 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez schrieb:
>
>> Get Kate. It uses the same underlying file editing component as KWrite,
>> but supports a lot more features, like opening multiple documents at
>> once.
>
> What - KWrite doesn't? Didn't notice yet, but in that case... yes, I
> probably want Kate...
KWrite supports multiple documents. By opening multiple windows. Maybe in
the same process, unlike Notepad, but visually it's the same.
>> And an embedded terminal (useful for typing the ./povray command ;) ).
>
> Heh, I just noticed the integrated terminal in the Dolphin file manager.
> Which cd's automatically. Now /that/ is a smart idea! :-)
Heck, even Konversation (chat client) has an integrated terminal. All thanks
to the component architecture of KDE. KWrite is a simple app integrating
KatePart and Konsole is a simple-ish app integrating KonsolePart. Kate uses
both KParts. And a lot more code, of course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:39:33 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> But the critical question is... Can you configure them all from the GUI?
> Or do you have to edit some 25-mile text file?
No more often than Windows settings need to be tweaked in the registry
these days, in my experience.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez schrieb:
>> Heh, I /am/ talking about KDE4...
>
> I don't think you're talking about *4.0*. It really is unusable :P
Ah, ok - yes, you're right, I'm using 4.3 here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/19/09 10:33, Darren New wrote:
>> Sometimes you get a help page for the whole dialog box, containing
>> such gems as "Use SCSI encapsulation - Turn this on if you want to use
>> SCSI command encapsulation". Well, gee, now it all makes sense!
>
> That means one of two things:
> 1) If you don't know what SCSI encapsulation is, don't touch this.
Yes, but why bother putting it in the help file, if you're not going to
provide help for it?
--
I didn't know my husband drank until one day he came home sober.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 11/19/09 10:33, Darren New wrote:
>>> Sometimes you get a help page for the whole dialog box, containing
>>> such gems as "Use SCSI encapsulation - Turn this on if you want to use
>>> SCSI command encapsulation". Well, gee, now it all makes sense!
>>
>> That means one of two things:
>> 1) If you don't know what SCSI encapsulation is, don't touch this.
>
> Yes, but why bother putting it in the help file, if you're not going
> to provide help for it?
Because some corporate person made the rule that every option has to have a
help file entry?
The other mechanism is to say "it's in the registry, but we don't support
it", but then you get people complaining about it. "Turns on SCSI
encapsulation" is a perfectly good description if you know what it means. If
you don't know what it means, a tool tip is probably not the right place to
learn it.
It's like trying to explain anything technical in enough detail that an
uneducated user will understand. How do you explain "clear authenticated
sessions" in the firefox "clear private data" dialog without explaining how
SSL works and why you'd have to carry around session authentications between
sessions? To someone who isn't sure what the difference between the
internet and email is?
How do you explain what an IRQ conflict is or a DMA range to someone who is
still a bit confused by the difference between the monitor and the computer?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But the critical question is... Can you configure them all from the GUI?
>> Or do you have to edit some 25-mile text file?
>
> No more often than Windows settings need to be tweaked in the registry
> these days, in my experience.
Generally, you only need to tweak the registry for very obscure settings
that almost nobody will ever need to touch.
Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files (all
with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
Windows software tends to regard the GUI as the primary way to
configure. And if there isn't a button for it, it's probably just not
editable at all.
And look at Mozilla Firefox. There's an options box, but there are
seemingly millions of extra config entries that aren't listed there.
(They do at least provide a reasonable UI for editing these...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files (all
> with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
> configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
That's because Unix doesn't have a registry. Hence, every program implements
its own configurations subsystem, and hence it's difficult to write a GUI
that understands the configuration subsystem of every program. If you do,
it's difficult to continue to update it in step with releases of the program
that break the syntax of the configuration files or add new options that
people want to use.
> Windows software tends to regard the GUI as the primary way to
> configure. And if there isn't a button for it, it's probably just not
> editable at all.
Not quite true. It's just not supported if there's no button. There's all
kinds of things you can tweak but only if you know what you're doing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files
>> (all with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
>> configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
>
> That's because Unix doesn't have a registry. Hence, every program
> implements its own configurations subsystem.
The registry is actually one of the few nice ideas in Windows, IMHO.
>> Windows software tends to regard the GUI as the primary way to
>> configure. And if there isn't a button for it, it's probably just not
>> editable at all.
>
> Not quite true. It's just not supported if there's no button. There's
> all kinds of things you can tweak but only if you know what you're doing.
IME, most of the stuff you have to manually tweak the registry for is
compatibility settings or obscure configuration that only a system
administrator for a large company would care about. There aren't too
many email programs that have an option to automatically spellcheck
before sending, but you can _only_ turn this on through the registry.
For example.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Not quite true. It's just not supported if there's no button. There's
>> all kinds of things you can tweak but only if you know what you're doing.
>
> IME, most of the stuff you have to manually tweak the registry for is
> compatibility settings or obscure configuration that only a system
> administrator for a large company would care about.
Right. Basically, a lot of the stuff targetted at people who can read a KB
article and understand what it's saying and not screw up the registry while
editting it.
Essentially, in MS, there are multiple levels of configuration. Tweak the
registry is the first. Run a command-line program that sets the options is
second (because then you have to support it). A GUI is third (because then
you need help messages, translating into dozens of languages, etc.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:58:08 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> But the critical question is... Can you configure them all from the
>>> GUI? Or do you have to edit some 25-mile text file?
>>
>> No more often than Windows settings need to be tweaked in the registry
>> these days, in my experience.
>
> Generally, you only need to tweak the registry for very obscure settings
> that almost nobody will ever need to touch.
I find that to be the same on my GNOME desktop systems.
> Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files (all
> with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
> configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
Let me introduce you to YaST....Before I started using it, I didn't like
the idea of it, but now that I'm used to it, guess what - I don't have to
tweak all these different configuration files, because it handles it for
me most of the time.
> Windows software tends to regard the GUI as the primary way to
> configure. And if there isn't a button for it, it's probably just not
> editable at all.
It's editable if you know how.
> And look at Mozilla Firefox. There's an options box, but there are
> seemingly millions of extra config entries that aren't listed there.
> (They do at least provide a reasonable UI for editing these...)
Yeah, that's what about:config is for....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
