Re: [gnome-love] Where to make a policy suggestion?

["David Berg" <drberg1000 gmail com>]

On 3/16/06, Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko yahoo com> wrote:
> --- David Berg <drberg1000 gmail com> wrote:
> > On 3/14/06, Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko yahoo com>
> > wrote:
> > > Because GUIs are easier to learn and remember. I
> > want
> > > to focus on the things I am doing, not remembering
> > how
> > > to apply a patch, how to get a diff out of CVS, or
> > how
> > > to burn a CD.
> >
> > Why?  Because some times the command line is more
> > efficient than any
> > current gui.  You may argue that if that were the
> > case then the gui
> > needs work.  I would tend to agree but, fixing the
> > gui is rarely
> > trivial and not always worthy of the time spent.
> > Also, GUIs can grow
> > to be very large.  Sticking with the CD burning
> > example, which is
> > easier:
> >
> > 1.  Launching Gnomebacker
> > 2.  Waiting for it to launch
> > 3.  Dragging the directory/selecting the files
> > 4.  starting the backup.
> > 5.  Repeat every time you want to burn a disk (1-4
> > or 3-4)
> >
> > OR
> >
> > 1.  Run Gnome backer once to get the commandline
> > that works well
> > 2.  Create an alias for that command ( burn="mkisofs
> > FILENAMES  | cdrecord -" )
> > 3.  run `burn FILENAMES`
> > 4.  repeat step 3 for every disk you want to burn
>
> Hmm...
> 1. Open Nautilus burn folder
> 2. Burn to ISO
> 3. Right-click on ISO file and choose "Burn to disc"
> 4. Repeat step 3 as desired.

Repeat steps 1-3 if you aren't looking for copies of the same disk.

But there isn't always an easier method as there is in this case.  And
if there isn't it is definately easier to beable to just run the
commandline than to modify the gui.  Especially if you can get the
appropriate command line from a gui.

> > In example two I'm assuming that you already have a
> > terminal open --
> > usually the case on my desktop.
> >
> > You don't necessarily have to remember some arcane
> > command -- thats
> > what alias is for.
>
> Except that it took me ages to sort out aliases.
> Because of some reason I don't understand, there is
> bashrc AND bashprofile, and the docs tell you to add
> aliases to one while the system reads another --
> something to do with one not being an 'interactive
> shell', whatever that is. When I tried to file that as
> a bug it boomeranged back with the usual 'you're not
> l33t enough to understand this' subtext.
> We have an awful lot of legacy inconsistencies
> floating around in command line space.

The idea behind that being that you can have a different environment
when logging in different ways.  I can't give an example of when its
useful because I don't have one for bash.  I do for X though.  If I'm
logging in locally I want to run gnome because I don't need to worry
about network lag.  However, If I'm logging in over the network I want
to use fvwm or something else lightweight so it isn't so slow.

The functionality should be there but they should default to be the
same file.  That would be an issue with the distro though not the
authors of bash.

> > If I don't make any points with that, let me throw
> > out another reason.
> >  Now and then a fellow wants a task automated that
> > doesn't need any
> > user interaction ( or minimal interaction ).  When
> > that is the case,
> > one needs to know how to write a script.  (I hope
> > you aren't going to
> > try to argue that scripts are unnecessary also.)
>
> No, they're not unnecessary.
> But have you seen Apple's Automator? ;)

No I've never owned a mac/apple.  And actually until they went to OSX
wouldn't go near one if I had a choice.

> > Many of linux users (I would wager 90% of linux
> > users until recent
> > years) use linux because of the command line (among
> > other reasons).
>
> And that is one of our major problems. We're not on
> the same level as the users we are hoping to reach
> with GNOME.

I agree.  The solution isn't in hiding how things work though.  We'd
get a lot farther by finding developers who understand (or at least
willing to listen to) the users who simply want to spend as little
time at the computer as possible.  Then sticking those developers with
the not so desirable job of working between the developers and these
users as a type of translator.

> > It is definately not for everyone, but we need some
> > users that
> > understand the system intamately so that the great
> > programs like gnome
> > can continue to get developed.  The users who
> > already know the
> > information won't be with us for ever and should try
> > to recruit new
> > ones when we can.  I think making the commands
> > available is a great
> > way to do that.
>
> Yes, that is an excellent point.
>
> I do think this is a valid idea, and yes, if it were

Really?

> Well I still hate the idea
> ...
> (still hate the idea though ;)

I wouldn't have guessed.  Perhaps I didn't give the ;) enough weight.

> to be developed I would check it out.
> I am just wary of the 'command line is the ultimate'

In my opinion it would be ultimate if one had an incredible memory for
options.  But alas, I don't have my uncle's photographic memory, so
I'll have to continue reading man pages repeatedly until the GUIs are
up to par.

> mindset, and I tend to play devil's advocate against
> it :)

Fine by me.  Its a nice change from what I normally hear: "Just do
what ever you think works well.  I don't understand it anyway."

--Dave