Drewski   Coming soon in three dimensions

Add Andrew Conkling [to our list of contributors] - he has done so much work for so long in Bugzilla, should have been listed here long ago.

[banshee] Revision 4414.

It’s not why I help out, but it is nice to be recognized. Thanks Gabriel!

It’s really very satisfying to contribute to the Banshee project, even if it’s not code. Part of my motivation is to help out the developers so they can focus on development itself, but it’s also been a good way for me to get my foot in the door while I work on my education. I certainly plan on (one day) being able to contribute my own code to Banshee and some other projects.

In the meantime, I’m enjoying the ride.

So I read this article this morning on work on GNOME optimization and they mention the “GNOME file chooser”. Lo and behold, they actually mean the GTK+ filechooser, something available in any GTK+ application, not just in GNOME’s. Perhaps it’s a pedantic distinction, but I think it’s an important one. Linux users should have a clear description of how things work (not to say that said description should be complicated) and GNOME holds too important a position to be saying inaccurate things, in my opinion.

I don’t think I’d care as much, but this isn’t the first time I’ve seen GNOME saying such things. This 2.12 preview lists Evolution as a “mail client for GNOME”, but I happily use it when not in GNOME. And this leads me to a sore point with GNOME apps.

Many GNOME apps carry extra dependencies that a non-GNOME user wouldn’t have. Often, these dependencies are unnecessary. A popular example lately is Evince, which relies on gnome-vfs. Nautilus, GNOME’s file manager, also controls the desktop, but the default behavior of running the “nautilus” command is to open a file manager window and, if not already, take over the desktop. There’s a flag (–no-desktop) and a GConf setting that can be set, but in my opinion, the default is a poor choice. Better would be to have “nautilus –desktop” run the desktop process and have “nautilus” only open a file manager window. The GNOME startup settings are very good, and you can have the desktop started therein.

This kind of development and publicity, in my opinion, is telling. It seems GNOME developers are developing for GNOME. They have a very respectable integrated desktop, but these types of things belie a narrow-minded attitude that hurts Linux as a whole in my opinion. With Linux being generally modular–customizable from the kernel up, chock full of functionality whether on the command line or in a GUI (of which you have many choices), and many choices of applications to suit your need and taste, etc.–I think it’s frustrating to see GNOME be so self-oriented.

Rather, I prefer Xfce’s attitude towards their software; they make things such that the user can use any piece of their choosing in any environment. No unnecessary dependencies, because the user’s choice is valued. In fact, thinking about it, I’d say that whereas it seems that GNOME develops for GNOME, Xfce develops for the user. For example, Thunar, Xfce’s upcoming file manager (being developed currently), looks very much like Nautilus and will provide comparable functionality, but performs faster (in my experience, and I understand that this is not a completely fair comparison at this point) and has a shorter dependency list. Xfmedia, a media player that uses Xine, doesn’t do as much as GNOME’s default, Totem, but performs better (when using GStreamer or Xine) and has a simpler UI. Of course, there’s also the fact that Xfce’s window manager, perhaps the most important piece of the desktop puzzle, is incredibly more useful and elegantly designed than GNOME’s metacity.

I really appreciate GNOME’s efforts on the desktop and recommend them to any person new to Linux, but as someone who’s been around for a little while, I’m just a bit disappointed.

Disclaimer: I do not represent Xfce in any way (though I use it primarily and enjoy it) and in fact, I run GNOME’s panel and volume manager on my Xfce desktop because I like them.

I’ve heard this quote before, but it has been in my mind this last week or so since I’ve been on the phones supporting customers:
“Computer programming today is a race between software engineers, striving to build bigger and better ‘idiot-proof’ programs, and the Universe, trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe seems to be winning.”

I also read another blog about user interfaces in which he talks about the fact that computer interfaces are designed with beginners in mind. However, once the user gets over the learning curve, the interface is a crutch. He asks a rather tough question: “So is it possible to design a system that’s suits both beginners and professionals?” No easy answer for that. We could probably all rant about how certain implementations fail, but do we have anything better to offer? (For all my GNU/Linux snobbery, I must admit the problems with the two major open-source interfaces: GNOME is too simple and KDE too complex.)

As for “idiots”, I don’t really mean it. The same could be said for everyone driving a car: I certainly don’t know very well how to diagnose the internal workings when something goes wrong. Yet I do appreciate a working knowledge of things. And I can certainly empathize that the trend (rather frustrating for developers) in computing seems to be trying to completely diminish the learning curve, and as usual, that makes most of the usefulness of computing null and void. (If you don’t know how to use a mouse or to save a file, you won’t be very productive.) Does that mean the learning curve should be a bit higher and computers demand a bit more knowledge before using them? Or does that mean we should all invest in our local computer education center?