Re: Features ideas

"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."

One of the main point missing on Linux is the esay move: click and it launchs.
On Windows, you click on a .exe and it launchs. It is much more faster...




"That means one of us are wrong."

According to your point of view, I don't think so. I just lack of english vocabulary.
Pretty hard to talk on abstraction in a language which isn't my mother tong.

Yes, there are only one truth, but we juste are able to move towards it, to approximate.

But we evolve, we progress toward the truth, and it means to cut off questions be answering yes or not under somes conditions.
For a standard, the main point is to be accepted by the most of people.

Yes, there are fondamentally no reason to restrain names on Linux, except that it causes problem with Windows. And Windows has 93% of users (on Desktop PC).

If we can do it without kernel module, it is good, because perhaps one day, I will have to do it...







Le 03/04/2015 18:02, Sergio Tortosa Benedito a écrit :
> 
> El 3/4/2015 17:33, "Jean-Roch HUET" <[email protected] <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> >     http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-users
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > gobolinux-users mailing list
>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> > http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-users
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>