Giving Gnome a spin and me a headache!

IWBCMAN · Guru Joined: 25 Jun 2002 Posts: 474

Erik and Powerfactor

Sorry guys- you may find it impausible-but it is a fact in terms of my experience. The organization of keys in gconf-editor is quite logical and easy to understand-once you understand how it works. Admittedly it took me some time to get accustomed to it-but once you grok it- it is really simple.

The KDE control center is a nightmare-there is just way too much overlapping and too little in the way of clear distinctions for it's categoires to make any sense- it is just badly organized. It has gotten better over the years and I wish the developers all the best-but I am not alone in finding the KDE control center totally unwiedly.....

Erik- feel free to not believe me.

The difference is I know what I am talking about as regards the gconf-editor/gnome-vfs system and you don't.

You sit there for 10 minutes with GNOME on your desktop and damn the whole thing cause it doesn't work like you expect it to.

I administer a GNOME based desktop for over 300 users on a daily basis(my users have the choice of GNOME/KDE/XFCE4-default is GNOME).

What you assume is the planned similarity to regedit in windows is nothing more than the relative similarity one gets when one makes the decision to have a central configuration system. KDE has dozens, if not hundreds, of config files scattered all over the place. GNOME departs from the *NIX standard of using small hidden text files for configuring everything -each app having it's own config file(s) with their own syntax.

I have repeatedly stressed my problems with gnome-vfs and I have lauded KDE's config files for various reasons. But my complaints are based on difficulties administering multi-user setups- these issues which you have complained about here are for the most part trivial.

You are the one being silly-silliness starting this thread and silliness me responding to it.

Nate_S · Guru Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 414

You can't forget that hte M$ registry looks for keys that are not even there, e.g. if you want to change an option controled by one of the undocumented keys, you have to search the web to find exactly what key to create where, as well as what value to give it.

j-kidd · Apprentice Joined: 20 Feb 2003 Posts: 213

wdreinhart · Guru Joined: 11 Jun 2003 Posts: 569 Location: 4QFJ12345678

There is nothing at all intuitive about computers, it's all learned.

ecatmur

PowerFactor

ecatmur · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 6:24 am Post subject:

Desktop Preferences is now a vfolder in the Gnome Menu. Also, new users get a Start Here launcher on the desktop that brings up the Start Here vfolder which contains a lanucher for the Desktop Preferences vfolder. You can always remove these if you want to, of course.

Regarding theme colours... yes, you do have to edit them by hand. I guess this is because theme rc files are so complex that the UI to edit them would be hopelessly complex. Plus I guess the Gnome UI people see altering theme colours as pointless tweaking that just gets in the way of productivity. I guess that isn't true in your case... have you thought of writing a theme to help avoid eyestrain? You might be able to make a case for it to be shipped with Gnome, as accessibility and ergonomics are always popular with the Gnome project.

Maybe what people need is a TweakUI for Gnome... something with the options most people aren't interested in, but targeted at people who don't like getting their hands dirty in gconf-editor and config files.
_________________
No more cruft
dep: Revdeps that work
Using command-line ACCEPT_KEYWORDS?

PowerFactor · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 7:39 am Post subject:

Evangelion · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:10 am Post subject:

Evangelion · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:15 am Post subject:

IWBCMAN · Guru Joined: 25 Jun 2002 Posts: 474

Evangelion,

Perhaps it is merely an issue of taste,

One think which might help this thread is a little clearer delineation of the things being talked about.

GNOME uses the gconf/gnome-vfs system as its configuration store. It consists of very many,many tiny xml files located in /etc/gconf. This system is only directly exposed via the command line, ie. gconftool. These files are not directly human editable because they are created dynamically according to definitions in schema files. Above this layer there are two levels of configuration which are tied into the bottom layer.

1) the application preferences panel

2) the gconf-editor

all of the options in 1) are also to be found, along with other options, in 2). In other worlds the gconf-editor presents a superset of the available configurable options present in the preferences panel. The gconf/gnome-vfs presents a superset of the available configure options in both the gconf-editor and the preferences panel.

The whole approach behind this system is based on exposure. gconftool exposes the underlying system in a way most suitable to admins. It is quite arcane, complex and powerful. The gconf/gnome-vfs system is an evolving system subtely changing from one release to the next, recent work has been geared towards allowing for fine control of locking -ie. delimiting the range of customization options available to the user. This system is really suited for distributors-or those who administer many, many desktops.

The gconf-editor exposes a subset of those things accessible via gconftool in a graphical application. The keys in gconf-editor are the same keys one uses with gconftool and these are in turn the name of actual files within the gnome-fvs directory ie.
>>/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults/
apps/gnumeric/file/history

My problems with the gconf/gnome-vfs system are twofold. Implimenting a schema is simply beyond the range of my skills. It appears to be a massive undertaking and only a team of people committed to this can pull it off.

Secondly I need to have very specific icons with specific command-line options placed in a specific order on the top taskbar(ie. putting icons for all commonly need tools and applications(nautilus, mozilla, epiphany, evolution, gaim, staroffice(3 icons), openoffice-ximian(4 icons), tsclient(for rdesktop),mtoolsfm(floppy access) and gnome-cups-manger).

These icons must neither be deletable nor removable. Yet I still want to allow for people to add their own apps to the bars(ie. top and bottom). Moreover I need to be able to change the command line options of tsclient for example-easily and instantly applied for all users. I found this task to be quite challenging to say the least.

I ended up fighting with the system and hacking until I got it to work. But I don't complain about these issues as a user- in my usage patterns these are non-issues-but they are crucial for me in terms of my role as administrator-administering 300+ desktops.

What is obvious for those of us who have tracked the developed of GNOME 2.X is that more work has gone into developing a very powerful complex virtual file system than has gone into the tools via which we as users and as admins can interact with this system.

GNOME 2.0 was badly crippled lacking even the gconf-editor. GNOME-2.2 had no way of really contolling the preferences in terms of lockdown behavior. GNOME-2.4 ushered in gfonctool2 which offered much in the way of deperately needed features(ie. -dump, which enabled one to dump the preferences of a given configuration to use as the basis for gconf.xml.defaults). And finally with GNOME-2.6 fine grained lockdown control is now widely implemented.

In reality what we have seen are two disparate configuration worlds slowly converging. On one end the preference panels-which expose only a bare minimum of common configuration-enough for most users, most of the time. On the other end a very powrful virtual file system which is a distributors dream- allowing for distro-based desktop management(thanks redhat/sun).

When 2.0 came out there was vitually no convergence between the two. With the gconf-editor a bridge has been built between the two-although it is far closer to user end of the spectrum than it is to the admin's end.

I for one would have no problem with a tweakUI sort of interface being made available- even though I do not think I would need it-and I would not make it available to the LTSP client machines which I admin.

What I believe is still lacking is a way to easily prototype an entire desktop graphically and use it's generated settings as the basis for profiled defaults. It would be ideal if I could establish workgroup profiles and issue a desktop according to such profiles using such a desktop graphical configurator.

For further reading I recommend the GNOME 2 Desktop System Administrator's Guide:
http://www.gnome.org/learn/admin-guide/latest/

I have run out of time now- I will retrurn later to contrast how KDE handles configuration.

wilburpan · l33t Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 977

michel v · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 11:49 am Post subject:

I'm puzzled, WTF do you guys use gconf-editor for?

Personally, I only ever use it to set Nautilus not to display the desktop, to make Metacity's titlebar font editable (that really should be the default), and to make gstreamer use alsasink instead os osssink.

Unless you're deliberately looking for hopeless complications, you never ever need to use gconf-editor...
So this whole trolling about gconf-editor is just glorious nitpicking.
_________________
Advice for new users:
If you "emerge -u world", don't be surprised when everything breaks. Use "emerge -upv world", and then pick the packages you really need, and you'll have a much healthier system.

ralph · Advocate Joined: 02 Mar 2003 Posts: 2001 Location: Hamburg

IWBCMAN · Guru Joined: 25 Jun 2002 Posts: 474

wilburpan,

Quit being so damned reasonable

I do find it fascinating how often anecdotal evidence is quite often so radically contradictory.

Also I have done my very best to avoid saying "this" or "that" "sucks". I have my issues with KDE -things about the control center I really dislike(overlapping, unclear division of preferences). Yet there are certain facetts of the KDE configuration system which are really wonderful(simply modifying and copying the *rc files into /etc/skel/.kde3.2/share/config) . So I do not universally *hate* KDE's way of handling configuration. I simply wanted to counter some of the anti-GNOME sentiment in this thread and shed a little light on the issues which I as an administrator have uncovered using GNOME. I dont have the luxury of knee-jerk "this DE just sucks" attitude-I have to administer them for users who need them. Moreover I have gone out of my way to not belittle the developers because of my personal issues. Sorry if I sometimes come across as being arrogant...

IWBCMAN · Guru Joined: 25 Jun 2002 Posts: 474

ralph,

Epiphany is based on Mozilla- you know that. If the options you want to change in Epiphany are actually tied to Mozilla about:config is the only way to get there. That is not Epiphany's fault(ie. the developers) that is a *feature* of Mozilla...

ralph · Advocate Joined: 02 Mar 2003 Posts: 2001 Location: Hamburg

michel v · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 1:42 pm Post subject:

Firefox is guilty of the same about:config abuse, when there are some options that should just remain in the prefs dialogs: the preferred language for multilingual websites, for example. I believe Epiphany does that right, but I shall check later today.
(And I know I could just use a localised build of Firefox, but do I want to run a binary that doesn't come from and won't be handled by my distro's package management?)

So, really, the problem with about:config is not with Epiphany itself (in fact, some useful options have been relocated to gconf keys, "middle click paste loads URL" for example), but with the Gecko component.
_________________
Advice for new users:
If you "emerge -u world", don't be surprised when everything breaks. Use "emerge -upv world", and then pick the packages you really need, and you'll have a much healthier system.

ecatmur · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 3:25 pm Post subject:

ralph · Advocate Joined: 02 Mar 2003 Posts: 2001 Location: Hamburg

ecatmur · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 4:03 pm Post subject:

No-one was ever prevented from getting their work done by not being able to put their favourite font in the titlebars.
And no-one who is working in the Gnome environment needs to turn off the desktop - except to replace it with another desktop, in which case the provider of the alternative desktop can instruct the user on what to do, so they don't need to go hunting around - or the alternative desktop can make that setting itself.

I'm not saying that gconf-editor is useless, just that the majority of users will not need to use it, because the settings inside are not essential to being able to get their work done. It is of main use for development and desktop administration. If a sizeable number of users need to use gconf-editor to do something related to getting their work done, then that key neds to be moved into a preferences panel. If not, then it needs to be kept out of the preferences panels to avoid clutter.

Perfection is not reached when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
_________________
No more cruft
dep: Revdeps that work
Using command-line ACCEPT_KEYWORDS?

IWBCMAN · Guru Joined: 25 Jun 2002 Posts: 474

ecatmur,

Well put, succinct and to the point.

:wink:

ralph · Advocate Joined: 02 Mar 2003 Posts: 2001 Location: Hamburg

IWBCMAN · Guru Joined: 25 Jun 2002 Posts: 474

Ralph,

And if we (GNOME developers/users/admirers) start going down that path -adding all of the options that some people "would like to have" at the end of the day you would end up with what bothers me to no end with KDE.

Each prference panel would consist of umpteen sub-panels with 60 odd click-widgets, 10 drop down scroll pickers and five different viewing panes...

You would like to have these options in a preference panel. That is valid. But a whole lot of folks have embraced the design decision behind GNOME 2.X.

Are you so adamant that you would insist that all other GNOME users share your likes/dislikes, or can you simply suffice it to say- I don't like the new GNOME and I choose to use XXX instead....

I myself have gotten frustrated with certain GNOME apps which have gone to far in this direction. Epiphany is so minimalistic that it actually borders on a loss of functionality-which is why when I am not using Mozilla/Firefox I use Galeon. But by and large I agree with the decisions that have been made- they appeal to my sense of taste and usage patterns.

If enough people gripe(ie.gnome's bugzilla) about a particular thorny configuration option which ought to be in the preferences panel of a particular app- it most likely will find it's way into that panel. This is a far less troublesome approach than the other way around.

And if you want to lead an initiative for a "tweakUI" kind of app I will support it....