Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Nautilus has no global menu. Huge usuability issue and confusing

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Beans
    403
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Nautilus has no global menu. Huge usuability issue and confusing

    The problem is that users and developers are not satisfied with the current form of Gnome or the way the project goes. You have now two forks of Nautilus - Nemo and Marlin and each come with the burden that both projects have to be maintained and tested/used by users and developers - with the result of lower developer output as if you have only one project. All this dissatisfaction lead to more forks and a lot of users/developers go somewhere else - which slow down development of the projects and the spread of Linux on the desktop which is the most bad thing in this case. Sorry to get OT of the Nautilus problem but we have too much forks:

    KDE3 - Trinity
    Gnome 2 - Mate
    Gnome 3 - Cinnamon and somehow Unity

    and the other DE's

    XFCE
    Gnome3
    KDE4

    so someone can only wounder how many developers and users switched projects/DE's. It's time to think about what developers and users want and later kill/end at least three of this projects.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Beans
    996
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Nautilus has no global menu. Huge usuability issue and confusing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gyokuro View Post
    The problem is that users and developers are not satisfied with the current form of Gnome or the way the project goes. You have now two forks of Nautilus - Nemo and Marlin and each come with the burden that both projects have to be maintained and tested/used by users and developers - with the result of lower developer output as if you have only one project. All this dissatisfaction lead to more forks and a lot of users/developers go somewhere else - which slow down development of the projects and the spread of Linux on the desktop which is the most bad thing in this case. Sorry to get OT of the Nautilus problem but we have too much forks:

    KDE3 - Trinity
    Gnome 2 - Mate
    Gnome 3 - Cinnamon and somehow Unity

    and the other DE's

    XFCE
    Gnome3
    KDE4

    so someone can only wounder how many developers and users switched projects/DE's. It's time to think about what developers and users want and later kill/end at least three of this projects.
    Too many forks slows down development. But I think that it is better than having fast development towards stuff that does not satisfy your goals. I think that man hours don't really translate to quality. 200 developers might be faster than 5 developers. But if the 5 developers really believe in what they are doing and are really in agreement with the DE's philosophy, they will put a lot more work on it.

    The only way to test which philosophy will persist or if there are enough developers to develop each philosophy is to do the forks and test them in the wild. With real users trying them and making opinions of them.

    This fork stuff is a crisis - a crisis in its original sense. The gnome world had it very easy before, only having to care about the guys obsessed with the letter K. But now they have to face heavy competition. But thanks to all of this, a philosophy that is developed and polished better and turns out to be better for users will be the result. And that is a good thing.

    So, honestly, we can never have too many forks.
    Last edited by vexorian; August 16th, 2012 at 05:37 PM.
    Xye incredibly difficult puzzle game with minimal graphics. Also at playdeb
    Got a blog: Will Stay Free

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Beans
    403
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Nautilus has no global menu. Huge usuability issue and confusing

    Quote Originally Posted by vexorian View Post
    Too many forks slows down development. But I think that it is better than having fast development towards stuff that does not satisfy your goals. I think that man hours don't really translate to quality. 200 developers might be faster than 5 developers. But if the 5 developers really believe in what they are doing and are really in agreement with the DE's philosophy, they will put a lot more work on it.

    The only way to test which philosophy will persist or if there are enough developers to develop each philosophy is to do the forks and test them in the wild. With real users trying them and making opinions of them.

    This fork stuff is a crisis - a crisis in its original sense. The gnome world had it very easy before, only having to care about the guys obsessed with the letter K. But now they have to face heavy competition. But thanks to all of this, a philosophy that is developed and polished better and turns out to be better for users will be the result. And that is a good thing.

    So, honestly, we can never have too many forks.
    +1 - I agree with you that we have somehow a crisis at the desktop front. In the past we had two major DE's: KDE and Gnome but now we have forks of both and that's the shame and I'm not so optimistic about forks as you express but time will tell - as in my experience a lot of code get duplicated (reinventing wheels) over the time, developers give up and the project dies and useful code get not merged. I know it's OT but I think it's better to integrate parts/ideas of Cinnamon in Gnome as Canonicals idea of Unity which is in the end only a clone of Apple's idea of a desktop.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sheffield, UK
    Beans
    1,211

    Re: Nautilus has no global menu. Huge usuability issue and confusing

    Quote Originally Posted by vexorian View Post
    Too many forks slows down development. But I think that it is better than having fast development towards stuff that does not satisfy your goals. I think that man hours don't really translate to quality. 200 developers might be faster than 5 developers. But if the 5 developers really believe in what they are doing and are really in agreement with the DE's philosophy, they will put a lot more work on it.

    The only way to test which philosophy will persist or if there are enough developers to develop each philosophy is to do the forks and test them in the wild. With real users trying them and making opinions of them.

    This fork stuff is a crisis - a crisis in its original sense. The gnome world had it very easy before, only having to care about the guys obsessed with the letter K. But now they have to face heavy competition. But thanks to all of this, a philosophy that is developed and polished better and turns out to be better for users will be the result. And that is a good thing.

    So, honestly, we can never have too many forks.
    I sincerely hope you are right, and I'll try not to worry. There are of course many positives; Cinnamon so far is proving to be amazing as a fork of Gnome Shell, and of course so is Unity. Both projects are unique and have their own directions. I hope they both go from strength to strength.
    AMD Phenom X4 945, 4Gb Crucial 800Mhz DDR2 RAM, 1Tb SATA III HDD, nVidia 9800GT 512Mb

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Nautilus has no global menu. Huge usuability issue and confusing

    Quote Originally Posted by vexorian View Post
    So, honestly, we can never have too many forks.
    The thing that scares me with forks is that it's directing a lot of energy at a redundant effort. I don't think there are enough developers in this space to support six different forks of GNOME in a reliable way. I picture a project, with a codebase the size of Nautilus, running with one core developer. That should chill anyone to the bone. More developers means more people checking each other's code and ideas, and it means a project won't shrivel up and die when someone gets hit by a bus. We need projects with strong developer communities in order to get anywhere. No amount of forking will create that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigSilly View Post
    I think what confuses me most between Gnome and Ubuntu, is that essentially the goals are the same, are they not? A one size fits all approach to the desktop/tablet area. Like I say, with this in mind, what exactly was the argument again? Unity and Shell are very similar in many ways and aim for the same goals, so why does Canonical suddenly feel the changes being made to Nautilus are not to their taste? Surely it fits their own paradigm?
    What I've noticed is Unity's focus has been, to this point, entirely on Unity itself. The dash is doing more and more of what Software Centre does, for example, and Ubuntu TV seems to be entirely wrapped around the Unity look and feel (which, to be fair, works pretty well in that situation). Outside of the obvious changes to add screen space, I haven't seen any movement for actually making applications touch-friendly, for example. (There has been a lot of nice work on touch support at a lower level, though, so perhaps someone, somewhere, is doing something cool?).

    GNOME isn't moving especially quickly there, but they have been working with application designs that connect very tightly with their vision for the shell. In addition, their design whiteboards make some obvious references to touch as a priority throughout the software stack. They obviously really want to move applications forward (in some direction).

    On the other hand, Ubuntu seems to be very preoccupied by the Unity shell. I've been assuming the idea is that desktop applications are fine as they are and tablet / touch-friendly apps are completely different beasts, and I think that's perfectly reasonable (while perhaps a smidge unimaginative). So, I don't think GNOME's work with applications fits in the Unity paradigm for the simple reason that I haven't really seen a Unity paradigm for applications other than the implied "whatever was normal with GNOME 2." I'd love to be proven wrong.
    Last edited by Mr. Picklesworth; August 17th, 2012 at 12:11 AM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Beans
    4,373
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Nautilus has no global menu. Huge usuability issue and confusing

    although its a bit off topic , I have serious doubts about trying to bring touch to the desktop in any wholesale manner .Even apple who more than anyone has had great success with their touch IOS , is being very careful about integrating IOS features into OSX . We will soon see how much success MS has with windows 8 in touch mode on a real desktop . As one who has actually played with a "touch enabled " desktop I can tell you that the glamor wears off really quickly (about 5 minutes in my case ) .A tablet and a desktop are just too different to live together peacefully .Each has its strong points and weak points and a merger of the 2 is more likely to emphasize the weak points to the point of being a very unhappy marriage .
    if it ain't broke you haven't tweaked it enough

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Williams Lake
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Nautilus has no global menu. Huge usuability issue and confusing

    I have to agree with ronacc, I can't see using a touch screen on a desktop system without a huge change in the way we use them. A touch screen on a vertical surface is not very comfortable to use for any length of time, and as he said, the novelty wears off fairly quickly

    That being said, I'm typing this sitting on my deck, using my Android based tablet, and even typing these two paragraphs is taking quite a bit longer than it would on my desktop system.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Nautilus has no global menu. Huge usuability issue and confusing

    Oh absolutely, there's no way to make a desktop application (as we have them) work on touch without changing that application significantly, and designing something to work on both touch and mouse/keyboard would be quite difficult. However, you can make applications support touch to a reasonable extent, and you can also improve your UI toolkit so it's easy for developers to write touch-friendly applications.

    I don't find the touch thing especially interesting either (and I don't think anything has it as a main objective yet) so I was really just using that as an example of how these projects differ in their approach. GNOME 3's work with applications isn't really touch focused: it's pretty well your usual refinement of the desktop thing: type to search as a common element, emphasizing content, and encouraging direct manipulation as opposed to toolbars filled with buttons. There are natural benefits for other form factors, too, but they aren't a requirement :)
    Last edited by Mr. Picklesworth; August 17th, 2012 at 05:15 AM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •