Re: Features ideas

El 3/4/2015 17:33, "Jean-Roch HUET" <[email protected]> escribió:
>
> "Then, applications are shortcuts?  (In linux executables don't have
extension)."
>
> For a Windows users, applications are "nothing" on Linux.
> Because they don't have extensions, but neither icons.
>
> On Windows:
> - No extension with Icon = Shortcut
> - No extension without Icon = Nothing = I remove
>
> This is a problem on Linux, in fact.
> We have to create a standard extension for executables...

Initially I felt like counterarguing you, then I thought you and I were
closer in think. What I want is to have bundled applications, and those
will have an extension, so for the novice user applicstions will have
whatever extension the bundled format has.

>
>
> For the rest, you expressed correctly. I understood.
>
>
>
> The no-name restriction is a standard Linux, I know, but it has to be
changed.
> Linux has to adapt on windows for some basics, some habits to seduce
users.
>
> The argument "we have to be different from Windows to make a strict
separation and seduce users" is irrelevant.
> And years prove it is wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but saying "we have the same bugs as you actual
OS" is not very seducing, anyhow let me ask, those characters are used
enough to be considered a problem? I mean are they used enough ( enough =
being seen at least once in one's lifetime )

> There are "right" ergonomic choices, and "wrong" ergonomic choices.
> Philosophically, there are one truth, not multiple truths.
That means one of us are wrong. (I don't know much morr philosophy thab
what I saw at pre-university and what I think myself) However, truth is
generally unobtainable (and impossible to say it completely) so we take
aproximations, and due to then being imperfect, more than one may be ebough
to be considered as true.
Returning to the "limitation" thing,what you say may be interesting for
very advanced people ( which in Windows tends to be very few) but since
standard users won't do thia tipycally ( I hace never seen anyone
complaining about this, and I'm teaching elders) I don't think this really
matters, and those who may be bothered about this (advanced users) probably
will already kbiw this and will work through ( or even limit themselves
automatically thinking it will have the same limitations Wi dows have).
Now, let's think we agree to do this, I would like to do this at the GUI
level and don't limit the command line in any way.
> By doing ergonomic choices similar to Windows, Linux won't become an
ersatz of Windows.
> It will just become user-friendly, but it always keeps is identity: its
kernel.
>
> Linux always will stay Linux, because apparence doesn't define an OS.

Not technically but it does for users.

> Linspire and Zorin OS both have made this mistake: they try to be
attractive looking like windows, but they didn't solve main problems like
FHS.
>
>
>
> If rename-restrain can be done without kernel module, that's great, I
just don't know how to do that, how to restrain the rename possibilities...

> Your link is interesting.
>
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html
> I see some people are on the problem...
I don't know how much people know this list or even take this seriously but
it's certainly a place to know the that should be taken by Linux.
>
>
>
>
> Le 03/04/2015 16:08, Sergio Tortosa Benedito a écrit :
> >
> >
> > 2015-04-03 12:57 GMT+02:00 Jean-Roch HUET <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
> >
> >     Symlinks are different from ".lnk" files.
> >
> >     Symlinks exists on Windows too, but only since Windows Vista.
> >     Il allows to redirect instructions for a folder to another (created
for compatibility with previous versions, to remove the "Documents and
Settings" folder, for instance). It's just like the "ls" of Linux.
> >
> >     .lnk is just a basic concept : il launchs the file when you click
on it.
> >     There's no redirection from instructions. It's easy to create on
Linux.
> >
> > Ow, if that's the case then there's  no need for a kernel module, just
an application should be enough (one which takes the .lnk and does the
proper action), a basic application for that (one which the applications
are fixed) should took two to three days to write.
> >
> >     Hiding its extension is just for visual comfort :
> >     a beginner with an OS is disturbed by extensions when he discovers
the OS.
> >     - Step for step, he begins to understand that file extension
defines the program which open the file (missing on Linux, but easy to
create).
> >     - But for him, a file without extension (but with an icon) is a
shortcut. This is a standard habit.
> >
> > Then, applications are shortcuts?  (In linux executables don't have
extension).
> >
> >     After thinking about it, I think you're right concerning the .url
files, it could be dangerous for the security (file which leads to a
website with a virus, etc.).
> >
> >
> >
> >     Your idea of a screenshort to the page is good, but I don't think
it could be done with a kernel module. This is more for the GUI itself,
this is more the role of KDE than GoboLinux.
> >
> > Maybe I didn't expressed myslef correctly, but what I meant was that
should be at the file manager level (in KDE, GNOME,Enlightenment,
Pantheon, LXDE ...).
> >
> >
> >     About the name restriction, limits are necessary (but only if they
can be switched off, of course).
> >     Limits allow to create standards, which allow compatibility...
> >
> > There's already a standard in Linux, whether Windows does not follow
that, well it's pretty much their problem, howver this could be done in the
file manager (this shouldn't be enforce in the kernel or something like
that as this is mostly for compatibility with Windows, thus a
"novice"-level feature, it doesn't belong int ht ecommand line, however if
the file still appears in Windows I don't think is much of a problem anyway.
> > So one thing is standard compatiblity, and another one is bug-to-bug
compatibility.
> >
> >     This is a point of friction on Linux forums when I talk about it,
but Linux certainly has a technical victory with its kernel, however
Windows has a commercial victory with its number of users.
> >
> >
> >
> >     If we want to develop Linux, we have to step toward Windows
direction to seduce users.
> >
> > While the first point is ,horrifying sadly, true  the second one is
wrong. If you try to imitate Windows then all what you will have is a
imitation of Windows, which sounds pretty much less than Windows. If you
want to seduce someone don't try to show the same, but something better, I
mean it's like saying "hey! here's pretty-much-windows-but-better OS, wanna
try?", is not something that difficult as Windows is poorly designed (
don't take my word, search in internet for designers talking about Windows).
> >
> >     The great example is Android: the number of users brought
developpers which increase the kernel a lo
> >
> > That's not as true as you might expect, as Google does not work that
much on the kernel, and the subsysyems they work with are not the one
needing love (mainly drivers).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     The number of Linux users has not increased despite of Ubuntu or
any other versions. Windows remains the first one.
> >     MacOSX has increased. For me, there are 2 reasons :
> >     - Clarity of the system
> >     - Games
> >
> > Here's the third, marketing. Make a search about games and you will
find that:
> >  - Lots of people are bringing their games to Linux (even some AAA!)
thanks to Valve.
> >  - If there's a Mac version, it's possible there's a Linux one as well.
> >  - Even then, if they don't have Linux version, they tend to have an
option for OpenGL (making the execution with wine a heck easier and faster).
> >
> >     More and more games are made for both DirectX and OpenGL (and a
game made for MacOSX with OpenGL could be adapted on Linux easier than from
Windows). It increases the number of MacOSX sold (despite of the price).
> >
> >     For me, main obstacle for Linux remains the FHS, that's why I think
GoboLinux has the potential the other distrib lack...
> >
> > Nope, it is not, but it may help, there's a list which specifies which
are the Linux problems from a desktop point of view.
> >
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     Le 03/04/2015 11:56, Sergio Tortosa Benedito a écrit :
> >
> >     Ow... That explains it all.
> >
> >     So let me clarify myself, what you want is (for Windows
compatibility) to hide .lnk and act as if they were symlinks right? Well,
I think that's a great idea ( and if we want it to work on every program a
kernel module is certainly needed) but I wonder whether we should hide it's
extension (As I would like to help to recognize that's still a Windows link
not a Linux one).
> >     However, I'm against doing that for ".url", it should be clear what
it is anyway, and unlike the .lnk case I find the benefits quite
dubious/small, if this were to be implemented I would recommend it to be
through the file manager and a screenshot of the page as icon.
> >
> >     Hmm... I don't want to limit Linux, what happens in Windows with
this? The error is as fs level or the os level?
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     gobolinux-users mailing list
> >     [email protected] <mailto:
[email protected]>
> >     http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gobolinux-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> gobolinux-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-users

_______________________________________________
gobolinux-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-users