GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

standsolid · 2004-05-23 23:08:52

Hello everyone

I am new to Arch, and absolutely love the distro so far. I was on Gentoo for some time, and had some issues and gripes with it, and thought I'de give arch a try and I'm lovin' it.

The one thing I was working on in gentoo was graphical administration.
EDIT: typo -- http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=122434.

I really think it's possible to never open a commandline even using the geekiest of linuxes -- and still be able to do those commandline tasks when you need/want to. I feel that most control centers or "yet another setup tools" take-ove the system and pull teh power from your hands.

Unix has a great concept of tools tat get one thing done, and one thing done well -- and that's a creat concept. What's really cool about it is because they are small, simple tools -- they have better matinence and stability, etc -- and most of them work seamlessly with each other.

I feel GUI tools should be the same way -- which is why I was working n KDE-Gentoo. I want a set of small graphical tools that each did it's own job (install/uninstall software, perform software updates, configure sound, configure boot process/manager etc).

So, who would be interested in my attempt to try porting my system updater to Arch?

I was working on a portage (don't flame) front-end before I switched to Arch

check out these screenshots

http://standsolid.com/gentoo_forums/updatewhat1.png
http://standsolid.com/gentoo_forums/updatewhat2.png
http://standsolid.com/gentoo_forums/updatewhat3.png

it's in C++, and I think I could get it working on Arch. anyone interested?

//standsolid//

Now I know of kpacman, and I thought kpacman looks pretty cool, but from what I can tell it's a kommander front-end and thus pretty limited.

Mr Green · 2004-05-24 17:17:24

You go for it.....

There is a need for a ADM (Arch Display Manager) if you are interested...

O & welcome to Arch

Mr Green

Dusty · 2004-05-24 18:38:46

http://www.archlinux.org/docs/en/guide/ … ml#backend

Mr Green · 2004-05-24 19:23:01

I'm not allowed in devland :cry:

Mr Green

Zephirias · 2004-05-24 19:32:42

Looks like a great idea, go for it...

I still think that Arch should make its own WM, though...ADE, or "Ade". Arch Destop Environment...it could maybe simulate a MacOS X type environment in the idea of the dock, but include all of those little optional Karamba/GDesklet type features that people struggle to install. ^__^

Mr Green · 2004-05-24 19:40:58

sweet 8)

Zephirias · 2004-05-24 20:01:03

Mr Green wrote:

sweet 8)

What, my idea?

Mr Green · 2004-05-24 20:04:11

Yes ....

Zephirias · 2004-05-24 20:07:34

Well...uh...thanks.

dp · 2004-05-24 20:09:40

want to make kde behave more like macosX?

http://ksmoothdock.sourceforge.net/ for a start

Zephirias · 2004-05-24 20:11:25

dp wrote:

want to make kde behave more like macosX?
http://ksmoothdock.sourceforge.net/ for a start

Yes, I'm well aware of the SmoothDock, I just like the idea of our own original WM.

Mr Green · 2004-05-24 20:14:08

Lets go the whole hog & have our own OOP (codename Archie)

Mr Green

Zephirias · 2004-05-24 20:14:45

Mr Green wrote:

Lets go the whole hog & have our own OOP (codename Archie)
Mr Green

ROFL

dp · 2004-05-24 20:28:15

he he ... here some secret code we should include:

while (running){
do_not_crash();
}

this would make it much more usefull - dont you think? :-)

Zephirias · 2004-05-24 20:30:47

dp wrote:

he he ... here some secret code we should include:
while (running){
do_not_crash();
}
this would make it much more usefull - dont you think? :-)

Yes, very high quality code.

Mr Green · 2004-05-24 20:34:27

ROFL.......

Mr Green (in tears of joy!!!)

standsolid · 2004-05-25 00:47:54

Dusty wrote:

http://www.archlinux.org/docs/en/guide/ … ml#backend

That's cool and all -- but what is the release period on that going to be like?

In any case, the code I write is modular enough to switch to the libaries once available. KDE/Qt is great for starting CLI processes, reading STDout, and being able to grok them in a way that makes an interface pretty.

I'm glad to see all the support for it -- I got the feeling archers were a bunch of CLI-ers with fluxbox.

//standsolid//

dp · 2004-05-25 06:45:33

what's wrong with fluxbox?

Mr Green · 2004-05-25 07:06:19

I'm a CLI-er who uses Fluxbox ....

Mr Green

dpb · 2004-05-25 07:11:55

In my opinion KDE and Qt sucks....

dpb · 2004-05-25 07:12:36

dp wrote:

what's wrong with fluxbox?

What's wrong with Openbox? ;o

standsolid · 2004-05-25 08:14:09

dp wrote:

what's wrong with fluxbox?

absolutely nothing -- i think flux is fantastic and serves a wonderful purpose.

I'm not anti-flux at all, I just like KDE/Qt for easy programming and it's great apps.

//standsolid//

dp · 2004-05-25 19:29:23

standsolid wrote:

dp wrote:
what's wrong with fluxbox?
absolutely nothing -- i think flux is fantastic and serves a wonderful purpose.
I'm not anti-flux at all, I just like KDE/Qt for easy programming and it's great apps.
//standsolid//

me too, but if i have no time to wait kde booting to do sometihng on the fast - then flux is much more usefull than kde :-)

Dusty · 2004-05-25 22:48:17

dp wrote:

what's wrong with fluxbox?

It's too user friendly and uncustomizable while not being minimalistic... Too much mouse movement. The hotkeys are great, but not enough command options. Not scriptable in any language.

I'll never use a GUI pacman, I think its a waste of time coding it, but.... that's why you're coding it and I'm not.

Dusty

Zephirias · 2004-05-25 22:53:29

Dusty wrote:

dp wrote:
what's wrong with fluxbox?
It's too user friendly and uncustomizable while not being minimalistic... Too much mouse movement. The hotkeys are great, but not enough command options. Not scriptable in any language.
I'll never use a GUI pacman, I think its a waste of time coding it, but.... that's why you're coding it and I'm not.
Dusty

Still liking Ion, Dusty? I tried it, it's not that bad, and is really minimal.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-05-23 23:08:52

GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#2 2004-05-24 17:17:24

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#3 2004-05-24 18:38:46

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#4 2004-05-24 19:23:01

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#5 2004-05-24 19:32:42

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#6 2004-05-24 19:40:58

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#7 2004-05-24 20:01:03

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#8 2004-05-24 20:04:11

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#9 2004-05-24 20:07:34

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#10 2004-05-24 20:09:40

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#11 2004-05-24 20:11:25

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#12 2004-05-24 20:14:08

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#13 2004-05-24 20:14:45

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#14 2004-05-24 20:28:15

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#15 2004-05-24 20:30:47

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#16 2004-05-24 20:34:27

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#17 2004-05-25 00:47:54

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#18 2004-05-25 06:45:33

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#19 2004-05-25 07:06:19

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#20 2004-05-25 07:11:55

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#21 2004-05-25 07:12:36

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#22 2004-05-25 08:14:09

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#23 2004-05-25 19:29:23

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#24 2004-05-25 22:48:17

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#25 2004-05-25 22:53:29

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

Board footer