to achieving perfection in this sense. All of the icons have the same look and feel - are consistent in their density of color and gradation. They are very appealing, speak their meaning clearly and are uniquely identifiable... the nib of a pen is clearly a text application, the penguin with earphones is listening to music, the file cabinet holds documents. Bravo!
The only thing foreign on that desktop is the descriptive captions of each icon. xGZW is very, very hard to remember... what does it mean? why is it named that? these are the distracting questions that came to my mind when I first saw it and Siag.
| Quote |
| Your prior post was claiming the opposite, that users were comming to Linux for something different! |
No, I don't think I ever said that. I'm rereading < the entry you mention > and I can't see how that interpretation can be drawn from what I said. Thanks for starting this thread, I'm going to repost that entry immediately below this one as it definitely belongs here.
I remember saying that Fluxbox has some great advantages over the Windows model. I remember thinking that I'm exhausted by Microsoft making things more complicated with less benefit every major release.
If most other Windows converts are anything like me, they're going to come over to Linux because they're fed up of receiving increasingly complicated products that are bloated and overly hyped. The only really great thing Microsoft has done since delivering Windows XP has been the devlopment of the .Net Framework.
This user has come to Linux because DSL is a ten minute download, a 5 minute burn to CD, is up and running in 90 seconds and was (3.4) immediately usable because all the major applications were right there on the desktop one single click away! I ran the liceCD under virtualization and the system connected to my network immediately... I was reading www.dslos.com in Firefox two minutes after I finished my very first DSL download. I applaud this product publicly every chance I get... < see Monday, Oct 1st in my journal. >
This user has tried seven other Linux distributions since finding DSL and the only one that comes close to being interesting is Puppy and that is twice the size! Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, bloat, bloat, bloat.
| Quote |
| Renaming Linux apps. Well, am *I* supposed to know what "outlook" is? Explorer is that the file manager or the web browser. What is excel? iexplorer? I don't see generic names on Windows apps. What is sliverlight? I am lost on a windows machine. |
That's my point exactly! No one should be lost. It's hard enough for a beginner user to understand what a computer does, why make it more complicated by using 'marketing' names? I bet you've tried to explain to your aunt how to use a computer and I bet she's said to you, "but why didn't they just name it [internet browser]? That would have been so much easier". Here's the chance.
| Quote |
| I thought icons were there to provide users a clue, both in Windows and DSL/JWM. Oh, but then you stated you didn't like icons or JWM. |
Yes. A picure is worth a thousand words... and a couple of words can reassure the user that they read the clue correctly. The caption is as important as the picture... ask my blind friend in Hungary.
I didn't say that I don't like icons. I love icons. What I don't like are the mini-icons on the command menus. They look amateurish and reduce the professionalism of the product. They are crude, ill-matched. They are so low in resolution that they are not easily distinguishable from each other and they are distracting when trying to read the commands on the menus. The same can be said of the heavy font that is used on these menus in JWM... it is too hard to read.
JWM is no better than the Microsoft desktop. Fluxbox offers functionality that makes it easier to organize the desktop.
| Quote |
| Does not Windows start with very few icons on the desktop. Don't most users drag there favorite app icon to the desktop? |
Why follow a bad example? Do you really want to create a copy of Windows?
| Quote |
| Does not Windows have tray icons as well? |
Shaded windows are better. They get out of the way and can be easily found. I have a feeling I'm going to really like tabbed windows too. I know that I'm becoming very fond of them in the web browser. Oh yeah, when Microsoft dumped their old model fo Multiple-Document-Interface (MDI) to go back to their older model of single-DI (SDI), I really thought that they mad a mistake... and then they came back to ridiculous MDI scheme that they call Grouped-Items... so that the task bar now has fold-up menus... they'll never get that right... shaded and tabbed, that looks very, very good.
The only advantage Windows offers over DSL are the System Tray icons that show the running state of daemons. Puppy has adopted this to some degree and show memory and CPU usage as System Tray icons.
| Quote |
| What is so inconsistent about DSL's presentation? |
First, the something that can be controlled... the capitalizations used for captions on the 3.4 desktop. They are whacky. Siag starts with a capital letter. xGVW doesn't. Maybe some are all lower-case. I don't have them all in my head, but I remember it's a hodge-podge. That's the very first thing a new user will see when they get to your desktop. Do you really want to mae it look like fifteen different people decided to name the different applications without talking to each other? Which brings me back to my earlier comment... it would look more polished if all of the captions had the same look and feel... [text editor], [file browser], [spreadsheet editor], [image viewer] etc. That would have a consistent, packaged feel.
| Quote |
| Do we really want 5 base icons + 17 app icons (ala 3.x) for a total of 22 desktops icons that would have to look good a 640x480, i.e., all bunched up in upper right hand corner? |
That's a very good question? Let me ask you a good question back... who are you building this for and for what purpose?
If your goal is to have a system that can be booted up in 90 seconds and that a user can immediately launch the program that they need in the next 10 seconds, my answer to you is unequivocally YES.
Why? Here's another good question... what is the profile of the user who will use this product without going so far as to make any modifications? My answer is... my aunt, and your aunt. Remember that old lady who barely remembers how to use the VCR? Well, if she wants to check her email, chances are really, really good that she's not going to remember how to dig through an icon named Apps to find a program named Sylpheed. Come on, you've got to admit it... if you've worked with anybody who isn't literati with computers, the scenario I just described is exactly true. And do we all really need more pained phone calls from our aunts just so we can try and make them remember the word Sylpheed?
I'd say the other major profile of the liveCD user will be someone who wants to fire up the machine and get on the internet to do something... banking, shopping, Yahoo email.
Any good user will be able to drag the icons off the desktop and move them into the Apps (should be named Programs) folder [thanks of course to the amazing work you've done with drag and drop!] So a regular user who wants a clear desktop can make it that way pretty damn quick and they're smart enough to be using backup.gz.tar and that setup persists for them.
| Quote |
| As for Firefox it is on the default desktop in the tray area. |
Only in JWM. That's a disservice to those who prefer Fluxbox don't you think?
| Quote |
| Are you suggesting new users don't see it, or that they know to boot with desktop=fluxbox option? |
Yes. Coming from Windows, the bootup options are a completely unfamiliar concept. It's a concept that I'm quickly growing fond of.
Has JWM become the default window manager because of a poll? Truly, out of innocent curiosity, how are these big decisions made now?
| Quote |
| I think this is falling under the statement; "You can please some of the people sometime but you can't please everyone". |
Of course. I think I glanced a message that said public response has been scant on the polls, I may be wrong... is there a consensus that one WM should be the default? I'm completely okay if this isn't a democratic process (remember I grew up in the land of Gates and Windows) but I'd like to know it before I make the mistake of thinking talking about it is valuable.
| Quote |
| With v4.x I wanted to implement drag and drop, folder and document centric computing using the same base as v3.x and being able to support existing extensions. |
Okay. I didn't use the product enough before this so I can't talk to pre-4.x except from the cosmetic perspective.
| Quote |
| The icons of ~/ and / should also be a tip off that DSL is not Windows. |
My aunt doesn't care if it's Windows or PineTrees as long as she can read her email from grannie in Florida. Hopefully, she'll just ignore those two icons because she'll never understand what she's looking at when they open up and it'll take me hours of looking at her confused face over the next family dinner to try and explain to her what a tree-view is. Good icons for me and you.
| Quote |
| Do I/We want DSL to not even look like Linux and only use generic names? What's next: DSGL? |
Who are we building this for? Us, who understand what's at hand... or our friends and family who want a simple computer to use? How far-reaching do we want this product to be? Is it a science project that will fade in time when we've all moved on to something else? or do we hope that it grows and becomes accepted by people who get scared when they see strange words that don't come from any language on our planet. Is this a tool for computer scientists or an offering for mankind?
| Quote |
| I really am open to suggestions and comments. But I am not convinced with anything so far. |
Good. Hopefully others will offer up their opinions and the two of us don't go looking like we're having a stupid fight about somthing trivial.
Please remember, I know that I can tailor my own versions of the system to suit my personal taste... so I don't feel boxed in at all.. I feel completely empowered and am grateful for the open minds that built DSL to allow this. What I'm hoping for is that I can show my friends and family the official version of the package and have them say, "Wow, this is really easy to use, I want it on my machine too." Problem is, most of my friends and family don't have the knowledge, time or energy to understand computers as well as I do and the best we can offer them is a machine that is ready for them to use right straight out of the box.
With my sincere regards,
John
Posted by john.martzouco on Nov. 30 2007,05:31
This is a repost of the entry that spawned this thread. Originally posted under [HD Install / Memory Leak] on Nov. 27 2007,23:20 by John M:| Quote |
Robert, Any chance you could share your minimal WM with me? I'd like to give it a go. Having a third metaphor to speak with would be helpful. I have a very high regard for the work that you're doing and expect that you are guiding us all in the right direction... please accept me apologies for resisting. I'm not sure what to say about the FB / JWM debate... coming from 15 years on a Windows box *should* endear me to JWM, I agree... but the functionality that I'm seeing in FB surpasses anything the MS model offers. Like the QWERTY keyboard, and the Linux OS, majority familiarity doesn't reflect the true value of a product, only it's market / mind share. If value beat out popularity we'd all be using Dvorak keyboard layouts and Microsoft wouldn't be an empire today. I truly believe that a Start button on FB would take away the confusion for most Windows converts. Let's remember that the people who are interested in Linux are drawn to it because it *is not* Windows. Why would anyone be tempted to leave one functioning OS for another if they superficially and immediately offer exactly the same things?... better the devil you know than the devil you don't. I've been using Fluxbox since my first introductions to DSL two months ago. I tried to switch over to JWM, but already the advantages that I've learned to enjoy in FB make it impossible for me to do so. The default 'shading' on double-click, the clean appearance of the bottom margin and the svelt font and smooth gradations of color make me much more comfortable than what is shipped today in JWM. If I could get to liking JWM, I might be tempted to dress it up, but I reiterate that right now, it looks like a very poor clone of a Windows classic desktop. As a recent convert from the Windows camp, I can tell you first-hand that an ugly version of Windows is not an enticing reason to continue using DSL. I read through to halfway chapter 4 in the Official DSL Book tonight and only just learned about tabbing the FB windows... now there's absolutely no way that I'll ever go back to an under-developed feeling window manager. I can accept a memory leak under the conditions that I use my computer. I don't expect that DSL or Linux in general can offer me a Hibernate mode so my machines will be cycled off and on every 18 hours because we don't run them unattended (we almost had a house fire from a motherboard that short-circuited). How much memory can escape in 18 hours of surfing the net and building web pages? Have the merits of JWM been listed anywhere I can look at them... I can still be convinced if I see advantages. I bet I'm totally off-base posting this in this section of the forum... I'll gladly move it to another thread if there's an active debate happening on the subject. With the greatest respect, john |
Posted by curaga on Nov. 30 2007,16:55
Hey, can someone explain what the DSGL meant, for us non-US?John, you think DSL should be the thing newbies go for. But, it isn't what they want, Ubuntu is more like what they are looking for; easy, simple, and graphic. It has wizards for everything.
| Quote |
| Who are we building this for? Us, who understand what's at hand... or our friends and family who want a simple computer to use? |
| Quote |
| Do you really want to make it look like fifteen different people decided to name the different applications without talking to each other? |
The capitalization is because the programs are named as such; and the programs are named with their descriptions (like: Firefox (web browser)) in the menu.
Most decisions are made with discussions; some are by polls, and some are just decided..
Posted by jpeters on Nov. 30 2007,17:04
Since we're polling for opinions, I'll bite.Running a windows computer also is an ongoing learning process. For example, I can't get on a network without installing something called 'net buii' which isn't currently supported. There are differences from Windows that will have to be learned, and vice versa. Linux offers a lot of flexibility and power that windows doesn't, such as command functions, but they have to be learned. Fortunately, there is plenty of documentation and support available for anyone who wants to learn.
Posted by roberts on Nov. 30 2007,17:37
| Quote (curaga @ Nov. 30 2007,08:55) |
| Hey, can someone explain what the DSGL meant, for us non-US? |
I was being silly. DSGL, Damn Small Generic Linux, or better yet Damn Small Granny's Linux.
re: "inconsistent look and homogenous set of objects"
Sounds like an integrated desktop. Not going to happen in 50MB.
Most of the custom developement of GUIs in DSL is using murgaLua which is a Lua FLTK binding. Therefore should we use flwm window manager as it too uses FLTK . (Actually that is the wm that I use most often)
We have a mix of UI in the applications from Ted, Siag (Mowitz), Gtk1 and Fltk. I don't see how this going to change.
I am open to adding more icons on the desktop. But then one will have to delete icons. The trend I was seeing was requests for the opposite with posts like "how can I removed these icons?"
Posted by curaga on Nov. 30 2007,17:45
Huh, I'd hate to see DSL turn into "generic".. There's something unique that should not disappear.
Posted by humpty on Nov. 30 2007,21:04
Well, I have to side with john.martzouco here. I don't t think he's asking for much, some cosmetic changes and/or help system perhaps. I've always been an advocate for idiot proof systems.Geeks like us wanting to tailor the system usually have the talent to do it but those less gifted will struggle. It may be enough to put them off, so first impressions do mean a lot.
If this is not direction for DSL, so be it. It's already surpassed my dreams. A suggestion for john.martzouco would be to tailor the system yourself before handing it to your aunt.
Posted by jpeters on Nov. 30 2007,21:57
| Quote (humpty @ Nov. 30 2007,16:04) |
| I've always been an advocate for idiot proof systems. |
It already is (idiot proof). The idiots will have to use Vista.
Edit: thinking more about "idiot proof"...reminds me of the (supposedly) true story about a guy who called tech support when his computer stopped working. The techie asked him to check the cables, but was told that he couldn't see them because the electricity was out. The techie allegedly was fired after systematically having the guy pack up his computer.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 01 2007,00:45
| Quote |
| What I don't like are the mini-icons on the command menus. They look amateurish and reduce the professionalism of the product. They are crude, ill-matched. They are so low in resolution that they are not easily distinguishable from each other and they are distracting when trying to read the commands on the menus. The same can be said of the heavy font that is used on these menus in JWM... it is too hard to read. |
1. You can remove the icons by editing your .jwmrc file.
2. Or you can find icons you like to replace the default set.
3. You can use a font you actually like by editing .jwmrc.
| Quote |
| JWM is no better than the Microsoft desktop. Fluxbox offers functionality that makes it easier to organize the desktop. |
Oh geez -- there's nothing "wrong" with a Microsoft desktop. Most interfaces are common whether it's MS, Mac, or the more common X desktop environments. All a window manager does is (optionally) decorate application instances and keep them separated. JWM isn't a desktop environment, and it does EVERYthing fluxbox can do -- and some of those things, it does better than fluxbox. It's very configurable, too.
| Quote |
| the something that can be controlled... the capitalizations used for captions on the 3.4 desktop. They are whacky. Siag starts with a capital letter. xGVW doesn't. Maybe some are all lower-case. I don't have them all in my head, but I remember it's a hodge-podge. |
That has nothing to do with DSL, it's a matter of each project. Does DSL need to include symlinks with every imaginable variation? Why stop there? Why is KDE capitalized and Xfce or Gnome not?
| Quote |
| Coming from Windows, the bootup options are a completely unfamiliar concept. |
They wouldn't be so unique if people would read the documentation first -- doesn't matter if it's Linux, Mac, or Windows, the biggest hurdle to getting the most out of any system is the user's knowledge (or lack thereof).
Posted by roberts on Dec. 01 2007,06:59
The point of including JWM in the first place was to make an easier and more comfortable environment for new users.If the issue is more of 'eye candy' as some think JWM is ugly, then I take blame for that. I am not an artistic type.
Perhaps someone who is would be willing to make a nicer color scheme for JWM.
I did play around with key bindings for JWM.
I added these lines to the end of the .jwmrc file just before the closing </JWM> tag.
<Key mask="C" key="s">shade</Key>
<Key mask="C" key="d">desktop</Key>
<Key mask="C" key="z">root:1</Key>
<Key mask="C" key="x">close</Key>
<Key mask="C" key="v">minimize</Key>
<Key mask="C" key="b">resize</Key>
<Key mask="C" key="n">move</Key>
<Key mask="C" key="m">maximize</Key>
Use the Ctrl key together with the letter, i.e., Ctrl s to toggle shade
Try them and let me know.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 01 2007,08:54
Have I mentioned how much I admire you guys?! I hope that you know that, and it's very sincere.Thank you Robert, I think the keyboard shortcuts are going to be a good improvement. That thinking lends itself well to the advanced user and allows for a simple model for the new user. Good thinking.
[lucky13] mentioned on another thread that he's been toying with the BlueGlass theme for JWM... as that is my all-time favorite theme for DSL, I'd be very, very excited to see it used. Mind you, I think that the default scheme used for Fluxbox is also sedate, professional and very, very pleasant. It might be worth some thinking to decide whether it would be a positive or negative thing to make both desktops look the same? Would it help in magration? Would it establish a distinguisjing look and feel for the product? Would it confuse?
I still believe that the new user would be best served by having all of the popular programs displayed on the desktop with shortcut icons. I truly do. It's very frustrating to try and find something in a new environment. Let the new user have the chance to love this product by giving them the easiest path to discovery.
Which brings me to double-clicking. How many of you have tried to teach a computer newcomer about double-clicking? It's been my experience that older people and uncoordinated middling people have a humongously tough time double-clicking... and then after they finally learn how to do it, they double-click everything... and end up with 2 Firefox, 2 File Explorers, 2 Text Editors etc etc.
The only two things in the world I can think that get double-clicked are car horns and computer mice... can you think of any others?
This is great feedback and I applaud everyone for speaking up so politely.
My best regards,
John
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 01 2007,13:57
Here are some screenshots and I mentioned the colors I used in it. The icon on the menu button was lifted from some Linux propaganda GIF that I edited to go with the T Rex thing (after the screenshot was taken) but left on when I changed color schemes because I like it and didn't feel like filling out the orange with green or cyan.< http://lucky13linux.wordpress.com/dsl-related-pages/jwm-aesthetics/ >
I disagree that cluttering the desktop with icons is a good idea -- that's what menus are for. Why have the redundancy of dragging icons out on to the desktop by default when users can do that themselves or can opt to use the menu, shut off icons, or switch icon "managers" (such as rox)?
Posted by roberts on Dec. 01 2007,14:32
lucky13, WOW. Now those are very nice. Would you be willing to share your beautiful JWM themes? If so, please email to [email protected].
Posted by Juanito on Dec. 01 2007,14:46
Agreed - I'd love that t.rex background for my old desktop (albeit using fluxbox).
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 01 2007,14:53
You've got talent lucky13! I like them both!I still think that 'Find' icon is a good example of what I think is awful; it detracts from the professional quality otherwise.
Same goes for the battleship grey background on the inactive items... but I think I understood your blog entry stating that you've since updated that detail.
| Quote |
I disagree that cluttering the desktop with icons is a good idea -- that's what menus are for. |
If the intended audience of this product is a computer literate crowd that is expected to customize to their own needs, I agree with you.
If the intended audience of this product is a user base that can slide in a CD, start a computer and access key functionality as quickly as possible, I believe that burying commands in any second-level mechanism is a disservice. "At your fingertips" should be the motto for this intent.
Great stuff,
John
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 01 2007,15:27
| Quote |
| Would you be willing to share your beautiful JWM themes? |
Last time I checked, I thought JWM 2+ had broken theme support. Am I mistaken? If so, I can hack together a few quickly. I've just been editing .jwmrc and changing backgrounds as my mood changes.
Here's the current part of my .jwmrc for the blueglass-like menu for anyone who wants it:
<!-- Visual Styles -->
<WindowStyle>
<Font antialias="false">smoothansi</Font>
<Width>4</Width>
<Height>20</Height>
<Active>
<Text>skyblue</Text>
<Title>grey44:grey22</Title>
<Corner>white</Corner>
<Outline>grey11</Outline>
</Active>
<Inactive>
<Text>grey55</Text>
<Title>grey44:grey22</Title>
<Corner>grey55</Corner>
<Outline>black</Outline>
</Inactive>
</WindowStyle>
<TaskListStyle>
<Font antialias="false">smoothansi</Font>
<ActiveForeground>skyblue</ActiveForeground>
<ActiveBackground>grey33:grey11</ActiveBackground>
<Foreground>grey55</Foreground>
<Background>grey44:grey22</Background>
</TaskListStyle>
<!-- Additional TrayStyle attribute: insert -->
<TrayStyle>
<Font antialias="false">smoothansi</Font>
<Background>grey22</Background>
<Foreground>skyblue</Foreground>
</TrayStyle>
<PagerStyle>
<Outline>black</Outline>
<Foreground>grey66</Foreground>
<Background>grey33</Background>
<ActiveForeground>skyblue</ActiveForeground>
<ActiveBackground>grey44</ActiveBackground>
</PagerStyle>
<MenuStyle>
<Font antialias="false">smoothansi</Font>
<Foreground>black</Foreground>
<Background>grey44</Background>
<ActiveForeground>white</ActiveForeground>
<ActiveBackground>grey22:skyblue</ActiveBackground>
</MenuStyle>
<PopupStyle>
<Font antialias="false">smoothansi</Font>
<Outline>black</Outline>
<Foreground>black</Foreground>
<Background>skyblue</Background>
</PopupStyle>
<!-- Visual Styles ends before the icon path -->
-----------
EDIT: The smoothansi font is available in dsl-artwiz.dsl.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 01 2007,15:55
Robert,There's another perspective that you need to keep in mind as the maintainer of this project: An Official Damn Small Linux reference book has been published and will be purchased with the intent to learn how to use DSL.
I've read three-quarters of the book already and am very much enjoying it. The meaty stuff is coming up and I look forward to it with relish. Congratulations on a fine publication.
Now, let me explain a scenario that I think will occur repeatedly. Someone purchases your book and compares the desktop functionality it describes to the product that they download as your latest stable release. This person is immediately estranged because the two are not at all the same. The book describes an "at your fingertips" desktop, the 4.x lineage is a minimalist desktop version without even one single icon from the published document. What happens next?
If the user is persistent and computer literate, he knows that you've moved on to some other fashion statement with the official desktop and he digs into the meatier parts of the book and ignores the inconsistencies. He does wonder though, how a book published in August 2007 can be out of date by October 2007.
If the user is my Aunt Kay, she's going to tell me the book is useless and that I wasted 40$ of her pension money. Of course, I'm going to have to drive her back out to Barnes and Nobel the day after Christmas so she can get her money back and take advantage of the Boxing Day sale and then I'm going to have to reformat her computer and install Windows XP because she, like everybody else on the planet has a horrific allergic reaction to Windows Vista (nobody like Windows Vista, not the gamers, not the jocks, not the developers, not the kitchen crowd).
So, you've lost a book sale, you've lost a potential new user and you've estranged everybody at Aunt Kay's Bridge Club. Now all of those old ladies think that Linux is as confusing as Vista. Not a good job done this... a loss for DSL, and a loss for Linux.
I don't expect development to stand still... indeed, if it did, I'd be horrifically saddened. I think that you're in a distinctly unique class owing to the fact that you have mainstream distribution of a layman version Reference Manual. Distinctly! But I believe that when you published that book, you made a tacit contract to the world about the look and feel of the product. And varying from that recipe in such a grand sweep, at such an early date will weaken your position as a reliable product.
That being said, the only other glaring change I can see from the described system in the ODSLBook is the loss of the quick-mount tool. I've read many requests to bring it back and I'd like to echo them. I absolutely know that I can mount any drive I want from emelFM, but it is nowhere near as convenient as the little utility that used to sit bottom-right on the desktop.
With my respect,
John
PS - I'm glad that you've started a poll concerning this topic and I will vote as soon as I decide whether my vote is for 22 icons or a few less than that. If a few less, I need to understand my own reasons for not wanting them there before I can comment.
Posted by humpty on Dec. 01 2007,16:12
for the record, i disagree that emelfm is less convenient than that wretched clickety click mount tool. 
Posted by roberts on Dec. 01 2007,16:15
I fully understand the issues with the book. In fact it was quite hard on me to be writing the book and keeping DSL's development on-going. Trying to have a published date with a very recent version of DSL. The book covers DSL v3.3 and a cdrom with v3.3 is included. I am still maintaining the 3.x with v3.4.7. If one buys the book, one has the matching software.3.x and 4.x are indeed very different approaches. In a nutshell, 3.x consists of 17 large application launchers (icons) not too different from eeePC's approach. In v3.x there is no concept of folders, drag-n-drop and document centric.
4.x is the reverse of 3.x, every object in the home folder can be manipulated directly. One should not even need to know which application program is needed, named, or called. You work with documents (data). You work from your home folder. I fashioned this approach via dfm and my experience with RISCOS. I am getting feedback that most Americans are not too familiar with this approach. Sometimes, I think I need to make some youtube videos on 4.x intended use. It is not the application it is the data.
Users should be more aware of the data on their system. They name it, they use it, they process it. They actually end up having better file management simply because they are so much more involved in the data perspective. With this perspective, one does not need application launcher icons or even application menus.
The data perspective necessarily means no need to have all or many application launchers on the desktop.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 01 2007,16:21
| Quote |
| you've moved on to some other fashion statement |
I take strong exception that replacing xtdesk with dfm represents a change in style rather than change in substance. You're probably not as aware as some of the rest of us of the discussions that went into what became DSL 4, but the changes were to make things more user-friendly across the interface. With xtdesk, icons are used for one thing: to launch applications. That's it. It's not so easy to configure, it's static. and it doesn't interface with anything else.
With dfm, icons aren't so static. The desktop is now fully drag and drop -- something users of other operating systems take for granted and which wasn't possible with pre-DSL 4 (unless users installed dfm or rox from MyDSL or apt-get). It works between applications, not unto itself. It has low overhead but it's versatile and Robert has done a lot since the first release candidates to make it easy for users to customize.
I appreciate your view on the issue of the book, but operating systems rarely stay in a state of stasis. The underlying function -- the substance -- of DSL hasn't changed. It's a 50ish MB ISO that's extended via MyDSL and can be installed in a variety of manners according to the tastes and needs of the user. Robert is maintaining the 3.x series for those who are content with it. Anyone who purchases the book and is disappointed that DSL has changed to include more user-friendly features can still download a pre-4 version. And anyone who wants to litter his or her DSL 4+ desktop with icons can do that, too. By default? I don't think so -- you're talking about some users who still have 640x480 monitors (20 icons * 32x32 pixels = 640 without space between them, no?).
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 01 2007,17:04
I opt going in the opposite direction of windows, and providing apowerful/lean tool that can be configured according to the needs/desires of the user. Basically, I want a language. The more predetermined garbage, the worse it is. If you want a Rex on your desktop and 40 icons, so-be-it. In my opinion, it should never be the default setup.
Posted by curaga on Dec. 01 2007,18:25
When I looked at Lucky's themes, the first part that caught my attention was the Vista wallpaper.. Gave me creeps.The gradients looked good, on the other hand
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 03 2007,17:47
| Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 01 2007,11:21) | ||
I take strong exception that replacing xtdesk with dfm represents a change in style rather than change in substance. |
lucky13,
I wish that you didn't. Form and function are not bound together inseparably. There is no reason why the desktop arrangement needed to change to take full advantage of a different technological layer.
Respectfully,
John
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 03 2007,17:50
For the sake of continuity, the results of the poll associated to this thread have been finalized: < http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin....t=19449 >
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 03 2007,17:57
| Quote (roberts @ Dec. 01 2007,11:15) |
| I fully understand the issues with the book. ... If one buys the book, one has the matching software. |
I'm completely comfortable with this answer. It makes sense.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 03 2007,18:02
| Quote |
| There is no reason why the desktop arrangement needed to change... |
Yes, there is. The change in default icon placement reflects the paradigm shift from using icons that only open applications to a system that integrates the desktop icons with applications and file management.
Your applications can still be accessed individually from the applications folder in the new default or from the tray icons. If you want to access applications rather than click on an icon and access your data with its associated application (which you can configure to suit your needs), you can add more icons on your own desktop or add some to the tray (or add a separate tray as I have).
I remain unconvinced that DSL 4's desktop should be cluttered with icons by default.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 03 2007,19:23
| Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 03 2007,13:02) | ||
Yes, there is. The change in default icon placement reflects the paradigm shift... |
I'm not trying to convince you that the desktop should be changed. What I am trying to convince you, is that it didn't *need* to be.
I championed the cluttered desktop from the perspective of new users and users who are either too rushed or too constrained to try and hit small targets that are buried within other small targets. That conversation has been terminated by Robert and I respect his wish to let it go. DSL 4.x is not intended for the type of audience I described. DSL 3.x might be, although I expect most new users to do like I did and go for the latest stable release (which may turn them away from Linux for another five years).
That 4.x promotes a different methodology is one thing; that you stress that it is dependant on a different desktop configuration is another. Sure, the new layout promotes reaching for data, but the new tool isn't restricted to that. The position that you are arguing is that you *want* users to work data-centric and that the desktop pushes them to do that. That's great, but it's a model that drifts away from some of the advertised benefits of DSL in general. As long as the DSL main page continues to promote the 3.x lineage as latest release, then all the facts line up and the message is consistent.
I am completely convinced that 4.x is a much better product than 3.x. But the 3.x desktop is better for my aunt, my six-year old niece and my Windows pal who wants to get started with Linux and not suffer until he's ramped up.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 03 2007,21:28
Umm, what are the "advertised benefits of DSL" in general?I think you're putting words in my mouth when you say that I'm "arguing" for users to be "pushed to" do things they can't or don't understand. Send a Windows user a DOC attachment and it opens in Word automagically when it's clicked. Give someone a copy of an MP3 (legally, of course) and they click on the MP3 and it opens in Windows Media Player, WinAmp, or whatever program they've set to handle that particular kind of data by default. Send someone a link and they'll click on it and it'll open in whichever default browser they use. Or they can use a desktop shortcut to launch the application and do what it's supposed to.
They generally don't open Notepad, search for a document, and then open it. It's the other way around. They browse for the file they want, click, and it's opened in its associated application.
This is what DSL 4 does. DSL 4 is really not as radical as you suggest, nor alien to how most Windows refugees are used to doing things. The most common "see-icon-click" applications are in the tray. I would propose adding sylpheed to it since that's one that isn't as data-centric (where you have a MIME/file type to open when you boot up). But for the most part, they should know from reading the "Getting Started" document what's available and where. They shouldn't have an eyesore of disparate icons thrown in their faces.
I think the earlier versions of DSL with all those icons are the ones less intuitive for Windows users because there's a presumption they even know how to find files, or where to put them, once they click and open an application. No? How many posts are from people trying to figure out permissions, or who quickly abandon running as user dsl for the power they can have as root?
Robert mentioned doing a video. I made two stupid little ones that really didn't get to the heart of the differences between versions. He's right and there needs to be more "instruction." Maybe I'll add a few more later this week.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 03 2007,23:18
| Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 03 2007,16:28) |
| Umm, what are the "advertised benefits of DSL" in general? |
Page 3, Chapter 1, The Official Damn Small Linux Book:
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 03 2007,23:22
And how has that changed with fewer icons? Click on the tray icon for either browser there by default and you browse the web. Click on any text file in ~/ (or anywhere else) and you're editing it. Click on an OGG or MP3 and it starts playing. Easier than before. And there's a menu filled with applications if that doesn't already rock your world.(edited a couple things)
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 04 2007,02:09
A data centric approach has so many advantages. For example, sort documents/files into unique folders and then link the folder to .dfmdesk. Walla, the folder appears on the desktop. An example is a music folder. Click on anything in the folder, and it plays with the associated app.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 04 2007,02:18
So, who's suggesting that there's anything amiss with a data-centric OS? I take that for granted.(not to diminish the accomplishment of building one, mind you)
Posted by mikshaw on Dec. 04 2007,13:40
I can see very good arguments on both sides, but I lean toward the 4.x desktop as being better for a larger number of people. | Quote (john.martzouco @ ,) |
| That 4.x promotes a different methodology is one thing; that you stress that it is dependant on a different desktop configuration is another. |
| Quote (lucky13 @ ,) |
| They generally don't open Notepad, search for a document, and then open it. It's the other way around. They browse for the file they want, click, and it's opened in its associated application. |
Linux is not Windows.
If you don't like something you can change it.
Posted by roberts on Dec. 04 2007,16:14
| Quote (mikshaw @ Dec. 04 2007,05:40) | ||
I can see very good arguments on both sides, but I lean toward the 4.x desktop as being better for a larger number of people.
|
I made this decision to try to promote the use of the Home folder (document centric). If I had all the applications icons on the desktop as before, I felt it would not prompt such. That document centric would be mostly ignored. As such, 4.x would remain an application launcher (3.x) type system. Document centric was paramount in my decision to make a 4.x series. I felt so strongly about this that I was reluctant to place an Apps folder on the desktop. I was even considering to not have an application menu, ala SWM. That would have been too strong and dictatorial, so I created the Apps folder and kept the menu.
| Quote | ||
Linux is not Windows. If you don't like something you can change it. |
One must realize that 4.x is still in its infancy. Through use, suggestions, and contributions of the community, the associations will only improve. I am more a programmer than a user of applications. So dfmext started fairly sparse. I have to thank Lucky13 for initial suggestions. Many times, I take advantage of the sharp user community that we have here to provide input. Just as Xtdesk capabilities improved over time, i.e., I modified source and created support programs, so too will dfm. Likely from use and likely from source mods.
Another decision that I made was to try to find low-color icons because I wanted even smaller less capable machines to be to use icons. Using low-color icons and no background image (only a color), improves performance on the smaller, less capable machines. DSL is not only a small distro but its target machines include some of the smallest less capable ones.
Sometimes, I think that we I release something very new, that everyone expects the first version to be as mature as 3.x. I have been polishing 3.x for four years! When I initially announced 4.0 that it would be very different that is what I meant. 4.0 had some rough edges, 4.1 is improved. We have only started on the 4.x road. For what 4.x is capable versus its size, I think is remarkable.
I am starting to see some users "who get it". I see that they can now write simple scripts to effect drag-n-drop. That makes all my efforts worthwhile.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 04 2007,16:30
| Quote |
| This is a very important point, and a correct one in my opinion. I do think that it is not nearly as clicker-friendly in dfm as it is in windows explorer, though. In Windows if you click on a file that is not associated with an application you are presented with an "open with..." dialog (if I remember correctly). |
Yes, that's correct. And you can easily change that via right-click "open with." One of the reasons I like rox over dfm is because it has a similar right-click re-associate option.
| Quote |
| In dfm it seems the user has to know what file to edit and the syntax of that file, so as with many other things the user must read and learn something in order to understand how to make it work exactly as the user wants it. |
Doesn't dfm open non-associated file-types as text files in an editor (beaver) by default? Maybe this can be remedied with dfm by launching the dfmext tool when unassociated file types are encountered if rc files can be excluded.
| Quote |
| This is in heavy contrast with Windows, where the user does not have much choice in how the desktop behaves. |
I think Windows' behavior is as configurable as Linux'. My XP desktop is very OSX-like right now, down to a functional animated dock. (Screenshot is tinted with an overlay of enlarged text germane to something I posted against FSF/Busybox lawyers.)
< http://lucky13linux.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/highgainupload.png >
| Quote |
| The main point I'm trying to make is that we're talking about Linux, which holds at least two very important traits that are often ignored by those coming from Windows: Linux is not Windows. If you don't like something you can change it. |
I touched a little on this subject in a blog entry last night, but from the standpoint that familiarity with common interface concepts is what either hinders or enables migration from one OS to another.
I don't think what's under the hood really matters to users so much as whether they can manipulate it via familiar concepts. The more novel it is to new users and the more of a learning curve they have, the less likely they'll bother. You can cover Linux with GUI tools that ease transition and break down the barriers because of familiarity with menus, buttons, icons, etc., and with features like file associations and dragging and dropping. There are also some "under the hood" things some (e.g., GoboLinux) have attempted to make Linux directory structures more familiar to those who are used to Windows. I have no problem with that because Linux is highly adaptable and it can be set up to suit a user's needs.
The greatest barrier to understanding Linux in general and DSL in particular isn't in the difference between it and Windows but rather the resistance to reading the available documentation. How many questions asked in the forums are answered in "Getting Started" or the wiki or elsewhere? I would suggest expanding "Getting Started" to include brief tutorials for more things but it seems like many people don't even bother reading it.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 04 2007,16:37
| Quote |
| Using low-color icons and no background image (only a color), improves performance on the smaller, less capable machines. DSL is not only a small distro but its target machines include some of the smallest less capable ones. |
I'm going to have more time this afternoon than I thought. I'm going to see if I can either clean up the icons you have or make some icons so they don't distort on different colored backgrounds. I think some of the current icons are in the 6kb range, and I'm sure we can reduce that and still have good-looking icons.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 04 2007,16:44
| Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 04 2007,11:30) |
| The greatest barrier to understanding Linux in general and DSL in particular isn't in the difference between it and Windows but rather the resistance to reading the available documentation. How many questions asked in the forums are answered in "Getting Started" or the wiki or elsewhere? I would suggest expanding "Getting Started" to include brief tutorials for more things but it seems like many people don't even bother reading it. |
You make this point often, and I know that it is meant to be useful... but the Wiki is very sketchy (I have gone to it often). I imagine that the "Getting Started" that you mention is the top section in the Wiki?: < http://damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page >
Do I need to contact someone to have a page I've started get mentioned in the "Getting Started"? I added it a few days ago, making sure to add [[Category:...]] to it, but it hasn't been picked up yet. I just now changed it to [[Category:Getting Started]], although it has been [[Category:Documentation]] since the beginning.
The page is intended to help new Windows converts: < http://damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/DSL_Compared_to_MS_Windows >
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 04 2007,16:53
"Getting Started" refers to the document that opens in Dillo when DSL is booted and X starts.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 04 2007,17:02
| Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 04 2007,11:53) |
| "Getting Started" refers to the document that opens in Dillo when DSL is booted and X starts. |
ok, yes I`ve read that one many times as well.
Can we post that document on the Wiki so that it can be read when not running the OS?
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 04 2007,17:28
| Quote |
| Can we post that document on the Wiki so that it can be read when not running the OS? |
Sure. But I'm more interested in expanding it on the CD so those who start X have more information at hand without having to go searching for it online (which presumes they get online with it).
Posted by mikshaw on Dec. 04 2007,19:22
| Quote (roberts @ ,) |
| Through use, suggestions, and contributions of the community, the associations will only improve. |
| Quote (lucky13 @ ,) |
| Doesn't dfm open non-associated file-types as text files in an editor (beaver) by default? Maybe this can be remedied with dfm by launching the dfmext tool when unassociated file types are encountered if rc files can be excluded. |
| Quote (lucky13 @ ,) |
| I think Windows' behavior is as configurable as Linux'. My XP desktop is very OSX-like right now, down to a functional animated dock. |
| Quote |
| I don't think what's under the hood really matters to users so much as whether they can manipulate it via familiar concepts. |
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Dec. 04 2007,21:14
Some points on this thread (not all of it as it is getting quite lengthy):john.martzouco:
- on names: would that person know what an "Internet browser" is then? �Highly doubtful. (Xandros on EEE shows "Web")
- if you want to convert all "windows" users, perhaps you should name it "internet explorer-like program"?
- on consistency: actually some of the names aren't the exact project name, i.e. ATerminal, Rdesktop, etc.
- on boot options: perhaps boot.ini? �I've only changed it for some basic things though
- on documentation: it's not surprising that many people ignore or miss it
jpeters:
| Quote |
| Linux offers a lot of flexibility and power that windows doesn't, such as command functions, but they have to be learned. |
lucky13:
- I like that orange/brown style, with that dinosaur background quite a bit
- I agree that the windows' desktop can be configured as much as a linux desktop
mikshaw:
- on bb4win, etc.: you first have to install it permanently, then restart/relogin - then you won't have any problems with explorer popping up
in general:
- maybe there can be a way to choose if you want to include all 22 icons. �Perhaps that would satisfy those who want icons but don't want to copy them to the desktop manually.
- would be interesting to have some kind of mydsl package that would set up your desktop like another users' (I haven't looked much into the jwm internals though)
Posted by roberts on Dec. 04 2007,21:26
Lucky13 sent me his jwmrc sections and background images.I don't believe I can make public the background images without consent or free license to do so.
The orange/brown theme looks very with the DSL Elephant background fom v1.3 days.
I am working a GUI jwm theme selector.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 04 2007,21:33
| Quote |
| I like that orange/brown style, with that dinosaur background quite a bit |
Thanks. The color scheme has been submitted to Robert and will be available to the community. Dittos for the others on the JWM aesthetics pages linked on my "My DSL Pages" section on my blog (link is at top). I'm also looking for copyright information for the T Rex image before including it with any theme. One of these days I'll learn to stop renaming things when I download to make it easier to find them again.
| Quote |
| would be interesting to have some kind of mydsl package that would set up your desktop like another users |
Robert will have an announcement about that shortly. :-)
Edit: Wow. Even more shortly than I thought.
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 04 2007,22:08
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Dec. 04 2007,16:14) | ||
jpeters:
|
I was referring to commands with options that would require a terminal. Most windows users don't get beyond clicking icons. (just getting a command window requires going into the start menu, clicking on "run," and then typing "cmd" just to generate a terminal window).
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 04 2007,22:38
| Quote |
| I was referring to commands with options that would require a terminal. Most windows users don't get beyond clicking icons. (just getting a command window requires going into the start menu, clicking on "run," and then typing "cmd" just to generate a terminal window). |
Windows still accepts commands from terminal. It's my first option in my misc folder on my XP taskbar:
< http://lucky13linux.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/menubar.png >
(Can't embed png?)
The reason most Windows, Mac, Amiga, BeOS, etc., users use icons over console commands is because the interfaces are optimized for that. You can still open a Windows console and launch apps if you want. You can also configure links (shortcuts), scripts (bat), etc., to run from console or iconify them. And many of the graphical interfaces for handling tasks allow customizing of command parameters -- it's a lot easier for most users to tick off options than run man or a help flag to see what's available.
I think that last point is one of the things that "terminal snobs" lose sight of -- that a GUI doesn't necessarily hide everything behind the scenes or limit users from accessing the power of commands or applications. Interfaces for the most common applications generally don't offer many options because there aren't many. But interfaces for file managers and for processes often have things for users to click to handle things in different manners (such as front-ends like peazip that make 7zip easier for most users). The only issue is how much flexibility users want. For "power users," they like more options. Most users, though, want the simplest interface with the least details to worry about.
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 05 2007,00:14
Wow, and you even use Windows Media Player; that's loyalty! 
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 05 2007,00:51
The link for WMP is there because my default is WinAmp (next to the blue QuickTime icon in the app tray).
Posted by mikshaw on Dec. 05 2007,01:03
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Dec. 04 2007,16:14) |
| maybe there can be a way to choose if you want to include all 22 icons. Perhaps that would satisfy those who want icons but don't want to copy them to the desktop manually. |
| Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 04 2007,17:38) |
| You can still open a Windows console and launch apps if you want. |
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 05 2007,01:10
| Quote |
| With the typical cmd prompt you can start programs and do some other tasks, but it is generally seen as a tool that is used only when you've messed up your system and can't click. |
That may be the point of reference for those whose experience with MS operating systems is post Win9x. In addition to the native commands supported in XP, there are others available via open source, freeware, shareware, etc.
< https://www.microsoft.com/resourc....fr=true >
< http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006....ks.html >
Edit: fixed link (hopefully) and added one
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 05 2007,01:14
Here's what can happen via typicall windows usage:< http://www.jpeters.net/apps/WindowsDesk.PNG >
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 05 2007,01:19
| Quote |
| Here's what can happen via typicall windows usage |
Shhh, you're going to give john.m* more ideas.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 05 2007,02:48
| Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 04 2007,20:19) | ||
Shhh, you're going to give john.m* more ideas. |
hahahahahaha... love it! Now that's funny!
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 05 2007,02:58
| Quote (mikshaw @ Dec. 04 2007,20:03) |
| With the typical cmd prompt you can start programs and do some other tasks, but it is generally seen as a tool that is used only when you've messed up your system and can't click. |
hmm... I've never met up with that perspective before. What I've noticed is that only the really bright people take advantage of the DOS Console in Windows ;~)
Here's a tiny bit of trivia for you: Did you know that you can create a file named .something (dotWhatever) using the Windows Command Prompt... but you are blocked from naming a file with a leading dot using the GUI Windows Explorer?
There are quite a few things that can be done with the console that beat the GUI hands-down.
I'm with lucky13 on this one... the people who became fluent in DOS before Windows came around still use the power of the C:\> prompt.
Some of you must have lived the transition from DOS to Windows, no? I remember it took me about three years before I started to be able to ignore the flakiness of the GUI. Now I use it, but I still fall back on the DOS emulator when I want to get things done quickly.
BAT files rock!
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Dec. 05 2007,03:48
Usually gui applications in linux are just a frontend for some commandline/console application - exceptions are those who just work in X (i.e. xpdf, xmms). �You can do a lot of work with the prompt with the utilities in XP (I think less in 2000, but it's still there). �There's even UNIX services (Interix) which provides a fully functional shell and a set of utilities. �Or you could install your preferred alternative.About the dot prefix: this "hidden file" scheme is not used on windows (i.e. it's used with ntfs), and the scheme is filename.extension - so it would make sense to prevent the user from creating it.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 05 2007,08:55
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Dec. 04 2007,22:48) |
| About the dot prefix: this "hidden file" scheme is not used on windows (i.e. it's used with ntfs), and the scheme is filename.extension - so it would make sense to prevent the user from creating it. |
Agreed... but it would make more sense if it was consistent from both access points. Can you tell me more about your meaning of... i.e. it's used with NTFS... ? Thanks.
Although Windows doesn't use the hidden file naming scheme, ports of popular Linux utilities do. I use WinCVS and copSSH, both of which are dependent on config files named in hidden file format. If I weren't aware that the DOS prompt allows me to create these files, I wouldn't be able to add .ignore files to my CVS repositories.
I won't speculate as to why MS offers the capacity from one access point and not the other.
Posted by mikshaw on Dec. 05 2007,13:17
DOS and its descendants (power shell might be an exception, i don't know) are practically useless when compared to Linux shells. Perhaps the gap is narrowed by adding more 3rd-party commands, but I have no idea about that. What I do know is Bash is a useful shell simply from its built-ins. Add all the other text-friendly commands that are found in any Linux system, plus the ability to chain them, and you have something that kills the command prompt in Windows.I find it bizarre to be having a windows vs. linux argument here, and I think I'm going to stop before I get ill.
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Dec. 05 2007,16:11
john.martzouco:See attributes, etc. in NTFS - search google? �If you're using a *nix based program, you should use an appropriate tool - although I'm just guessing it's just restricted from explorer to save the majority of users who don't know otherwise.
mikshaw:
I don't think anyone's having an argument here, but it's just that it seems people don't know what _can_ be used, although I agree scripting batch files in Windows is quite obscure imo, but you can still do similar things, like chaining/piping (and that UNIX shell is not 3rd-party though)
Posted by curaga on Dec. 05 2007,16:39
What, Win has pipes, since when?Their Powershell is a Bash derivative by the way
Seems they couldn't come up anything their own
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 05 2007,16:44
| Quote |
| I don't think anyone's having an argument here, but it's just that it seems people don't know what _can_ be used |
I only wanted to clarify something because I saw some misleading or presumptuous comments. I don't even see the discussion as a "Windows versus Linux" thing because BASH isn't Linux and Linux isn't BASH -- there is no Linux shell, per se, because Linux is just a kernel.
Windows' console reflects the shift from command-intensive computing in the days of DOS to almost exclusively graphic environments. The Windows console isn't a selling point because DOS adoption was slow because it wasn't user-friendly the way GUI-oriented computing is. Most users don't want to memorize commands and flags/variables, much less have to remember where files are. GUI makes computing more accessible to more people because it's easier to learn gestures like dragging and dropping and clicking on icons and browsing through a set of nested directories.
For better or worse, Linux is headed in the same direction with less and less console interaction and more and more GUI interaction. That's especially more likely to occur as Windows refugees embrace KDE- and Gnome-based distros. They do so not because of access to better shells, but because they're familiar with the shared concepts in user interfaces. And if I'm right that more people will use Linux on mobile devices like phones and PDAs (and smaller platforms like the XO/Eee) than on desktops, it's even more likely they'll not encounter shells while running Linux except for the same purpose(s) they're forced to in Windows: troubleshooting.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 05 2007,16:58
| Quote |
| Their Powershell is a Bash derivative |
In what sense?
| Quote |
| Seems they couldn't come up anything their own |
Aside from having an object-oriented shell that integrates and works appropriately in a graphic environment. Other than that and a bunch of software patents, Xbox, etc., they're not very innovative.
/sarcasm
Edit:
Some comparisons:
< http://blogs.msdn.com/powershell/archive/2006/04/25/583272.aspx >
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Dec. 05 2007,17:13
| Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 05 2007,11:44) | ||
I only wanted to clarify something because I saw some misleading or presumptuous comments. I don't even see the discussion as a "Windows versus Linux" thing because BASH isn't Linux and Linux isn't BASH -- there is no Linux shell, per se, because Linux is just a kernel. |
Yes, that is the technical interpretation, but in the context of it here, it is more of a generalization of the CLI offerings (of a typical setups).
Posted by curaga on Dec. 05 2007,18:09
| Quote |
| In what sense? |
In the sense of having copied ideas.. And documentation (man pages)
I read that somewhere, haven't confirmed myself as I don't use their products.
Edit: < here >
Posted by curaga on Dec. 05 2007,18:14
I don't think of Xbox as even remotely innovative - it's a comp, only with a red screen of deathHow would you describe that, and software patents, as innovative?
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 05 2007,18:25
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Dec. 05 2007,11:11) |
| john.martzouco: See attributes, etc. in NTFS - search google? |
hats,
You must be talking about attrib +h file.ext. Sure, been using it for years, just didn't understand from the way it was phrased.
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 05 2007,18:28
| Quote (curaga @ Dec. 05 2007,11:39) |
| What, Win has pipes, since when? |
Since forever. You could pipe through | more a hundred years ago.
I learned recently that you can pipe through | find
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 05 2007,18:47
| Quote |
| I read that somewhere, haven't confirmed myself as I don't use their products. |
There's a big difference between reading about things and having firsthand experience. Then there's definitions. "Derivative" means something was copied or adapted or forked from something else. PowerShell is its own beast. The example of man/help pages given in your link doesn't impress those of us who are old enough to remember the addition of help and /? in DOS. The formatting of the help documentation is style, but the substance of it precedes Windows.
If you want to discuss derivatives, we can start with the Unix environment which has been cloned with derivatives. Linux is a derivative of Unix. BASH is a derivative of the Bourne shell. Most commands and applications and GUI interfaces, including those used by Linux advocates, are derivatives of closed-source offerings. Can't open source come up with its own ideas?
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Dec. 05 2007,19:32
| Quote (john.martzouco @ Dec. 05 2007,13:25) | ||
hats, You must be talking about attrib +h file.ext. �Sure, been using it for years, just didn't understand from the way it was phrased. |
Yes, you can use that program to change the attributes, but I did not mean that program specifically since you were wondering how hidden files were done in windows - which is via attributes in NTFS.
EDIT: Oh boy, now this is getting OT as well.
Posted by curaga on Dec. 06 2007,08:43
| Quote |
| The example of man/help pages given in your link doesn't impress those of us who are old enough to remember the addition of help and /? in DOS. |
I remember that, kinda mean of you to suggest I don't.
Let's not get too OT either
Yes, it's true everyone copies from anything they've seen/heard/felt about, using what they think is best from it, but improving it with their own ideas. Open source is pretty much based on copying, so is science.
To me it's just a weird idea, to see the GUI beast copying a linux cli.
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 06 2007,18:13
Well, now that I know about window's versatility, I figured I start with something simple in the "command window" (caution: expect to be chastised for using archaic terms like 'terminal' or 'dos' windows).One commonly used command:
cat pass.txt |grep tech |cut -f2 -d "."
I noticed my xp command window did not understand what "cat" refers to. �I guess this would be excusable, since "cat" is such a rare, infrequently used command. �Perhaps I misspelled it?
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 06 2007,18:29
I can break some of this down, but not all of it:1) cat is replaced by type
2) | grep tech is replaced by | find /i "tech"
3) I don`t know what cut fs -d "." does
So... type autoexec.bat | find /i "driver"
will print out every line in the autoexec.bat file that has the word driver in it and it is not case-sensitive. If you want case-sensitive, remove the slash-i switch.
Posted by lucky13 on Dec. 06 2007,18:51
| Quote |
| One commonly used command: |
DOS/Windows has different names for similar tasks. Try "type" instead of "cat." It also will use "more," but not "less." You'll also get an error for "grep" (search Google if you want some Unix-like commands to add to your console). If you want more power/complexity, you can download PowerShell. Its syntax and commands have a learning curve, but it's not too difficult. I posted a link to a video on my blog yesterday.
< http://lucky13linux.wordpress.com/2007....windows >
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 06 2007,18:52
| Quote (john.martzouco @ Dec. 06 2007,13:29) |
| 3) I don`t know what cut fs -d "." does |
"." is the field separater. F2 refers to the field. �
Apparently MS wants to remove itself from DOS (I want to go back to it....)
Edit: In fact, I think that would be a great idea for the next update to Vista..
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 06 2007,19:39
| Quote (jpeters @ Dec. 06 2007,13:52) |
| "." is the field separater. F2 refers to the field. Apparently MS wants to remove itself from DOS (I want to go back to it....) Edit: In fact, I think that would be a great idea for the next update to Vista.. |
I remember reading about using flat files as data tables in Linux... I think this is the case with the "."... please correct me if I`m wrong.
DOS doesn`t have the capacity to search or sort by "fields" like that.
Linux is definitely more advanced as far as console goes. Let`s remember that Unix was created by some very dedicated engineers who wanted to make their own lives easier. DOS and Windows are commercial endeavors to bring computers to Mr Joe Sixpack. The goals and ideals are different. DOS does *enough* for the people who use it. Those who want more, can find more.
Look at IronPython as a better console utility for Vista... it has all the features of Python proper and John Hugunin has promised to keep it clean and not allow his bosses at Microsoft to make it proprietary in any way. Also, with a single #import statement, it allows access to all of the functionality in the .NET Framework - which is an amazing, object-oriented platform for development under Windows.
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 06 2007,22:15
| Quote (john.martzouco @ Dec. 06 2007,14:39) |
| I remember reading about using flat files as data tables in Linux... I think this is the case with the "."... please correct me if I`m wrong. |
try:
echo "first.second.third" |cut -f2 -d"."
I would try some third party software, except I've run out of room on my desktop.
Posted by mikshaw on Dec. 06 2007,22:43
An equivalent is:echo "first.second.third" |awk -F. '{print $2}'
I would typically use awk for stuff like this, but it seems that cut is a little faster/lighter than awk. I suppose that's why it was created...
| Quote |
| DOS doesn`t have the capacity to search or sort by "fields" like that. |
Posted by john.martzouco on Dec. 06 2007,23:06
| Quote (jpeters @ Dec. 06 2007,17:15) |
| I would try some third party software, except I've run out of room on my desktop. � |
he he he... funny guy!
I thought you were a power user? �Just double your screen resolution �
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 07 2007,00:06
| Quote (mikshaw @ Dec. 06 2007,17:43) | ||
|
?? cut IS a bash command.
Posted by mikshaw on Dec. 07 2007,02:14
| Quote |
| ?? cut IS a bash command. |
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 07 2007,03:39
| Quote (mikshaw @ Dec. 06 2007,21:14) | ||
|
Interesting (technicality?).... I learned about "cut" in O'Reilly's "Learning the bash shell." At any rate, it's as common a Unix utility as cat, grep, sort , sed, etc., and probably included in any book on using the bash interface.
EDIT: O'Reilly notes that some older BSD-derived systems don't have 'cut' , and recommends using 'awk' in those instances.
EDIT2: For an example, check out .bash_profile
Posted by mikshaw on Dec. 08 2007,02:06
Yeah, it is extremely common, and my post was focusing on a minor technicality. I meant only to emphasize the difference between "command" and "bash command". The Bash built-ins will work on any system that has Bash. The cut command will work on any system that has cut installed, regardless of whether you use bash or zsh or ash or whatever. The difference is minor, but the possibility exists that cut is not installed and therefore not available even if you use Bash.