clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> What I find 
> irritating is the functionality it has when routed to the desktop. First 
> because the functionality is pretty much different

  Not really all that different. You scroll the desktop.

> and secondly because 
> it may also affect what actually /is/ under the mouse cursor, as the 
> next turn of the wheel will bring up a different desktop with different 
> windows at different places. So that if for instance I scroll one 
> desktop too far, I may not be able to instantly scroll back, and may 
> have to find some empty desktop space first.

  Clicking on the same spot on screen doesn't always result in the same
effect either. It depends on what is there.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez schrieb:

>> Why the **** does /no/ graphical user interface provide a way to
>> rearrange the running programs in taskbar?! I mean, that shouldn't be
>> /too/ difficult to implement, right?
> 
> For KDE, I heard they're working on it... But since the taskbar is just 
> another plasmoid, I think you could "easily" write your own. Even in an 
> interpreted language.

For KDE, I found out that they actually /do/ have it by now... just need 
to switch off alphabetical sorting...

Heck, how many config options do they have?!? This is frightening :-)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez schrieb:

> KDE4 desktop doesn't support icons anymore. The feature was removed.

Not really. It just seems to be non-default...

> Instead, there is a "folder view" plasmoid that you can put anywhere on the 
> desktop, and shows the contents of an arbitrary folder.

... though it may technically be realized via a "full-screen plasmoid" 
of course.

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> What I find 
>> irritating is the functionality it has when routed to the desktop. First 
>> because the functionality is pretty much different
> 
>   Not really all that different. You scroll the desktop.

No, you don't scroll it - you "page" it.

>> and secondly because 
>> it may also affect what actually /is/ under the mouse cursor, as the 
>> next turn of the wheel will bring up a different desktop with different 
>> windows at different places. So that if for instance I scroll one 
>> desktop too far, I may not be able to instantly scroll back, and may 
>> have to find some empty desktop space first.
> 
>   Clicking on the same spot on screen doesn't always result in the same
> effect either. It depends on what is there.

Okay, you don't want to get my point. Fine. Just tell me where I can get 
rid of that behavior.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:29:14 +0100, clipka wrote:

>> KDE4 desktop doesn't support icons anymore. The feature was removed.
> 
> Not really. It just seems to be non-default...

True, it wasn't removed, you have to go into the desktop settings and 
change the type back to "Folder View" and that restores the "classic" 
style.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:

> Also, which moron decided that clicking something twice on the task bar 
> should minimize it? I never *ever* want this to happen!

Ah, by the way: Does someone know how to disable that with KDE4? It 
seems full of options, but this one doesn't seem among them.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 18-11-2009 19:01, Stephen wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Aydan wrote:
>>>> Drag whatever you want to drag onto the target app's taskbar button 
>>>> and that app
>>>> will get focus and then drop it in there.
>>>
>>> Oh my. I'll have to try that next time. A new trick. :-)
>>>
>>
>> It is amazing the *new* things you learn from watching other people 
>> work :)
>>
>> BTW don’t try to drop the target on the target app's taskbar button. 
>> Windows whinges like a POM :)
> 
> Don't know what that acronym means but it is one of those surprising 
> windows things. It known what goes wrong but refuses to behave as expected.
> 
> 
Sorry again Andrel, it is not really an acronym but /strine/ (Australian 
slang) that has passed into British English. The acronym is POHM 
(Prisoner Of His Majesty) and the most common usage is “whinging pommy 
b*st*rd”

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez schrieb:
> 
>>> Why the **** does /no/ graphical user interface provide a way to
>>> rearrange the running programs in taskbar?! I mean, that shouldn't be
>>> /too/ difficult to implement, right?
>> 
>> For KDE, I heard they're working on it... But since the taskbar is just
>> another plasmoid, I think you could "easily" write your own. Even in an
>> interpreted language.
> 
> For KDE, I found out that they actually /do/ have it by now... just need
> to switch off alphabetical sorting...

Wow, they do.

> Heck, how many config options do they have?!? This is frightening :-)

Be glad you didn't try KDE 4.0. There were *so* many options *missing* that 
KDE3.5 did have...

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez schrieb:

>> Heck, how many config options do they have?!? This is frightening :-)
> 
> Be glad you didn't try KDE 4.0. There were *so* many options *missing* that 
> KDE3.5 did have...

Heh, I /am/ talking about KDE4...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > I sympathise - Word definitely used to suck a lot, but it is much better.
> > However, its inability to handle vector graphics puts it firmly next to the
> > typewriter for me.
>
> Word has handled vector graphics since OLE days. You're doing it wrong. :-)

Yeah, I've never heard anyone else complain either. But I tried to do something
very specific that I considered trivial, and it couldn't do it. I invested some
time trying to find the "right" way to do it, and the answer seemed cumbersome.
So I threw it out and used something else :)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Heck, how many config options do they have?!? This is frightening :-)

But the critical question is... Can you configure them all from the GUI? 
Or do you have to edit some 25-mile text file?

Oh, and are any of these things sufficiently *documented*?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
> 
>> Heck, how many config options do they have?!? This is frightening :-)
> 
> But the critical question is... Can you configure them all from the GUI? 
> Or do you have to edit some 25-mile text file?

Well, so far I have looked /only/ at those that can be configured from 
the GUI... who knows what more may be available "below the surface".

> Oh, and are any of these things sufficiently *documented*?

Differs. Most settings dialogs come with a "help" button that works and 
tooltips that do help - a few don't, which is somewhat annoying, 
especially when there is a help button, but all you get from it is an 
error message.

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh, and are any of these things sufficiently *documented*?
> 
> Differs. Most settings dialogs come with a "help" button that works and 
> tooltips that do help - a few don't, which is somewhat annoying, 
> especially when there is a help button, but all you get from it is an 
> error message.

Ooo, I *love* this! Loads of Windows programs have a big help button, 
but when you click it you get absolutely nothing of use.

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!

Sometimes you get an error message. (Oh THAT helps me!)

But, in the vast majority of cases, NOTHING HAPPENS. Absolutely nothing. 
Not even a "sorry, we haven't written the help file yet". Just nothing.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:

> Ooo, I *love* this! Loads of Windows programs have a big help button, 
> but when you click it you get absolutely nothing of use.

Yes - and it seems to me it's getting more and more common.

> Sometimes you get an error message. (Oh THAT helps me!)

Another variant that gets me into ranting mode is to require internet 
access to get help, without an option to install the smash locally. 
Which especially sucks if it's a collection of some hundreds of HTML 
pages (did I mention that I prefer help formats where you can easily do 
a full-text search?)

Post a reply to this message

>> Sometimes you get an error message. (Oh THAT helps me!)
> 
> Another variant that gets me into ranting mode is to require internet 
> access to get help, without an option to install the smash locally. 
> Which especially sucks if it's a collection of some hundreds of HTML 
> pages (did I mention that I prefer help formats where you can easily do 
> a full-text search?)

M$ Office seems to favour a "help system" which actually just does a 
text search of the online forums. (WTF?)

Remember the days when people used to write *real* documentation?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible 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.
2) Nobody told the tech writer what it actually does.

-- 
   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

clipka wrote:
> Which especially sucks if it's a collection of some hundreds of HTML 
> pages 

Or DirectFB, where the web site tends to go down for a week at a time.

-- 
   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

Invisible wrote:
> Remember the days when people used to write *real* documentation?

Office has real documentation. They just include the online help as an 
update. If you have no internet, you still get help.

-- 
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

>> 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.
> 2) Nobody told the tech writer what it actually does.

Indeed.

I expect it's frequently #2 - although these are not mutually-exclusive 
alternatives. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez schrieb:
> 
>>> Heck, how many config options do they have?!? This is frightening :-)
>> 
>> Be glad you didn't try KDE 4.0. There were *so* many options *missing*
>> that KDE3.5 did have...
> 
> Heh, I /am/ talking about KDE4...

I don't think you're talking about *4.0*. It really is unusable :P

I use 4.3, and there are already like 3 things I want that people have 
assured me were added in 4.4 (which isn't released yet).

Post a reply to this message

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

>> 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.

The problem is, Unix has _always_ been designed around the idea that 
everything is a text file and that's how you configure the entire 
system. Sure, these days we have pretty front ends that atempt to hide 
all the complexity. But as soon as you need to edit something there 
isn't a front-end for, or the text file contains some setting that the 
fancy front-end doesn't comprehend... suddenly you need to know how all 
this stuff works again.

Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around the idea 
that the user doesn't know anything about computers and needs to be 
shielded from anything more complicated than a lightswitch. Which is 
sometimes quite frustrating, in a different way...

I think XKCD sums it up nicely:

http://www.xkcd.com/619/

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:30:43 +0000, 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.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> The problem is, Unix has _always_ been designed around the idea that
> everything is a text file and that's how you configure the entire
> system. Sure, these days we have pretty front ends that atempt to hide
> all the complexity. But as soon as you need to edit something there
> isn't a front-end for, or the text file contains some setting that the
> fancy front-end doesn't comprehend... suddenly you need to know how all
> this stuff works again.

Allow me (again) to introduce you to YaST, or Webmin.  I've found very 
little that these two frontends won't configure properly.

> Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around the idea
> that the user doesn't know anything about computers and needs to be
> shielded from anything more complicated than a lightswitch. Which is
> sometimes quite frustrating, in a different way...

And again, allow me to introduce you to YaST and Webmin.... ;-)

> I think XKCD sums it up nicely:
> 
> http://www.xkcd.com/619/

Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> The problem is, Unix has _always_ been designed around the idea that 
> everything is a text file and that's how you configure the entire 
> system. Sure, these days we have pretty front ends that atempt to hide 
> all the complexity. But as soon as you need to edit something there 
> isn't a front-end for, or the text file contains some setting that the 
> fancy front-end doesn't comprehend... suddenly you need to know how all 
> this stuff works again.
> 
> Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around the idea 
> that the user doesn't know anything about computers and needs to be 
> shielded from anything more complicated than a lightswitch. Which is 
> sometimes quite frustrating, in a different way...

What that really means is that there are GUIs for all the n00b-level 
options and if there isn't, the Windows n00b will have to mess around 
with the arcane registry or RTFM for the first time in his life.

I like configuration files better than GUIs for no other reason that I 
can simply grep it for whatever I'm looking for or remotely related -- 
direct to the point.  In GUIs I have to go through a multitude of 
recursive menus or tabs hidden well underneath other options etc...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On 11/23/09 12:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
>
> Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.

	Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to utilize 
many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:44:49 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 11/23/09 12:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
>>
>> Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.
> 
> 	Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to 
utilize
> many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.

I use it quite frequently, and while it does suck CPU, it does run full 
screen, which is what the claim there was....

"Works for me"....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around the idea 
>> that the user doesn't know anything about computers and needs to be 
>> shielded from anything more complicated than a lightswitch. Which is 
>> sometimes quite frustrating, in a different way...
> 
> What that really means is that there are GUIs for all the n00b-level 
> options and if there isn't, the Windows n00b will have to mess around 
> with the arcane registry or RTFM for the first time in his life.

The things that require you to touch the registry are so arcane that 
your average n00b wouldn't even comprehend what you're talking about. 
Stuff like changing the network MTU, or the order in which IRQs are 
assigned to PnP devices, or other such obscure stuff like that.

Usually the challenge is just figuring out which sub-sub-menu M$ has 
hidden the setting you want under. (Or just which combination of options 
makes the program behave correctly.)

> I like configuration files better than GUIs for no other reason that I 
> can simply grep it for whatever I'm looking for or remotely related -- 
> direct to the point.

I'd be surprised if that actually works.

The option you want to change might be at default, and thus there's no 
entry for it in the config file. It might have a highly non-obvious 
name. Or it might be configured from a totally different file. (E.g., 
there is [presumably] a file somewhere which configures your network 
interfaces. But the DNS configuration is in an entirely unrelated file.)

> In GUIs I have to go through a multitude of 
> recursive menus or tabs hidden well underneath other options etc...

M$ does have an annoying habit of hiding absolutely every configuration 
setting under an "advanced" tab...

Post a reply to this message

On 11/23/09 21:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
>>> Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.
>> 	Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to
> utilize
>> many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
>
> I use it quite frequently, and while it does suck CPU, it does run full
> screen, which is what the claim there was....
>
> "Works for me"....

	Ah. You have a fast CPU.

	It's like saying "X works", when you don't have 3-D working. A major 
"feature" of the plugin fails to work. From my perspective, that means 
it *doesn't* work.

	Anyway, on many computers, including mine, playing HD videos full 
screen on Flash gets jerky. CPU can't handle it, and the CPU isn't 
supposed to handle it - the video card is.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     It's like saying "X works", when you don't have 3-D working. A major 
> "feature" of the plugin fails to work. From my perspective, that means 
> it *doesn't* work.

I have this persistent problem with my co-workers. Everyone was telling me 
"yes, that works" and I'm saying "I'm getting no output" and they mean "it 
compiled without errors."  Sheesh.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> But the DNS configuration is in an entirely unrelated file.)

In particular, in a file that says nothing about DNS in the name or 
contents. And even if you knew it was called the "resolver", they spell the 
name of the configuration file *wrong*, so you can't even find it with 'find'.

> M$ does have an annoying habit of hiding absolutely every configuration 
> setting under an "advanced" tab...

Only the advanced ones you shouldn't screw with without knowing what you're 
doing. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 
>     Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to utilize
> many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
> 

The Linux Flash is still a crappy piece of shit. It's a resource hog and
still it's amazingly stupid (eg. won't handle second soundcard, even
though it supports ALSA).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> > 
> >     Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to utilize
> > many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
> > 

> The Linux Flash is still a crappy piece of shit. It's a resource hog and
> still it's amazingly stupid (eg. won't handle second soundcard, even
> though it supports ALSA).

  Hardly Linux's own fault given that Flash is, at least in principle,
a proprietary format owned by Adobe, who also makes the Linux Flash plugin.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   Hardly Linux's own fault given that Flash is, at least in principle,
> a proprietary format owned by Adobe, who also makes the Linux Flash plugin.
> 

I fully agree, the fault is on Adobe, which doesn't seem to be keen to
allocate resources to get the freaking thing to work. But still it's the
Linux version that's ultimately crappy, AFAIK Windows-Flash works much
better.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 
> >   Hardly Linux's own fault given that Flash is, at least in principle,
> > a proprietary format owned by Adobe, who also makes the Linux Flash plugin.
> > 

> I fully agree, the fault is on Adobe, which doesn't seem to be keen to
> allocate resources to get the freaking thing to work. But still it's the
> Linux version that's ultimately crappy, AFAIK Windows-Flash works much
> better.

  But you can't blame Linux for that.

  OTOH the current plugin can be used for basically any Flash app out
there, so it's better than nothing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   But you can't blame Linux for that.

Yes, I already agreed on that (and have agreed all the time). It just
doesn't remove that Adobe piles more sucking on Linux-plugin than on
Windows-plugin.

>   OTOH the current plugin can be used for basically any Flash app out
> there, so it's better than nothing.

Yes, if you have enough power. I think I do now, I haven't yet got my
new workstation (Q9550, 8GiB etc) to lag with flash, while my laptop
(C2D T5600 (1,8GHz), 4GiB etc) couldn't play youtube videos with flash,
since I didn't have enough CPU power (OTOH, MPlayer plaid them with
under 1% of CPU usage...).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:23:40 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> I'd be surprised if that actually works.
> 
> The option you want to change might be at default, and thus there's no
> entry for it in the config file. It might have a highly non-obvious
> name. Or it might be configured from a totally different file. (E.g.,
> there is [presumably] a file somewhere which configures your network
> interfaces. But the DNS configuration is in an entirely unrelated file.)

Most Linux/Unix config files include defaults commented out - that's 
pretty standard.  So grepping does work quite well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:24:48 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 11/23/09 21:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
>>>> Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.
>>> 	Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to
>> utilize
>>> many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
>>
>> I use it quite frequently, and while it does suck CPU, it does run full
>> screen, which is what the claim there was....
>>
>> "Works for me"....
> 
> 	Ah. You have a fast CPU.

AMD-64 2 GHz dual core processor - not really blazingly fast by today's 
standards.  That's the desktop machine.  The Dell laptop is a single core 
(I believe) Intel 32-bit processor that runs at about 2 GHz as well.  
I've a slower laptop in the office (a Thinkpad t42p) that's slower and 
still seems to handle it OK.

> 	It's like saying "X works", when you don't have 3-D working. A 
major
> "feature" of the plugin fails to work. From my perspective, that means
> it *doesn't* work.
> 
> 	Anyway, on many computers, including mine, playing HD videos full
> screen on Flash gets jerky. CPU can't handle it, and the CPU isn't
> supposed to handle it - the video card is.

I don't disagree with that - I'm not saying it's the best engineered 
piece of software in the world, but I am saying that it works well enough 
for the rare occasions I do use it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/25/09 16:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
> AMD-64 2 GHz dual core processor - not really blazingly fast by today's
> standards.  That's the desktop machine.  The Dell laptop is a single core
> (I believe) Intel 32-bit processor that runs at about 2 GHz as well.
> I've a slower laptop in the office (a Thinkpad t42p) that's slower and
> still seems to handle it OK.

	Try Hulu. Set whatever you're watching to the highest quality, and then 
switch to full screen. On my machine (P4 2.53 GHz), it plays, but it 
kind of jerks a few times a minute.

	It should give trouble on your slower machines.

	Of course, it's possible that the plugin _is_ working with your 3-D 
cards (all of them?). It's not that they don't support video cards at 
all - just that it rarely works.


-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/25/09 15:59, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Most Linux/Unix config files include defaults commented out - that's
> pretty standard.  So grepping does work quite well.

	I'm not sure about the "most". I'm guessing you more often deal with 
common _system administration_ (mature) tools - which often are as you 
described - as opposed to just wild stuff for the desktop.

	Or it could be a distribution thing - they may be the ones who place a 
fully commented config file for common tools.

	Let's put it this way: For most of the config files that sit in my 
_home_ directory, they didn't come with a config file with all the 
options - although many do have a sample one in /etc that has _common_ 
options...

-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:27:47 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 11/25/09 16:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> AMD-64 2 GHz dual core processor - not really blazingly fast by today's
>> standards.  That's the desktop machine.  The Dell laptop is a single
>> core (I believe) Intel 32-bit processor that runs at about 2 GHz as
>> well. I've a slower laptop in the office (a Thinkpad t42p) that's
>> slower and still seems to handle it OK.
> 
> 	Try Hulu. Set whatever you're watching to the highest quality, 
and then
> switch to full screen. On my machine (P4 2.53 GHz), it plays, but it
> kind of jerks a few times a minute.

Have done, and yes, it's jerky at the highest resolution, but I've always 
had problems with it because of my bandwidth (only 3 Mbps down here at 
home).

> 	It should give trouble on your slower machines.
> 
> 	Of course, it's possible that the plugin _is_ working with your 3-
D
> cards (all of them?). It's not that they don't support video cards at
> all - just that it rarely works.

At issue really is a definition of "working".  I consider it working if I 
can watch video effectively.  You seem to consider it working only if it 
behaves in a particular manner, such as offloading the video rendering to 
the GPU.  That'd be nice, but doesn't fit my general definition of 
"working" which is "I can use it most of the time without a problem".  
Biggest problem I have with it is the damned thing has memory leaks 
galore.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:30:36 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 11/25/09 15:59, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Most Linux/Unix config files include defaults commented out - that's
>> pretty standard.  So grepping does work quite well.
> 
> 	I'm not sure about the "most". I'm guessing you more often deal 
with
> common _system administration_ (mature) tools - which often are as you
> described - as opposed to just wild stuff for the desktop.
> 
> 	Or it could be a distribution thing - they may be the ones who 
place a
> fully commented config file for common tools.
> 
> 	Let's put it this way: For most of the config files that sit in my
> _home_ directory, they didn't come with a config file with all the
> options - although many do have a sample one in /etc that has _common_
> options...

True, and yes, I'm talking about system config files, which are generally 
mature and well documented/commented.  There's that pesky "works" 
definition issue again. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message