You are not logged in.

#26 2012-05-02 18:36:55

alphaniner
Member
From: Ancapistan
Registered: 2010-07-12
Posts: 2,776

Re: Here, have a GUI

drcouzelis wrote:

Windows and Mac OS X are cohesive desktop operating systems with a strong integrated GUI, Linux and FreeBSD are free and open source operating systems designed from layers on top of many small software applications.

The more I read about the BSD model, the more I realize how much it actually differs from Linux.  FreeBSD is much more a coherent thing than Linux; I'd actually group it with Win and OSX in your scheme (sans the desktop bit of course).  From BSD for Linux users

By contrast [to Linux], BSD has always had a centralized development model. There's always been an entity that's "in charge" of the system. BSD doesn't use GNU ls or GNU libc, it uses BSD's ls and BSD's libc, which are direct descendents of the ls and libc that were in the CSRG-distributed BSD releases. They've never been developed or packaged independently. You can't go "download BSD libc" somewhere, because in the BSD world, libc by itself is meaningless. ls by itself is meaningless. The kernel by itself is meaningless. The system as a whole is one piece, not a bunch of little pieces.

(Emphasis mine)

In the end though, Linux and FreeBSD share one important characteristic: they are developed for the server, not the desktop.  And in Linux even fairly modern server features, like LVM and iSCSI, are lacking.  It seems to me that no modern desktop-centric features will emerge until attrition has left so few people interested in a particular topic that fragmentation is no longer an option.

That's why I carry a torch for Haiku, the (hopeful) BSD of the desktop.  Despite their disdain for the console.

Last edited by alphaniner (2012-05-02 18:38:17)


But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
-Lysander Spooner

Online

#27 2012-05-02 18:43:55

Bellum
Member
Registered: 2011-08-24
Posts: 230

Re: Here, have a GUI

freemind wrote:
karol wrote:
freemind wrote:

So, what do i think it's wrong?
-Shell (script) has a horrible syntax.
-Shell is not intuitive.
-No settings built-in.
-Bad defaults ("rmdir" vs "rm -rf", lack of an universal archive extract script, ...)

1. Not intuitive as compared to what? Clicking 'Start' button to stop the computer?
2. What settings? Many apps do ship with rc or conf files and the settings are meant to be customized to suit one's needs so ...?
3. The *nix mantra is 'do one thing and do it well' and that's why you have pipes instead of a universal tool.
4. What's bad about 'rmdir'? I'm happy that it removes just an empty directory and fails otherwise.

1. No, duh. For example, to extract a archive you need to know tar, untar, zip, unzip, etc. You also need to know their common options like -c, -Z, -X, etc.
2. You should be able to manage the settings of a program from within it, just like you would do it with a GUI. You shouldn't need to know where the settings file is.
3. I don't see the connection, but ok. And why should we follow *nix mantra or pipes or whatever? I think we should use our brain and try to come up with new solutions in case we don't like the current ones
4. Just Lol.

Btw, no one is trying to take your precious, old, unintuitive, 80s shell away. I'm just promoting an idea for a new shell or CLI for people who do other things besides staying
at the computer 24/7 trying to learn it, you know?

No. No, no no no no. These tools are not interactive for a reason: so they can be easily scripted and piped together. The CLI is not meant to be intuited; that's not the point, but it should be easy to understand from reading the man page.

Offline

#28 2012-05-02 19:08:44

bohoomil
Member
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,376
Website

Re: Here, have a GUI

"Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason." (Wikipedia)

I doubt $SHELL can be used 'without interference' of reason, while GUI can and often is. ;-p


:: Registered Linux User No. 223384

:: github
:: infinality-bundle+fonts: good looking fonts made easy

Offline

#29 2012-05-02 19:18:52

drcouzelis
Member
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 3,570
Website

Re: Here, have a GUI

alphaniner wrote:

The more I read about the BSD model, the more I realize how much it actually differs from Linux.  FreeBSD is much more a coherent thing than Linux; I'd actually group it with Win and OSX in your scheme (sans the desktop bit of course).

After doing some quick research, I agree, especially in regards to this thread. Many of the issues the OP has with CLI applications in Linux seem to be implemented and are part of the operating system in FreeBSD.

alphaniner wrote:

That's why I carry a torch for Haiku, the (hopeful) BSD of the desktop.  Despite their disdain for the console.

I'm surprised about your comment regarding the console in Haiku. Do you mean, despite having a Bash prompt, GNU, and many CLI applications, you disagree with the way Haiku applications are designed to only be used by the GUI? (for example, I can't set the desktop wallpaper using the command line, only the GUI)

Bellum wrote:

These tools are not interactive for a reason: so they can be easily scripted and piped together. The CLI is not meant to be intuited; that's not the point, but it should be easy to understand from reading the man page.

In discussing CLI and GUI applications I feel that it's important not to confuse two very distinct types of applications: command line applications (that run and then finish) and "GUI" applications in a terminal window. (made with something like ncurses, like the Links web browser) I know you, Bellum, already understand this, but I thought it'd be worth mentioning specifically. smile

Offline

#30 2012-05-02 19:27:39

Leonid.I
Member
From: Aethyr
Registered: 2009-03-22
Posts: 972

Re: Here, have a GUI

Gullible Jones wrote:

Case in point: udisks/upower/ConsoleKit. ck-launch-session is entirely broken on many distros (I'll give Arch credit, BTW, for not being one of them); and it also makes launching X without a login manager more annoying, because you can only attach ck-launch-session to one process at a time. Yay.

Have you tried starting Quartz in MacOS w/o a DM? The whole point of CK is to be invisible behind GDM/KDM. If you know your device list then use groups to assign permissions.

Gullible Jones wrote:

Case in point: mounting stuff. Darwin has a daemon and client for this (see 'diskutil'); it's used by the CLI, it's used by OSX applications, everything Just Works. Not so on Linux. You want to mount stuff, you need either a GUI (and udisks and ConsoleKit and friends), udisks (whose syntax may change, and which again needs a ConsoleKit session), or pmount (which works, but is quite limited). The whole thing's a complicated mess.

Comparing pmount with udisks is like apples and oranges. For example, pmount can do LUKS, while udisks can't by design. You need to compare pmount vs "udisks+gvfs+CK". Besides, how do they handle permissions in Darwin? Ypu need some kind of CK/groups/hardcoded fstab.

Gullible Jones wrote:

Case in point: power management. On *BSD you run 'apm' and get a battery level; 'apm -z' suspends the machine. On Linux you can use sudo hackery, or you can send an incredibly verbose message to dbus and hope that you got the syntax right (and that ConsoleKit has granted you the right permissions). Or you can use upower... Oh wait no, you can't use upower, because its CLI doesn't support anything but gathering information.

Hmm, pm-utils + power group come to mind... Regarding sudo -- see above for permissions. Or are you complaing about upower and pm-utils being different commands? BTW, you can take battery info from the kernel directly -- no need for upower...

Gullible Jones wrote:

Case in point: network management. On OpenBSD, iwconfig lets you connect to WPA or WPA2 encrypted networks; you can just type in the command and the passphrase, run dhclient, and you're connected. On Linux, you have a choice of editing wpa_supplicant's config file just to connect temporarily to a wireless network, or using wicd-cli or wicd-curses, which are bulky Python scripts with a dubious security history. You can also use nmcli, the network-manager command line client... Oh wait no you can't, because it doesn't support connecting to "new" wifi networks, i.e. ones you haven't already connected to with the GUI.

Well, there is no iwconfig in OBSD -- only ifconfig. So, what's the problem with wpa_supplicant? Not being a part of iwconfig? I think it's a good thing: modularity, unix philosophy...

Gullible Jones wrote:

My point is, Linux GUIs have (until pretty recently anyway) gotten progressively better integrated and more friendly. IMO that's good. But also IMO, the command line environment (at least when it comes to desktop tasks) has not gotten better integrated and more friendly. Under the hood, things are a bit of a mess.

What is a userfriendly CLI? ncurses gui? If you want more options -- expect comlex syntax. If you don't want to learn them -- click on the mouse.


Arch Linux is more than just GNU/Linux -- it's an adventure

Offline

#31 2012-05-02 19:53:20

anonymous_user
Member
Registered: 2009-08-28
Posts: 3,058

Re: Here, have a GUI

Leonid.I wrote:
Gullible Jones wrote:

Case in point: udisks/upower/ConsoleKit. ck-launch-session is entirely broken on many distros (I'll give Arch credit, BTW, for not being one of them); and it also makes launching X without a login manager more annoying, because you can only attach ck-launch-session to one process at a time. Yay.

The whole point of CK is to be invisible behind GDM/KDM.

And what if a user chooses to NOT use a display manager? Its not exactly a walk in park to get permissions (mounting, shutdown, etc) working with *kit.

Offline

#32 2012-05-02 19:56:01

alphaniner
Member
From: Ancapistan
Registered: 2010-07-12
Posts: 2,776

Re: Here, have a GUI

drcouzelis wrote:

[Do] you disagree with the way Haiku applications are designed to only be used by the GUI?

Not at all.  I see no reason why things that can be done through the GUI must be doable through the console.

I just an impression I got while reading the Haiku docs or forums or something: a general disdain for the console.  I can't point to anything, and now I think about it maybe I took it out of context.  Best to assume I had no idea what I was talking about. wink


But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
-Lysander Spooner

Online

#33 2012-05-02 22:41:11

Trilby
Forum Moderator
From: Massachusetts, USA
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 14,738
Website

Re: Here, have a GUI

anonymous_user wrote:

And what if a user chooses to NOT use a display manager? Its not exactly a walk in park to get permissions (mounting, shutdown, etc) working with *kit.

No display manager here, and no problems either.  But I don't use console-kit.

I don't know enough about it to have a well thought out rant, but IMHO console-kit is not a great example of unix-philosophy software - quite the opposite in fact.  Sudo, on the other hand is great.  Instead of the complicated console-kit and it's dozens of dependencies, I editted my sudoers file once and use sudo for all of those listed tasks.  I couldn't imagine anything working more smoothly.

I can't help but see a lot of this as someone trying to pound a nail in with an industrial strength power screwdriver fitted with its own custom generator, then complaining there are no good tools for the job ... while the simple elegant hammer is sitting right next to him.

Last edited by Trilby (2012-05-02 22:41:50)


InterrobangSlider
• How's my coding? See this page.
• How's my moderating? Feel free to email any concerns, complaints, or objections.

Offline

#34 2012-05-02 22:52:16

jasonwryan
Anarchist
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 20,058
Website

Re: Here, have a GUI

Trilby wrote:
anonymous_user wrote:

And what if a user chooses to NOT use a display manager? Its not exactly a walk in park to get permissions (mounting, shutdown, etc) working with *kit.

No display manager here, and no problems either.  But I don't use console-kit.

This. Permissions can be straightforwardly and transparently managed without console-kit. If you are not using a DE, you are better off without it...


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Github

Registered Linux User #482438

Offline

#35 2012-05-02 23:52:58

/dev/zero
Member
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2011-10-20
Posts: 1,176
Website

Re: Here, have a GUI

freemind wrote:

1. No, duh. For example, to extract a archive you need to know tar, untar, zip, unzip, etc. You also need to know their common options like -c, -Z, -X, etc.
2. You should be able to manage the settings of a program from within it, just like you would do it with a GUI. You shouldn't need to know where the settings file is.
3. I don't see the connection, but ok. And why should we follow *nix mantra or pipes or whatever? I think we should use our brain and try to come up with new solutions in case we don't like the current ones
4. Just Lol.

Is the disrespectful tone here really necessary? "Duh"? "Just Lol"? Karol's points were valid. Please rebut them with the same consideration that karol put into making them. This isn't kindergarten.

On your attempted responses:

  1. You don't need to "know" tar, untar, zip, unzip, etc. It helps to know of them. It also helps to have heard of the man program. And if you want an automated tool that detects the filetype - this can be scripted. But really it's quite quick and easy to type "tar xjf filename.tar.bz2", especially with tab completion. One second of typing, or a second of moving a mouse just to start the archiver GUI before moving the mouse around to more buttons?

  2. "Should be able to manage the settings of a program from within it"?  - says who? "Shouldn't need to know where the settings file is"? - you don't, you just need to know how to rtfm. The manuals always say where the config files are.

  3. No one's holding a gun at your head, and no one's stopping you. But I do wonder why you're even using a Unix. If you don't like the console or text pipelines, and think everything should be guified, I think there is another OS out there that should satisfy the likes of you.

Edit: Okay, you didn't say you don't like the console or that everything should be GUIfied; however, I feel a bit mystified how you could like the console and not like pipelines ...


freemind wrote:

I'm just promoting an idea for a new shell or CLI for people who do other things besides staying
at the computer 24/7 trying to learn it, you know?

This is not true. You're not promoting anything of the sort.

Last edited by /dev/zero (2012-05-03 00:11:04)


Linux is NOT Windows | The Rootless Root
Toshiba Satellite i5-3230M 2.6GHz CPUs, 4Gb RAM, ArchLinux, wmii, nVidia GeForce GT 740M.

Offline

#36 2012-05-03 00:05:26

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,433

Re: Here, have a GUI

/dev/zero wrote:
  1. You don't need to "know" tar, untar, zip, unzip, etc. It helps to know of them. It also helps to have heard of the man program. And if you want an automated tool that detects the filetype - this can be scripted.

Exactly: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bash#Functions
There's also atool.

In either case you need to install the packages responsible for handling various archive types.

Offline

#37 2012-05-03 00:17:54

jgreen1tc
Member
From: St. Louis
Registered: 2011-05-16
Posts: 247

Re: Here, have a GUI

freemind wrote:

*snip*
I'm just promoting an idea for a new shell or CLI for people who do other things besides staying
at the computer 24/7 trying to learn it, you know?

What you are promoting is directly opposite of what Arch tries to promote as has been suggested by others in this thread already.

There are already distros out there that make things easier for people who don't care about what is behind the hood. I see the person who wants to use shell commands and CLI but doesn't want to learn the syntax as a walking oxymoron.

Edit: Or a masochist

Last edited by jgreen1tc (2012-05-03 00:19:42)

Offline

#38 2012-05-03 00:19:45

freemind
Member
Registered: 2011-03-07
Posts: 20

Re: Here, have a GUI

The hardcore *nix mindset of some people here is at minimum disturbing. Don't get me wrong, the *nix architecture is really great, but it's not made for common people. Apple/Steve Jobs understood that, that's why MacOS is a bit different from the common *nix. Also the shell in MacOS X has a useful command called "open", which just by the name you can guess what's it for and you don't have to read a man or search the web to do basic stuff with it.

Just take a look at a project called termkit (http://acko.net/blog/on-termkit/). It's just an example of what a 21st century console could be like. It still has the typical shell syntax with pipes, etc, but is already an evolution from the current shells.

Offline

#39 2012-05-03 00:25:27

Trilby
Forum Moderator
From: Massachusetts, USA
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 14,738
Website

Re: Here, have a GUI

edit: deleted.  I'm not sure about the thread in general, but I realized my own opinion here was not likely productive.

Last edited by Trilby (2012-05-03 00:26:27)


InterrobangSlider
• How's my coding? See this page.
• How's my moderating? Feel free to email any concerns, complaints, or objections.

Offline

#40 2012-05-03 00:29:51

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,433

Re: Here, have a GUI

freemind wrote:

the shell in MacOS X has a useful command called "open"

Not sure, but https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xdg-open seems similar.

termkit website wrote:

For example, I want to see the relevant part of a man page in a tooltip when I'm typing argument switches. I'd love for dangerous flags to be highlighted in red. I'd love to see regexp hints of possible patterns inline.

That's what an IDE does, isn't it?


Different people think and act in different ways. Some people hate mice, some love touch screens, some are fine with plain command line.

Offline

#41 2012-05-03 00:34:34

/dev/zero
Member
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2011-10-20
Posts: 1,176
Website

Re: Here, have a GUI

freemind wrote:

The hardcore *nix mindset of some people here is at minimum disturbing.

Whether or not you're easily disturbed isn't really relevant.


freemind wrote:

Don't get me wrong, the *nix architecture is really great, but it's not made for common people.

Then common people need not concern themselves with it. I find it advantageous to be uncommon.


freemind wrote:

Apple/Steve Jobs understood that, that's why MacOS is a bit different from the common *nix. Also the shell in MacOS X has a useful command called "open", which just by the name you can guess what's it for and you don't have to read a man or search the web to do basic stuff with it.

Are you saying you would prefer to use the MacOS? Good choice. If I was into GUIs, I would probably like Macs. I recommend Macs to friends who are scared of Linux but sick of Windows.

If you feel like porting or reimplementing ideas from the MacOS into Linux, I doubt you would hear many complaints. OTOH, to only talk about it and not back the talk up with concrete results, that is certainly when I start feeling skeptical about what direction you're heading in.


freemind wrote:

Just take a look at a project called termkit (http://acko.net/blog/on-termkit/). It's just an example of what a 21st century console could be like. It still has the typical shell syntax with pipes, etc, but is already an evolution from the current shells.

Either the concept is a victim of poor communication, or the product is just a prettified (and less streamlined) version of that same old terminal which apparently everyone hates so much?

Last edited by /dev/zero (2012-05-03 00:36:08)


Linux is NOT Windows | The Rootless Root
Toshiba Satellite i5-3230M 2.6GHz CPUs, 4Gb RAM, ArchLinux, wmii, nVidia GeForce GT 740M.

Offline

#42 2012-05-03 00:55:24

Oxyd
Member
From: Czech Republic
Registered: 2008-01-17
Posts: 162

Re: Here, have a GUI

/dev/zero wrote:

Edit: Okay, you didn't say you don't like the console or that everything should be GUIfied; however, I feel a bit mystified how you could like the console and not like pipelines ...

Actually, he said he didn't like the Unix pipelines. Compare them, for instance, with Windows PowerShell – it also has pipelines, but instead of merely passing text through them, it passes objects.

To give an example of PowerShell: The following goes through the current directory summing the total size of all files (but not recursing into subdirectories):

$total = 0; Get-ChildItem | where { !$_.PSIsContainer } | ForEach-Object { $total += $_.Length }; Write-Output ("{0:2} kB" -f ($total / 1024))

This is of course a silly example because of it's triviality, but it ought to show the difference: I don't have to do any text parsing or other text manipulation until the very end where I want to format the resulting output.

Personally, I very much like the idea of object pipelines.


“UNIX systems generally have a good, though not impeccable, record for software reliability. The typical period between software crashes […] is well over a fortnight of continuous operation.” ~ Dennis M. Ritchie, The UNIX Time-sharing System--A Retrospective

Offline

#43 2012-05-03 00:57:38

freemind
Member
Registered: 2011-03-07
Posts: 20

Re: Here, have a GUI

/dev/zero wrote:

Is the disrespectful tone here really necessary? "Duh"? "Just Lol"? Karol's points were valid. Please rebut them with the same consideration that karol put into making them. This isn't kindergarten.

I don't care if you're his buddy or agree with his position. I gave him answers in the same tone he gave me. "Clicking 'Start' button to stop the computer", remember that? That sound really sarcastic to me...
Anyway he's an adult and i think he can stand up by himself to defend his views, he doesn't need you as his protector. This isn't kindergarden, like you said, and he isn't a child.

/dev/zero wrote:

[*]You don't need to "know" tar, untar, zip, unzip, etc. It helps to know of them. It also helps to have heard of the man program. And if you want an automated tool that detects the filetype - this can be scripted. But really it's quite quick and easy to type "tar xjf filename.tar.bz2", especially with tab completion. One second of typing, or a second of moving a mouse just to start the archiver GUI before moving the mouse around to more buttons?[/*]

That goes in the 'defaults' issue i mentioned. I know a lot of things can be scripted to overcome those kind of problems, i even have an 'extract' script. It's still very annoying installing a new system or run a livecd and not have a script like that by default.

/dev/zero wrote:

[*]"Should be able to manage the settings of a program from within it"?  - says who? "Shouldn't need to know where the settings file is"? - you don't, you just need to know how to rtfm. The manuals always say where the config files are.[/*]

I said it i think, guilty as charge. I don't want to read a bunch of manuals to know where the every single config file is. That's the whole problem, saying you can read the manuals won't make it better.

/dev/zero wrote:

[*]No one's holding a gun at your head, and no one's stopping you. But I do wonder why you're even using a Unix. If you don't like the console or text pipelines, and think everything should be guified, I think there is another OS out there that should satisfy the likes of you.[/*]

Can i Lol now? Because that was really funny, even more because i didn't say anything like that. I'm trying to promote new ideas and pointing out where i think CLI could be made easier. I know no one is pointing a gun at me, just fingers, and that says a lot.
Btw i don't run Unix i run GNU, which explicit says in the name that it's Not Unix, so you can rest. smile

/dev/zero wrote:

Edit: Okay, you didn't say you don't like the console or that everything should be GUIfied; however, I feel a bit mystified how you could like the console and not like pipelines ...

Yes,  i certainly didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth that i didn't even remotely suggest. I didn't say i don't like pipelines, i don't know where you got that idea. Again putting words on my mouth i didn't say, and then you point out my tone, oh the irony.

/dev/zero wrote:

This is not true. You're not promoting anything of the sort.

I wouldn't expect any other answer from you.

Offline

#44 2012-05-03 01:02:51

Trilby
Forum Moderator
From: Massachusetts, USA
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 14,738
Website

Re: Here, have a GUI

OK screw tact: I just read about that term kit.  There was the example of the output of an "ls" command that presented hundreds of moving spinning widgets spanned accross several screens where each one represented an item one could presumably click on.  WTF would someone want that for?  Seriously?  That has to be one of the most absurd things I've seen.  The site also described not having to escape special characters on the command line because it uses "tokens", but in the same section it says

It avoids the escaping issue altogether, by always processing the command as tokens rather than text. Keys that trigger special behaviors (like a quote) can be pressed again to undo the behavior and just type one character.

Again, WTF?  It avoids the escaping issue all together ... by not avoiding it at all.


InterrobangSlider
• How's my coding? See this page.
• How's my moderating? Feel free to email any concerns, complaints, or objections.

Offline

#45 2012-05-03 01:20:44

Oxyd
Member
From: Czech Republic
Registered: 2008-01-17
Posts: 162

Re: Here, have a GUI

Trilby wrote:

OK screw tact: I just read about that term kit.  There was the example of the output of an "ls" command that presented hundreds of moving spinning widgets spanned accross several screens where each one represented an item one could presumably click on.  WTF would someone want that for?  Seriously?  That has to be one of the most absurd things I've seen.

That struck me as well. (Not to mention the animation doesn't even look pretty thanks to the widgets being very obviously 2D but spinning in a 3D view.) I can only assume that it's there just to show off for YouTube, and in real operation it would just give you an ordinary, filemanager-like formatted table of clickable widgets.


“UNIX systems generally have a good, though not impeccable, record for software reliability. The typical period between software crashes […] is well over a fortnight of continuous operation.” ~ Dennis M. Ritchie, The UNIX Time-sharing System--A Retrospective

Offline

#46 2012-05-03 01:28:04

/dev/zero
Member
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2011-10-20
Posts: 1,176
Website

Re: Here, have a GUI

freemind wrote:

I don't care if you're his buddy or agree with his position. I gave him answers in the same tone he gave me. "Clicking 'Start' button to stop the computer", remember that? That sound really sarcastic to me...
Anyway he's an adult and i think he can stand up by himself to defend his views, he doesn't need you as his protector. This isn't kindergarden, like you said, and he isn't a child.

I'm not sure whether karol and I are "buddies" - we haven't had much to do with each other. I was sticking up for karol because karol had valid points and you were being an ass, and I stick up for who I feel like sticking up for.

Also, karol's joke about the Start button was not in the same order of magnitude of rudeness as your responses. There is a "report" button if you felt that karol was dissing your precious ass.


freemind wrote:

That goes in the 'defaults' issue i mentioned. I know a lot of things can be scripted to overcome those kind of problems, i even have an 'extract' script. It's still very annoying installing a new system or run a livecd and not have a script like that by default.

Sitting around on a forum bitching about it won't change anything. If you see a way to improve something, improve it.


freemind wrote:

I said it i think, guilty as charge. I don't want to read a bunch of manuals to know where the every single config file is. That's the whole problem, saying you can read the manuals won't make it better.

Ditto on my previous point, combined with some contempt for anyone who doesn't like looking things up.


freemind wrote:

I'm trying to promote new ideas ... I know no one is pointing a gun at me, just fingers.

You're not trying to promote new ideas and no one is pointing fingers.


freemind wrote:

I didn't say i don't like pipelines, i don't know where you got that idea.

From this:

freemind wrote:

And why should we follow *nix mantra or pipes or whatever?

I took it as kind of implicit that, by using the word "we", you were placing yourself in the category of people who don't want to follow some purported "*nix mantra" nor use pipelines.


freemind wrote:

Again putting words on my mouth i didn't say, and then you point out my tone, oh the irony.

That isn't irony. Irony is when someone else makes an argument, and you describe an alleged flaw in their argument as "ironic", when in fact it's not ironic, and the flaw isn't even there from the start.


freemind wrote:
/dev/zero wrote:

This is not true. You're not promoting anything of the sort.

I wouldn't expect any other answer from you.

And I've come to expect nothing but non-answers from you.


Linux is NOT Windows | The Rootless Root
Toshiba Satellite i5-3230M 2.6GHz CPUs, 4Gb RAM, ArchLinux, wmii, nVidia GeForce GT 740M.

Offline

#47 2012-05-03 01:29:39

skottish
Forum Fellow
From: Here
Registered: 2006-06-16
Posts: 7,932

Re: Here, have a GUI

Gullible Jones wrote:

Case in point: udisks/upower/ConsoleKit. ck-launch-session is entirely broken on many distros (I'll give Arch credit, BTW, for not being one of them); and it also makes launching X without a login manager more annoying, because you can only attach ck-launch-session to one process at a time. Yay.

You can try ldm:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=125918

It's working perfectly for me. I'm the current maintainer of the AUR package; mainly to keep it alive until someone smarter than me wants to care for it better than I can. It's truly an under-noticed daemon that avoids the whole consolekit mess (for people like me anyway). It needs a systemd service file which DEADTHECAT has provided an example (maybe a perfect one), but I haven't had time to look at it as I don't use systemd yet.

Offline

#48 2012-05-03 01:49:20

anonymous_user
Member
Registered: 2009-08-28
Posts: 3,058

Re: Here, have a GUI

@skottish - Afaik, wouldn't ldm still need some way to get permissions? I know udiskie and devmon can work through use of a custom .pkla file:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ud … rage_group

Offline

#49 2012-05-03 02:11:13

avx
Member
Registered: 2011-07-05
Posts: 71

Re: Here, have a GUI

If I can't use a "feature" over plain ssh, I don't want it. If I can't script a common task with an application, I don't want it. If adding an application, which is supposed to make my life easier, pulls deps which make my life harder, I'll remove it.

Offline

#50 2012-05-03 02:13:57

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,433

Re: Here, have a GUI

freemind wrote:
/dev/zero wrote:

Is the disrespectful tone here really necessary? "Duh"? "Just Lol"? Karol's points were valid. Please rebut them with the same consideration that karol put into making them. This isn't kindergarten.

I don't care if you're his buddy or agree with his position. I gave him answers in the same tone he gave me. "Clicking 'Start' button to stop the computer", remember that? That sound really sarcastic to me...

Yes, it was sarcastic, maybe unnecessarily so, but I didn't mean it in a mean way. I simply wanted to know what kind of (un)intuitive stuff did you have in mind.

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to start this kind of arguments.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB