Talk:PC-BSD® 9.2 TODO - Revision history

Mjollnir: /* Discussion */

2013-03-08T17:08:14Z

‎Discussion

Mjollnir: /* Discussion */

2013-03-08T17:04:22Z

‎Discussion

Mjollnir: /* Discussion */

2013-03-08T16:43:36Z

‎Discussion

Tigersharke: retroactively stamp the signature with the appropriate time :)

2013-03-06T20:41:20Z

retroactively stamp the signature with the appropriate time :)

Tigersharke at 20:37, 6 March 2013

2013-03-06T20:37:13Z

Tigersharke: /* Criticisms */

2013-03-06T20:34:35Z

‎Criticisms

Mjollnir: /* Clarification on Criticisms */

2013-03-06T19:52:18Z

‎Clarification on Criticisms

Mjollnir: /* Clarifications on Criticisms */

2013-03-06T19:45:01Z

‎Clarifications on Criticisms

Mjollnir: /* Clarifications on Criticisms */

2013-03-06T19:40:18Z

‎Clarifications on Criticisms

Tigersharke: /* Further suggested additions */

2013-03-06T08:55:11Z

‎Further suggested additions

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 On your problems with KDE, I agree that it's blown up feature-wise, and therefore has more crashes than GNOME.  Doesn't mean KDE is buggier than GNOME.  Many of the bugs in GNOME just do not show up because the CLI to the full settings is rarely used! I'm not happy with the release politics of KDE, too, it could be strengthened.  Nevertheless it's obviously (yes, I mean it, several tests say so - with '''default settings!''') the most intuitive free DE, even better than Mac in some aspects.  If you don't need desktop search, PIM/Kontakt/Akonadi, do not install or disable it, disable all or most animations (or just trust the automagic adjustment), and with the -- default (!!!) -- oxygen look you have a very stable, slim and fast modern desktop, but still superior to XFCE or LXDE.  Even on an old machine with 256-512M RAM.  It's true, try it.  I ran KDE+ZFS with 786M (and '''again: default settings(!!!)''', no tweaks).  Performance was not rocket-like, but ok.  KDE4.10 is faster and uses less memory than 3.9.85 (I think that was the "golden" version that many people sticked to for a long time).  That's why I don't understand people crying for a "light" DE -- and then run Firefox in it :).
-On your "Common GUI Guidelines" I can say the following:  The double click is (again: ''obviously'') bogus, that's why the KDE default is single click.  This is -- I'm sorry to say so -- no point of discussion.  Give a native amazonian who's never seen a computer, a modern laptop.  S/He will for shure use a single click!  Besides that, single click is healthier wrt RSI.
+On your "Common GUI Guidelines" I can say the following:  The double click is (again: ''obviously'') bogus, that's why the KDE default is single click.  This is -- I'm sorry to say so -- no point of discussion.  Give a native amazonian who's never seen a computer, a modern laptop.  S/He will for shure use a single click!  Besides that, single click is healthier wrt RSI.  KDE's ''default settings'' have been adjusted to met the results of several usability tests, supported by psychological expertise.  Do you think your expertise is better than theirs?
 One last question: Do the PC-BSD additions to LXDE & XFCE go back to them so they can integrate that or port it to Linux?

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 Last not least, there is FreeDesktop.org, to make the DEs and their apps co-operative, let their developers agree on common interfaces, even common backends, prevent duplicate work etc. pp.  It's a HUGE project.  Do you think PC-BSD's two or three developers can reach the same goal?  I doubt so.
-On your problems with KDE, I agree that it's blown up feature-wise, and therefore has more crashes than GNOME.  Doesn't mean KDE is buggier than GNOME.  Many of the bugs in GNOME just do not show up because the CLI to the full settings is rarely used! I'm not happy with the release politics of KDE, too, it could be strengthened.  Nevertheless it's obviously (yes, I mean it, several tests say so - with '''default settings!''') the most intuitive free DE, even better than Mac in some aspects.  If you don't need desktop search, PIM/Kontakt/Akonadi, do not install or disable it, disable all or most animations (or just trust the automagic adjustment), and with the -- default (!!!) -- oxygen look you have a very stable, slim and fast modern desktop, but still superior to XFCE or LXDE.  Even on an old machine with 256-512M RAM.  It's true, try it.  I ran KDE+ZFS with 786M (and '''again: default settings(!!!)''', no tweaks).  Performance was not rocket-like, but ok.  KDE4.10 is faster and uses less memory than 3.9.85 (I think that was the "golden" version that many people sticked to for a long time).  That's why I don't understand people crying for a "light" DE.
+On your problems with KDE, I agree that it's blown up feature-wise, and therefore has more crashes than GNOME.  Doesn't mean KDE is buggier than GNOME.  Many of the bugs in GNOME just do not show up because the CLI to the full settings is rarely used! I'm not happy with the release politics of KDE, too, it could be strengthened.  Nevertheless it's obviously (yes, I mean it, several tests say so - with '''default settings!''') the most intuitive free DE, even better than Mac in some aspects.  If you don't need desktop search, PIM/Kontakt/Akonadi, do not install or disable it, disable all or most animations (or just trust the automagic adjustment), and with the -- default (!!!) -- oxygen look you have a very stable, slim and fast modern desktop, but still superior to XFCE or LXDE.  Even on an old machine with 256-512M RAM.  It's true, try it.  I ran KDE+ZFS with 786M (and '''again: default settings(!!!)''', no tweaks).  Performance was not rocket-like, but ok.  KDE4.10 is faster and uses less memory than 3.9.85 (I think that was the "golden" version that many people sticked to for a long time).  That's why I don't understand people crying for a "light" DE -- and then run Firefox in it :).
 On your "Common GUI Guidelines" I can say the following:  The double click is (again: ''obviously'') bogus, that's why the KDE default is single click.  This is -- I'm sorry to say so -- no point of discussion.  Give a native amazonian who's never seen a computer, a modern laptop.  S/He will for shure use a single click!  Besides that, single click is healthier wrt RSI.

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ----
 [''from the addressee of the above and author of the next section'']
 The opposite is true :)  It is my honest believe that it is an important goal to make BSD more user friendly, integrate an intuitive desktop better than the current status quo, and offer an easy graphical installation and update.  Both for the average '' 'John Doe' '' non-nerd user and the experienced UNIX guru.  Even better, offer a choice of two, three, four desktops.  I'd very much like to replace Ubuntu on my sister's PC with PC-BSD.  But I can not (yet, hopefully).  Thus, I do not consider additions to XFCE or LXDE needless.  The point is, the lack of such  ''(portable)'' tools is LXDE's/XFCE's problem, not PC-BSD's. And I think the PC-BSD developers should concentrate on PC-BSD - which does not mean it's bad to help LXDE/XFCE.
@@ Line 49: / Line 50: @@
 Besides that, you were totally right that it is much better to put my critics in an own section, than to clutter the existing page.  But see: that's IMHO what you do with an otherwise fully functioning DE like KDE or GNOME.
 ----
 This discussion is good, now I more clearly understand. Earlier I was just a little bothered by the comments which I answered with that first short paragraph. That was my view of the critique and now there is some agreement and at least discussion.
@@ Line 62: / Line 64: @@
 [[User:Tigersharke|Tigersharke]] 12:37, 6 March 2013 (PST)
 ----
 == Specific Criticisms ==

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 Even though it may be clear to some what the intention of the above list and PC-BSD may be, it is not necessarily obvious nor their cup of tea. It seems that their wish is simply to use FreeBSD as it exists and any other alterations must be extremely limited because their skill level means they can dig into the code or are otherwise capable of far more than the average 'Joe User' that we aim to please.
-[[User:Tigersharke|Tigersharke]] 12:37, 6 March 2013 (PST)
+[[User:Tigersharke|Tigersharke]] 2:50, 6 March 2013 (PST)
 ----
 [''from the addressee of the above and author of the next section'']

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 Even though it may be clear to some what the intention of the above list and PC-BSD may be, it is not necessarily obvious nor their cup of tea. It seems that their wish is simply to use FreeBSD as it exists and any other alterations must be extremely limited because their skill level means they can dig into the code or are otherwise capable of far more than the average 'Joe User' that we aim to please.
---[[User:Tigersharke|Tigersharke]]
+[[User:Tigersharke|Tigersharke]] 12:37, 6 March 2013 (PST)
 ----
 [''from the addressee of the above and author of the next section'']
@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 * I disagree about whether all desktops shouldn't be configured to appear identically as a rule, including replacing the icon for a "start menu" mechanism with the PC-BSD fireball logo.  I think it is quite understood that the fireball is a logo and not dangerous, the installer includes the image for its entire operation. The desktop background of the flask of 'solution' that happens to have an orange-like color would be speculation to be acid- is the FreeBSD Daemon mascot "Beastie"also objectionable? Function is far more important than some images that would not be permanent. We already default the desktop wallpaper from whatever it may have been to the isotope styled image. Further strong recommendations I have written in [[Common Human Interface Guideline]].
---[[User:Tigersharke|Tigersharke]]
+[[User:Tigersharke|Tigersharke]] 12:37, 6 March 2013 (PST)
 ----

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ----
-== Criticisms ==
+== Discussion ==
 Even though it may be clear to some what the intention of the above list and PC-BSD may be, it is not necessarily obvious nor their cup of tea. It seems that their wish is simply to use FreeBSD as it exists and any other alterations must be extremely limited because their skill level means they can dig into the code or are otherwise capable of far more than the average 'Joe User' that we aim to please.
 [''from the addressee of the above and author of the next section'']
 The opposite is true :)  It is my honest believe that it is an important goal to make BSD more user friendly, integrate an intuitive desktop better than the current status quo, and offer an easy graphical installation and update.  Both for the average '' 'John Doe' '' non-nerd user and the experienced UNIX guru.  Even better, offer a choice of two, three, four desktops.  I'd very much like to replace Ubuntu on my sister's PC with PC-BSD.  But I can not (yet, hopefully).  Thus, I do not consider additions to XFCE or LXDE needless.  The point is, the lack of such  ''(portable)'' tools is LXDE's/XFCE's problem, not PC-BSD's. And I think the PC-BSD developers should concentrate on PC-BSD - which does not mean it's bad to help LXDE/XFCE.
@@ Line 47: / Line 49: @@
 Besides that, you were totally right that it is much better to put my critics in an own section, than to clutter the existing page.  But see: that's IMHO what you do with an otherwise fully functioning DE like KDE or GNOME.
-So now here's the subject of discussion:
+----
 === General ===

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 * The visual appearance of the logo (the burning ball) needs a friendlier replacement.  Who wants to burn his system?  Same holds true for the vial filled with acid.  I'm serious with this.  A logo shall prompt positive associations.
 *   Many of the KDE system-settings modules are just fine or can be adjusted for FreeBSD/PC-BSD more or less easily.  Users who want just a WM and not a DE are fine with configuring their systems on the console.  And if a DE does not have GUI for system tasks because they are not mature (LXDE,XFCE), well, you get what you pay for.  Hint: Today I ran KDE+ZFS with hw.physmem="768M" with default settings for FreeBSD 9.1+ KDE 4.9.5.  It was ok.
 * '''Network''' - {{strike|wifi}}, {{strike|ethernet}}, pppoe, dialup/modem [This is one of the few exceptions, i.e. the KDE NetworkManager is very linuxish]
 * '''AppCafe{{RM}}''' - before hacking even more bugs into it, fix the existing ones first!
 === Considered needless (reinvent the wheel) ===
 * '''Audio''' - auto-sense headphone connection, dolby/surround, assign specific output/volume to program/device [re-invent the wheel]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ** '''Network''' - {{strike|wifi}}, {{strike|ethernet}}, pppoe, dialup/modem.
 *** This is getting closer to what it should be, but as of 9.1rc1, it still seems to need work: It is my understanding that WPA and WPA supplicant configuration is a wifi feature, yet with no discovered wifi devices, the option is available for the network device which happens to be ethernet (em).
-** {{strike|'''Scanner'''}} - Xsane via '''Scanner''' control panel which also checks for the device attached to the system. [re-invent the wheel]
+** {{strike|'''Scanner'''}} - Xsane via '''Scanner''' control panel which also checks for the device attached to the system.
 ** '''Search''' - A GUI to Locate would be great, though searching within a file could be added, I suppose.
 * '''Service Manager''' - add a description of each service that may be stopped/started or enabled/disabled.. perhaps either display or quote the manpage for the service. Of course, if there is anything dependent upon a service, it may also be prudent to include tailored warnings about what will be affected.
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ----
 == Painting over the Underbelly? ==
 Our focus should be on making things easier and more approachable or accessible. Therefore, in subtle ways, we ought to maintain some visibility of the technical side of BSD. We can GUI-fy the output of a manpage, dmesg, locate, or other cli "ugliness". This would appeal to the tech-inclined without necessarily scaring away neophytes. It would be wrong to go the more extreme route that Apple has chosen, thereby hiding all technical/challenging aspects behind a simplistic (even if powerful) interface.