From: Tres F. <tre...@gm...> - 2014-02-28 20:20:37
|
Just a mock-up front page for the website. :) http://i.imgur.com/cnReUs2.png - Tre...@gm... |
From: Vesa <di...@nb...> - 2014-02-28 21:59:15
|
On 02/28/2014 10:20 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > Just a mock-up front page for the website. :) Screenshots are already outdated... |
From: Israel <isr...@gm...> - 2014-03-01 00:06:46
|
On 02/28/2014 02:20 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > Just a mock-up front page for the website. :) > > > http://i.imgur.com/cnReUs2.png > - Tre...@gm... <mailto:Tre...@gm...> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool. > Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyzer > Customize your own dashboards, set traffic alerts and generate reports. > Network behavioral analysis & security monitoring. All-in-one tool. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=126839071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel I think the idea is very nice! -- Regards |
From: Jonathan A. <eag...@gm...> - 2014-03-01 05:51:56
|
Is this just an updated version of the site? What worries me is the lack of responsive design. On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Israel <isr...@gm...> wrote: > On 02/28/2014 02:20 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > Just a mock-up front page for the website. :) > > > http://i.imgur.com/cnReUs2.png > - Tre...@gm... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool. > Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyzer > Customize your own dashboards, set traffic alerts and generate reports. > Network behavioral analysis & security monitoring. All-in-one tool.http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=126839071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > > > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing lis...@li...https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > > I think the idea is very nice! > > > -- > Regards > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool. > Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyzer > Customize your own dashboards, set traffic alerts and generate reports. > Network behavioral analysis & security monitoring. All-in-one tool. > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=126839071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > > -- Jonathan Aquilina |
From: Tres F. <tre...@gm...> - 2014-03-02 14:17:19
|
On Mar 1, 2014 12:52 AM, "Jonathan Aquilina" <eag...@gm...> wrote: > > Is this just an updated version of the site? What worries me is the lack of responsive design. Yes, actually its just a gimp-style mockup. Responsive design is a nice to have but for the scope of 1.0.0 have we considered just a small page update? There are a lot of discussions about reworking the site, which are all great discussions, but perhaps a task to freshen the front page would suffice until a proper reworking is complete. Yes, as Vesa said the artwork is based off of 0.9.9.1, not master, so its already dated, but this is just a quick mockup, and something that may be a bit more practical to roll-out for the 1.0.0 release. The most complicated part of this mockup if we were to implement it is the download button that does client detection (still a trivial JavaScript task). The rest is just static content like we have today. I noticed that we are the only DAW that doesn't have splash screens or tutorial videos on our home page. Picking a responsive framework shouldn't be a prerequisite to add a few HTML elements to our current page, right? -Tres |
From: Israel <isr...@gm...> - 2014-03-02 14:30:58
|
On 03/02/2014 08:17 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > > On Mar 1, 2014 12:52 AM, "Jonathan Aquilina" <eag...@gm... > <mailto:eag...@gm...>> wrote: > > > > Is this just an updated version of the site? What worries me is the > lack of responsive design. > > Yes, actually its just a gimp-style mockup. > > Responsive design is a nice to have but for the scope of 1.0.0 have we > considered just a small page update? > > There are a lot of discussions about reworking the site, which are all > great discussions, but perhaps a task to freshen the front page would > suffice until a proper reworking is complete. > > Yes, as Vesa said the artwork is based off of 0.9.9.1, not master, so > its already dated, but this is just a quick mockup, and something that > may be a bit more practical to roll-out for the 1.0.0 release. > > The most complicated part of this mockup if we were to implement it is > the download button that does client detection (still a trivial > JavaScript task). > > The rest is just static content like we have today. > > I noticed that we are the only DAW that doesn't have splash screens or > tutorial videos on our home page. > > Picking a responsive framework shouldn't be a prerequisite to add a > few HTML elements to our current page, right? > > -Tres > I think both of you have great points. A large portion of internet browsing is now done on phones, so considering the the small screen should be the first order of website planning (I dislike the fake mobile sites that don't give you any info) so the real site can be on a phone too. And The current website is ugly, but only because it isn't the 90s. Any update might be nice, but a REAL site update would be awesome. Someone on this list was talking about wanting to do a major update using some of the different js frameworks (like bootstrap). I know that a great site could be built very quickly. People are going to think lmms is an outdated program because the page looks bad. If our page is screaming beautiful modern DAW, more artists/developers/users will realize what an incredible gem lmms really is. And they will realize why we would RATHER use it than a proprietary non-free closed source program. We can even e-mail the developers and artists and suggest things, or fix things!! Our web page needs to reflect the beauty and freedom of LMMS!! And to showcase what LMMS is now! It looks awesome, and has new features! -- Regards |
From: Vesa <di...@nb...> - 2014-03-02 15:22:42
|
On 03/02/2014 04:17 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > The most complicated part of this mockup if we were to implement it is > the download button that does client detection (still a trivial > JavaScript task). > > No, let's not do that. The user can easily select which package they want to download, whereas if we start dumbly guessing the OS and get it wrong, it'll be an inconvenience (in worst case, keeping the user from downloading the package they want at all). 3 words: User agent spoofing... |
From: Tres F. <tre...@gm...> - 2014-03-02 17:10:31
|
> > No, let's not do that. The user can easily select which package they > want to download, whereas if we start dumbly guessing the OS and get it > wrong, it'll be an inconvenience (in worst case, keeping the user from > downloading the package they want at all). > > 3 words: User agent spoofing... > 3 words: Nobody does that. :) Besides if we're engaging in dialog about responsive design, you can use the same argument against it, as jQuery and Bootstrap rely heavily on dynamically generating CSS based on the user agent it detects (i.e. -webkit, -o(pera) -moz). Here are three major open source projects <http://i.imgur.com/yZKQyBv.png>, using the "download button", and offering an option to manually select your platform incase the button made a false recommendation. Yes, let's do this. No, most users shouldn't have to select the package they want to download. If we get it wrong, they can manually download the correct one. We only offer three "downloads" and that's 64-bit windows, 32-bit windows, and tar.gz. I'd argue 99.9% of users clicking tar.gz have already downloaded the wrong package, so I'm not sure what use case you are referring to here. -Tres |
From: Vesa <di...@nb...> - 2014-03-02 19:24:51
|
On 03/02/2014 07:10 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > No, let's not do that. The user can easily select which package they > want to download, whereas if we start dumbly guessing the OS and > get it > wrong, it'll be an inconvenience (in worst case, keeping the user from > downloading the package they want at all). > > 3 words: User agent spoofing... > > > 3 words: Nobody does that. :) User agent spoofing is common enough that we should take it in account. Many Linux users have to spoof their user agent string in order to use services such as Netflix. > > Yes, let's do this. No, most users shouldn't have to select the > package they want to download. If we get it wrong, they can manually > download the correct one. We only offer three "downloads" and that's > 64-bit windows, 32-bit windows, and tar.gz. I'd argue 99.9% of users > clicking tar.gz have already downloaded the wrong package, so I'm not > sure what use case you are referring to here. > So you're suggesting that 99.9% of the users of LINUX Multimedia Studio do not want a LINUX version of the software? We don't need to assume our users are idiots who are unable to choose the right option from three choices. The user is in the best position to make the choice, having our website do dumb guessing is just an inconvenience. So no, this is just a bad idea. People are perfectly capable of selecting the package that has the name of their operating system next to it. This is something that's likely to just cause more problems than it solves. Come to think of it, what problems exactly does it solve? Are there many people who come to our site and go "durrr, I want to download LMMS but there are so many choices to choose from! Should I download the file that has the name of my OS next to it or one of these other things? Oh this is too hard, I'm giving up!" |
From: Tres F. <tre...@gm...> - 2014-03-02 19:58:39
|
> > So you're suggesting that 99.9% of the users of LINUX Multimedia Studio do > not want a LINUX version of the software? I did not say that. I said if they're clicking the tar.gz then 99.9% have downloaded the wrong package. Tar.gz my work for you, but it is not the direction of the Linux desktop users. There was a time this was commonplace, but now Linux users use package managers, such as yum or apt for beneficial reasons that I do not need to explain. Many Linux users have to spoof their user agent string in order to use > services such as Netflix. I'm not sure this is a good example, as native Novell Moonlight plugin won't run Netflix, and the Silverlight approach (on Ubuntu/Mint) generally uses a "Netflix Desktop" app. I've deployed this on many workstations without changing user agents. We don't need to assume our users are idiots who are unable to choose the > right option from three choices. Seriously, this isn't calling anyone an idiot. The "other platform" option is right there. This is a convenience. You are still one click away from the downloads, nothing has changed, and no has has been called a user. Are there many people who come to our site and go "durr..." There is no need for mockery or adolescence. I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts. A download button in this fashion is very common these days and it's common for software we're all likely to be using already. I don't understand what the pushback is about on it on our site, especially if we have a link for all versions. -Tres - Tre...@gm... On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Vesa <di...@nb...> wrote: > On 03/02/2014 07:10 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > No, let's not do that. The user can easily select which package they >> want to download, whereas if we start dumbly guessing the OS and get it >> wrong, it'll be an inconvenience (in worst case, keeping the user from >> downloading the package they want at all). >> >> 3 words: User agent spoofing... >> > > 3 words: Nobody does that. :) > > > User agent spoofing is common enough that we should take it in account. > Many Linux users have to spoof their user agent string in order to use > services such as Netflix. > > > Yes, let's do this. No, most users shouldn't have to select the package > they want to download. If we get it wrong, they can manually download the > correct one. We only offer three "downloads" and that's 64-bit windows, > 32-bit windows, and tar.gz. I'd argue 99.9% of users clicking tar.gz have > already downloaded the wrong package, so I'm not sure what use case you are > referring to here. > > > So you're suggesting that 99.9% of the users of LINUX Multimedia Studio do > not want a LINUX version of the software? > > We don't need to assume our users are idiots who are unable to choose the > right option from three choices. The user is in the best position to make > the choice, having our website do dumb guessing is just an inconvenience. > So no, this is just a bad idea. People are perfectly capable of selecting > the package that has the name of their operating system next to it. This is > something that's likely to just cause more problems than it solves. > > Come to think of it, what problems exactly does it solve? Are there many > people who come to our site and go "durrr, I want to download LMMS but > there are so many choices to choose from! Should I download the file that > has the name of my OS next to it or one of these other things? Oh this is > too hard, I'm giving up!" > |
From: Nikko R. <nik...@gm...> - 2014-03-02 20:45:52
|
<p dir="ltr">Tres, what I am hesitant about is hiding important functionality behind links.</p> <p dir="ltr">Then again, I have gotten plenty of software from sites that display based on UA strings. Maybe we should just try it and see how the web traffic is affeted, if at all.</p> <p dir="ltr">One thing I have noticed is a lack of updated builds against current distro releases. Can you not host a current deb for Ubuntu?</p> <br/><br/><div class="cm_quote" style=" color: #787878">On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Tres Finocchiaro <<a href="mailto:tre...@gm...">tre...@gm...</a>> wrote:</div><br><div id="oldcontent" style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><blockquote style=""><div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">So you're suggesting that 99.9% of the users of LINUX Multimedia Studio do not want a LINUX version of the software? </span></blockquote> <div><br></div><div>I did not say that. I said if they're clicking the tar.gz then 99.9% have downloaded the wrong package. Tar.gz my work for you, but it is not the direction of the Linux desktop users. There was a time this was commonplace, but now Linux users use package managers, such as yum or apt for beneficial reasons that I do not need to explain.<br> </div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Many Linux users have to spoof their user agent string in order to use services such as Netflix. </span></blockquote><div>I'm not sure this is a good example, as native Novell Moonlight plugin won't run Netflix, and the Silverlight approach (on Ubuntu/Mint) generally uses a "Netflix Desktop" app. I've deployed this on many workstations without changing user agents.</div> <div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">We don't need to assume our users are idiots who are unable to choose the right option from three choices. </span></blockquote> <div> Seriously, this isn't calling anyone an idiot. The "other platform" option is right there. This is a convenience. You are still one click away from the downloads, nothing has changed, and no has has been called a user.</div> <div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Are there many people who come to our site and go "durr..."</span></blockquote> <div>There is no need for mockery or adolescence.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts. A download button in this fashion is very common these days and it's common for software we're all likely to be using already. I don't understand what the pushback is about on it on our site, especially if we have a link for all versions.</div> <div><br></div><div>-Tres</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">- <a href="mailto:Tre...@gm...">Tre...@gm...</a></div></div> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Vesa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:di...@nb...">di...@nb...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div><div class=""> <div>On 03/02/2014 07:10 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote> <div dir="ltr"> <div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote"> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div>No, let's not do that. The user can easily select which package they<br> </div> want to download, whereas if we start dumbly guessing the OS and get it<br> wrong, it'll be an inconvenience (in worst case, keeping the user from<br> downloading the package they want at all).<br> <br> 3 words: User agent spoofing...<br> </blockquote> <div><br> </div> <div>3 words: Nobody does that. :)</div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <br></div> User agent spoofing is common enough that we should take it in account. Many Linux users have to spoof their user agent string in order to use services such as Netflix. <br><div class=""> <br> <blockquote> <div dir="ltr"> <div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote"> <div><br> </div> <div>Yes, let's do this. No, most users shouldn't have to select the package they want to download. If we get it wrong, they can manually download the correct one. We only offer three "downloads" and that's 64-bit windows, 32-bit windows, and tar.gz. I'd argue 99.9% of users clicking tar.gz have already downloaded the wrong package, so I'm not sure what use case you are referring to here.</div> <br> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <br></div> So you're suggesting that 99.9% of the users of LINUX Multimedia Studio do not want a LINUX version of the software? <br> <br> We don't need to assume our users are idiots who are unable to choose the right option from three choices. The user is in the best position to make the choice, having our website do dumb guessing is just an inconvenience. So no, this is just a bad idea. People are perfectly capable of selecting the package that has the name of their operating system next to it. This is something that's likely to just cause more problems than it solves. <br> <br> Come to think of it, what problems exactly does it solve? Are there many people who come to our site and go "durrr, I want to download LMMS but there are so many choices to choose from! Should I download the file that has the name of my OS next to it or one of these other things? Oh this is too hard, I'm giving up!"<br> </div> </blockquote></div><br></div> </blockquote></div> |
From: Stian J. <sti...@gm...> - 2014-03-02 21:59:41
|
A download button is just fine after my opinion. I don't see where the guessing comes in Vesa and others. It can easily differ Linux and Windows from each other, only 64bit vs 32bit is the hard part. I reckon the button should not say download if it detects Linux, though, it should say "Open Software Center". -- View this message in context: http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Webpage-Mock-Up-tp6697p6736.html Sent from the lmms-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Vesa <di...@nb...> - 2014-03-02 22:21:58
|
On 03/02/2014 11:59 PM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote: > A download button is just fine after my opinion. > > I don't see where the guessing comes in Vesa and others. It can easily > differ Linux and Windows from each other, only 64bit vs 32bit is the hard > part. I reckon the button should not say download if it detects Linux, > though, it should say "Open Software Center". UA spoofing. User agent should not be treated as a reliable indicator of the user's OS because it isn't. Sometimes users don't want websites to know what OS they're using and that should be fine. And not all users want the packages for the OS they're currently using. Maybe you want to install LMMS on another computer that doesn't have internet, and you're downloading it from another computer. It may be hard to believe, but internet connectivity is still not a given everywhere in the world, even today. Another thing is that I also dislike sites that require javascript to function. I use noscript to block scripts on all sites except when I absolutely need them - this both increases security and saves CPU resources considerably. Javascript is fine when there's actually a good reason to use it, but is this "let us guess which file you want to download" gimmick really such a reason? Even disregarding the UA problems, it just seems like a gimmick to me more than anything, and there's way too much of that around as it is - just because other software sites do that doesn't mean we have to. We don't need any fancy bells and whistles on the homepage. It should be simple: front page describes what the software is and does, has some cool pictures, latest news, then there's a download page that contains the latest stable builds in simple hyperlinks and install instructions. And a link to downloading the source and build instructions for users who'd rather compile from source. What additional benefit can we possibly get from adding in scripts that attempt to guess which file the user wants? What is actually wrong with the approach of just simply listing the available packages? In other words, what problem is this suggestion trying to fix? |
From: Israel <isr...@gm...> - 2014-03-03 02:20:33
|
A simple HTML5/CSS site can accomplish great scalability using percentages and forego JavaScript. If the site is written well ALL browsers on ALL devices can view it (I am not sure if XP browsers even count anymore... but you can still write it to work on IE8 without a huge sacrifice) I think the Download detector should be optional. If Javascript is disabled show everything. Add a button that also says 'Show ALL versions for ALL OS" That will completely solve both problems. Detect and also add an "ALL" button for the UA spoofers, and show everything if there is no JavaScript. On 03/02/2014 04:21 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 03/02/2014 11:59 PM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote: >> A download button is just fine after my opinion. >> >> I don't see where the guessing comes in Vesa and others. It can easily >> differ Linux and Windows from each other, only 64bit vs 32bit is the hard >> part. I reckon the button should not say download if it detects Linux, >> though, it should say "Open Software Center". > UA spoofing. User agent should not be treated as a reliable indicator of > the user's OS because it isn't. Sometimes users don't want websites to > know what OS they're using and that should be fine. And not all users > want the packages for the OS they're currently using. Maybe you want to > install LMMS on another computer that doesn't have internet, and you're > downloading it from another computer. It may be hard to believe, but > internet connectivity is still not a given everywhere in the world, even > today. > > Another thing is that I also dislike sites that require javascript to > function. I use noscript to block scripts on all sites except when I > absolutely need them - this both increases security and saves CPU > resources considerably. Javascript is fine when there's actually a good > reason to use it, but is this "let us guess which file you want to > download" gimmick really such a reason? Even disregarding the UA > problems, it just seems like a gimmick to me more than anything, and > there's way too much of that around as it is - just because other > software sites do that doesn't mean we have to. > > We don't need any fancy bells and whistles on the homepage. It should be > simple: front page describes what the software is and does, has some > cool pictures, latest news, then there's a download page that contains > the latest stable builds in simple hyperlinks and install instructions. > And a link to downloading the source and build instructions for users > who'd rather compile from source. What additional benefit can we > possibly get from adding in scripts that attempt to guess which file the > user wants? What is actually wrong with the approach of just simply > listing the available packages? > > In other words, what problem is this suggestion trying to fix? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool. > Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyzer > Customize your own dashboards, set traffic alerts and generate reports. > Network behavioral analysis & security monitoring. All-in-one tool. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=126839071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel -- Regards |
From: Vesa <di...@nb...> - 2014-03-03 06:17:08
|
On 03/03/2014 04:20 AM, Israel wrote: > A simple HTML5/CSS site can accomplish great scalability using > percentages and forego JavaScript. If the site is written well ALL > browsers on ALL devices can view it (I am not sure if XP browsers even > count anymore... but you can still write it to work on IE8 without a > huge sacrifice) > I think the Download detector should be optional. If Javascript is > disabled show everything. Add a button that also says 'Show ALL > versions for ALL OS" > That will completely solve both problems. Detect and also add an "ALL" > button for the UA spoofers, and show everything if there is no JavaScript. > No, no button. No extra steps. At most, we could display our guess first, and the other options below it. Why make the user click more buttons than is necessary? That's just bad UI design. We can't 100% accurately predict what the user wants, so we can make a guess, but we must treat that guess as uncertain, and thus we need to display all options and not hide them away unnecessarily. So: without Javascript, display all options normally. With Javascript, dipslay our guess first, other options below it. |
From: Tres F. <tre...@gm...> - 2014-03-03 14:35:05
|
> > Can you not host a current deb for Ubuntu? @Nikko, I believe hosting a deb (or in some cases the apt:// handler which launches the app center) is a fantastic idea and is well needed. > I do [UA Switching] all the time too, both on my desktop and on my phone, > where too many sites still embody this comic: http://www.xkcd.com/869/ @Rob, Thanks for the detailed response. The cartoon about mobile sites is definitely a growing problem, and as a power user I struggle with mobile friendly sites at times too. Luckily most of these mobile sites have a "desktop site" button, but that's probably less of an argument against a download button and more of one against a mobile friendly version of our site, which lends itself to more of a design decision on the whole site, whereas my proposal is just to do a quick update to the front page which seems to have gotten mixed reviews. User agent spoofing is common enough that we should take it in account. @Vesa, I'd like to see some evidence in support of this claim. UA spoofing generally requires a 3rd party add-on installed in the browser. It may be common for a handful of our developers, but our developers aren't necessarily using our home page to download the software, so the argument is still invalid. there's been a lot of mentality lately to try to somehow shove the "Linux" > part under the carpet, in some kind of fear of alienating windows users. > I don't really know what to make of that. I think part of the problem is > that many windows users just see LMMS as a "free replacement for FL > studio" This claim is preposterous. You could make the same claim that people choose Ubuntu a free replacement for Windows or OSX. You have NO RIGHT judging the motives of people's ability to choose. You have no right making broad claims about the LMMS community's motives for involvement based on platform. Furthermore, you do not know the lengths Stian, unfa, Uros have gone to increase involvement. These type of words, such as "shove linux under the carpet" and "many windows users" are the very seeds in which plant discriminatory dialog. Let's not take this dialog any further in this thread. Let me educate you a little bit on our community: Facebook is our primary medium for communication to our community. It has about 1,200 followers and each update we make reaches approximately 500 of those followers. Stian (and others) have been working from a calendar to offer tips and also gather tips from the users. These tips bring in more followers (such as shifting the entire song to the right) but inevitably brings Q&A. Together Stian and myself along have answered dozens of help questions about the software (I'm sure other FB admins have too, but it's hard to tell). Many questions come from Windows users. Many Windows questions eventually turn into dialog on this mailing list. The Top Songs competition has Windows users in it. Many of these users care care enough about the longevity of LMMS to offer their projects and presets back to the community. If you want to make a generalization of these users this mailing list is the absolute wrong place for it. Each day we have a richer community because of the quality of this software and of it's community. > ... Like the suggestion made a few times on this list to remove "Linux" > from the name of LMMS, are very unwelcome By who? Toby named it and Toby has agreed to remove the name. I'm pretty sure he can speak for himself on this matter. @All, I think we have a pretty solid divide between a fundamental assumption in site design... The use of JavaScript or not. I've seen Johnathan recommend Bootstrap many times talking about redesigning the site, so if JavaScript is off the table (and I'm not sure who decides this) then it should be determined now. The #1 rule to decide whether a site makes use of JavaScript or not is the site's users. I would be conformable representing the vast majority of our site visitors and say that they do have JavaScript enabled. (This assumption is due to the fact that the Facebook page doesn't work well without it). If we vote to rule out JavaScript, I'm afraid LSP2 might hit some brick walls. Either way, there seems to be enough resistance against the concept of this button that it would create an unnecessary divide. I'd be happy to implement the rest of the proposal, given the proper access to the site, but as a larger conversation piece, the idea of utilizing the advancements in JavaScript should probably be hashed out prior to any major site redesign effort. The web as I know it relies heavily on JavaScript and I wasn't aware there was this much push-back on the fundamental idea of using it, so for that, I'm sorry. :) -Tres |
From: Vesa <di...@nb...> - 2014-03-03 17:02:42
|
On 03/03/2014 04:34 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > User agent spoofing is common enough that we should take it in > account. > > @Vesa, > > I'd like to see some evidence in support of this claim. UA spoofing > generally requires a 3rd party add-on installed in the browser. It > may be common for a handful of our developers, but our developers > aren't necessarily using our home page to download the software, so > the argument is still invalid. UA spoofing is used widely enough in the Linux community. What do you want, a survey? I'm not aware of any such survey being conducted... There are tons of tutorials all over the web describing how to spoof UA. There's now been what, 3 people posting in this thread only who've stated they do UA spoofing, and I'm not even sure if all of them actually are developers (at least not currently active ones). UA spoofing is used as a security measure, and we certainly should not be making usage of internet any harder for people who care about security. We should not legitimize any practice that depends on users compromising on their security or privacy to function. > there's been a lot of mentality lately to try to somehow shove the > "Linux" part under the carpet, in some kind of fear of alienating > windows users. I don't really know what to make of that. I think > part of the problem is that many windows users just see LMMS as a > "free replacement for FL studio" > > This claim is preposterous. You could make the same claim that people > choose Ubuntu a free replacement for Windows or OSX. You have NO > RIGHT judging the motives of people's ability to choose. You have no > right making broad claims about the LMMS community's motives for > involvement based on platform. Furthermore, you do not know > the lengths Stian, unfa, Uros have gone to increase involvement. > These type of words, such as "shove linux under the carpet" and "many > windows users" are the very seeds in which plant > discriminatory dialog. Let's not take this dialog any further in this > thread. > There's nothing "discriminatory" about this. Being a "windows user" is a self-inflicted condition, it's not like something you're born with and can't help being. It's simply a statistical fact that the average windows user brings less to the table of an average free software project, than the average Linux (or Mac) user does. Part of this is due to different software culture and expectations of the users. I'm sure once some commercial Linux distro achieves real mainstream popularity (Tizen, maybe..) this situation will be different. But right now, it isn't, and it's not going to change by denying it. And yes, I'm sure that many people DO choose Ubuntu purely because it's free, and see it as a "free windows" or "free mac os". In fact I've seen it in practice... And that's fine really. We can't control what people think - if users want to consider LMMS a "free FL studio", then they're going to and we can't change that, but we shouldn't **encourage** that kind of attitude. > > I think we have a pretty solid divide between a fundamental assumption > in site design... The use of JavaScript or not. I've seen Johnathan > recommend Bootstrap many times talking about redesigning the site, so > if JavaScript is off the table (and I'm not sure who decides this) > then it should be determined now. > > The #1 rule to decide whether a site makes use of JavaScript or not is > the site's users. I would be conformable representing the vast > majority of our site visitors and say that they do have JavaScript > enabled. (This assumption is due to the fact that the Facebook page > doesn't work well without it). > > If we vote to rule out JavaScript, I'm afraid LSP2 might hit some > brick walls. Using Javascript is entirely fine when there's actually a reason to use it - when you actually need it for some functionality. When it's just there to facilitate a flashy gimmick, I don't see the point. We can implement functions that make use of Javascript, but the absence of Javascript should not break down the site - it should still be usable without Javascript, you should be able to look at the front page, read the news, look at screenshots and download packages without Javascript - none of those things **require** JS to implement. As for the OS guessing, I already presented a perfectly viable suggestion, which I'll recap here: When Javascript is available, display the guessed OS first, the other packages after it. No extra link or button, display all at once, but display the guessed OS first, maybe a bit separated from the rest for emphasis. When Javascript isn't available, or it fails to decipher the user's OS (or the OS is in the "other" category), just display all of the options equally. |
From: Israel <isr...@gm...> - 2014-03-03 20:09:55
|
It is perfectly possible to make a great site using only HTML5/CSS3. It will scale great between all screen sizes, and work on all browsers if coded correctly. It is not very hard to do (percentages instead of pixels). CSS has some awesome things that look great (box shadow/alpha transparency) which will still be rendered adequately on browsers that cannot interpret it. (No shadow/transparency) Javascript is EXTREMELY common on websites, but it is NOT needed for screenshots/downloads/news (unless you are talking CMS). forums obviously need JavaScript/PHP to exist (I suppose you could use another server-side language if you want) So SOME parts NEED JavaScript to even exist. But not everything needs it. We could simply list all the possible downloads with Ubuntu & Debian/Fedora/Arch/etc... at the top and then Windows/Mac A little graphic of each OS will make it extremely clear which on the user should download.... this what Vesa proposed, but I am saying we should put the GNU/Linux up top since this is LMMS and may expose some people to a Libre OS. Forget about identifying the browser/OS (some browsers spoof automatically... I think Midori and maybe Qupzilla does this) We could have a link by each OS to explain how/what 32/64 bit is, for the users that don't know (it isn't extremely visable on a Mac, and having Intel doesn't mean it is 32 bit anymore) That covers all the bases. This will also allow Mobile users to see what platforms this runs on (eventually including GooglePlay/App Store/ etc...) so they can go home and apt-get/yum or download and install it. I am sure some may not like putting the Libre OS first... but I think since this is GNU software, it should get exposure. I think that if there are people on this list using a distro other than those 3 (Mint is Ubuntu/Debian so it is included by default) then I think it would be awesome to support it (anyone using OpenSUSE?) I would think that most are covered by Ubuntu/Fedora (which includes all the derivatives, and the ones they are derived from) I think fighting and being unsavory about this is unproductive. Please just tell your idea, and respond courteously. I understand no one wants to be left behind, or have to fight with the webpage just to get the right info. You guys are all awesome! You are all also very passionate, creative and intelligent (brilliant really). Let us encourage this in each other. :) On 03/03/2014 11:02 AM, Vesa wrote: > On 03/03/2014 04:34 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: >> >> User agent spoofing is common enough that we should take it in >> account. >> >> @Vesa, >> >> I'd like to see some evidence in support of this claim. UA spoofing >> generally requires a 3rd party add-on installed in the browser. It >> may be common for a handful of our developers, but our developers >> aren't necessarily using our home page to download the software, so >> the argument is still invalid. > > UA spoofing is used widely enough in the Linux community. What do you > want, a survey? I'm not aware of any such survey being conducted... > There are tons of tutorials all over the web describing how to spoof > UA. There's now been what, 3 people posting in this thread only who've > stated they do UA spoofing, and I'm not even sure if all of them > actually are developers (at least not currently active ones). > > UA spoofing is used as a security measure, and we certainly should not > be making usage of internet any harder for people who care about > security. We should not legitimize any practice that depends on users > compromising on their security or privacy to function. > >> there's been a lot of mentality lately to try to somehow shove >> the "Linux" part under the carpet, in some kind of fear of >> alienating windows users. I don't really know what to make of >> that. I think part of the problem is that many windows users just >> see LMMS as a "free replacement for FL studio" >> >> This claim is preposterous. You could make the same claim that >> people choose Ubuntu a free replacement for Windows or OSX. You have >> NO RIGHT judging the motives of people's ability to choose. You have >> no right making broad claims about the LMMS community's motives for >> involvement based on platform. Furthermore, you do not know >> the lengths Stian, unfa, Uros have gone to increase involvement. >> These type of words, such as "shove linux under the carpet" and >> "many windows users" are the very seeds in which plant >> discriminatory dialog. Let's not take this dialog any further in >> this thread. >> > > There's nothing "discriminatory" about this. Being a "windows user" is > a self-inflicted condition, it's not like something you're born with > and can't help being. > > It's simply a statistical fact that the average windows user brings > less to the table of an average free software project, than the > average Linux (or Mac) user does. Part of this is due to different > software culture and expectations of the users. I'm sure once some > commercial Linux distro achieves real mainstream popularity (Tizen, > maybe..) this situation will be different. But right now, it isn't, > and it's not going to change by denying it. > > And yes, I'm sure that many people DO choose Ubuntu purely because > it's free, and see it as a "free windows" or "free mac os". In fact > I've seen it in practice... And that's fine really. We can't control > what people think - if users want to consider LMMS a "free FL studio", > then they're going to and we can't change that, but we shouldn't > **encourage** that kind of attitude. >> >> I think we have a pretty solid divide between a fundamental >> assumption in site design... The use of JavaScript or not. I've seen >> Johnathan recommend Bootstrap many times talking about redesigning >> the site, so if JavaScript is off the table (and I'm not sure who >> decides this) then it should be determined now. >> >> The #1 rule to decide whether a site makes use of JavaScript or not >> is the site's users. I would be conformable representing the vast >> majority of our site visitors and say that they do have JavaScript >> enabled. (This assumption is due to the fact that the Facebook page >> doesn't work well without it). >> >> If we vote to rule out JavaScript, I'm afraid LSP2 might hit some >> brick walls. > > Using Javascript is entirely fine when there's actually a reason to > use it - when you actually need it for some functionality. When it's > just there to facilitate a flashy gimmick, I don't see the point. > > We can implement functions that make use of Javascript, but the > absence of Javascript should not break down the site - it should still > be usable without Javascript, you should be able to look at the front > page, read the news, look at screenshots and download packages without > Javascript - none of those things **require** JS to implement. > > As for the OS guessing, I already presented a perfectly viable > suggestion, which I'll recap here: > > When Javascript is available, display the guessed OS first, the other > packages after it. No extra link or button, display all at once, but > display the guessed OS first, maybe a bit separated from the rest for > emphasis. > > When Javascript isn't available, or it fails to decipher the user's OS > (or the OS is in the "other" category), just display all of the > options equally. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. > With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. > Faster operations. Version large binaries. Built-in WAN optimization and the > freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel -- Regards |
From: Tres F. <tre...@gm...> - 2014-03-03 20:15:41
|
> > Being a "windows user" is a self-inflicted condition > The average windows user brings less to the table.. ...than the average > Linux (or Mac) user does. @Vesa, I don't want to start a war over Operating Systems. @Israel, Thanks again for the insight. I would recommend a CMS personally, but this all depends on who's doing the work as I prefer to use a framework that's already done the heavy lifting in terms of adding content, registration, etc. (also a CMS could just as easily only exist after visiting the main page, but it would be more work to get news/articles/etc to appear that had been created within the CMS). -Tres |
From: Israel <isr...@gm...> - 2014-03-03 20:35:07
|
On 03/03/2014 02:15 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > Being a "windows user" is a self-inflicted condition > > > The average windows user brings less to the table.. ...than the > average Linux (or Mac) user does. > > > @Vesa, > > I don't want to start a war over Operating Systems. > > @Israel, > > Thanks again for the insight. > > I would recommend a CMS personally, but this all depends on who's > doing the work as I prefer to use a framework that's already done the > heavy lifting in terms of adding content, registration, etc. (also a > CMS could just as easily only exist after visiting the main page, but > it would be more work to get news/articles/etc to appear that had been > created within the CMS). > > -Tres > Nah... not more work just install WP to a /news folder on the server... (if you want WP as a CMS.. though that is pretty controversial too ) link from the home page to domainname.org/news > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. > With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. > Faster operations. Version large binaries. Built-in WAN optimization and the > freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel -- Regards |
From: Vesa <di...@nb...> - 2014-03-03 20:39:06
|
On 03/03/2014 10:15 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > Being a "windows user" is a self-inflicted condition > > > The average windows user brings less to the table.. ...than the > average Linux (or Mac) user does. > > > @Vesa, > > I don't want to start a war over Operating Systems. Neither do I, and I have nothing against people who use windows. It's anyone's personal choice which OS they use on their computer, and as long as they are not - for example - keeping any of my sensitive personal data on their computer, it's none of my business what OS they use. I'm entirely fine with people using Windows, Mac OS, FreeBSD, Hurd, Plan 9, Solaris, Haiku or FreeDOS... it's fine with me. That said, that doesn't mean we have to deny certain realities. It's just a fact that there's a certain difference in culture between Windows users and users of other operating systems, and most Windows users simply do not contribute as much to the software they use. Windows users are less likely to care - or possibly even know - about the workings and principles of open software, or collaborative development models, and are more likely to see software as a product and not something they can actively participate in. Note that I'm not saying all Windows users are like this. Just that this kind of attitude is more common among Windows users. It would be easy to say that the difference is because they use a proprietary OS and thus have less knowledge about open source, but curiously, this doesn't seem to apply (to the same extent) to Mac users. So the actual reasons are probably a bit more complex. Nevertheless, it's a fact that most FOSS projects see much more contributions from Linux/Mac users than from Windows users. |
From: Israel <isr...@gm...> - 2014-03-03 20:42:26
|
On 03/03/2014 02:38 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 03/03/2014 10:15 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: >> >> Being a "windows user" is a self-inflicted condition >> >> >> The average windows user brings less to the table.. ...than the >> average Linux (or Mac) user does. >> >> >> @Vesa, >> >> I don't want to start a war over Operating Systems. > > Neither do I, and I have nothing against people who use windows. It's > anyone's personal choice which OS they use on their computer, and as > long as they are not - for example - keeping any of my sensitive > personal data on their computer, it's none of my business what OS they > use. I'm entirely fine with people using Windows, Mac OS, FreeBSD, > Hurd, Plan 9, Solaris, Haiku or FreeDOS... it's fine with me. > You forgot ReactOS :) > That said, that doesn't mean we have to deny certain realities. It's > just a fact that there's a certain difference in culture between > Windows users and users of other operating systems, and most Windows > users simply do not contribute as much to the software they use. > Windows users are less likely to care - or possibly even know - about > the workings and principles of open software, or collaborative > development models, and are more likely to see software as a product > and not something they can actively participate in. > > Note that I'm not saying all Windows users are like this. Just that > this kind of attitude is more common among Windows users. > > It would be easy to say that the difference is because they use a > proprietary OS and thus have less knowledge about open source, but > curiously, this doesn't seem to apply (to the same extent) to Mac > users. So the actual reasons are probably a bit more complex. > Nevertheless, it's a fact that most FOSS projects see much more > contributions from Linux/Mac users than from Windows users. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. > With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. > Faster operations. Version large binaries. Built-in WAN optimization and the > freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel -- Regards |
From: Rob K. <sou...@ku...> - 2014-03-02 20:04:29
|
On 03/02/2014 02:24 PM, Vesa wrote: [quoting Tres] >> 3 words: User agent spoofing... 3 words: Nobody does that. :) Well, you now have 3 counterexamples for your three words. I do it all the time too, both on my desktop and on my phone, where too many sites still embody this comic: http://www.xkcd.com/869/ It's refusing to serve the user what he wants because you think you know better that creates a problem, not UA spoofing. And to go back to an earlier OT conversation with Tres that I didn't get a chance to respond to at the time, privacy and security have a hell of a lot of overlap. >> 64-bit windows, 32-bit windows, and tar.gz. I'd argue 99.9% of users >> clicking tar.gz have already downloaded the wrong package, > So you're suggesting that 99.9% of the users of LINUX Multimedia Studio > do not want a LINUX version of the software? I would imagine that 99.9% of LMMS users who run Linux are running distros where it takes one click or one command-line to install LMMS from their own OS repositories, making the "download tarball, figure out dependencies, build and install" option unnecessary. The other 0.1% are people who, for whatever reason, need the absolute latest stable LMMS version, or are packagemaintainers. But as long as there's an "Other operating systems/versions" link right below the "Download the package we think you want" button, as Mozilla does, I don't see a problem with making a default download link based on an educated guess. That said, putting a lot of effort into making life easier for users of proprietary operating systems, like the suggestion made a few times on this list to remove "Linux" from the name of LMMS, are very unwelcome. If most of the developers use Windows now, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles, but if not, I don't see why we're so concerned about catering to those users. At least no one's tried to remake LMMS in the image of Metro yet. Rob |
From: Vesa <di...@nb...> - 2014-03-02 22:11:30
|
On 03/02/2014 10:04 PM, Rob Kudla wrote: > That said, putting a lot of effort into making life easier for users > of proprietary operating systems, like the suggestion made a few times > on this list to remove "Linux" from the name of LMMS, are very > unwelcome. If most of the developers use Windows now, well, that's the > way the cookie crumbles, but if not, I don't see why we're so > concerned about catering to those users. At least no one's tried to > remake LMMS in the image of Metro yet. Rob I agree, LMMS has its roots in Linux, and there's no reason to be ashamed of that. Most developers don't actually run windows now, in fact I believe the overwhelming majority of commits come from people who run Linux. Some of them may run Windows also, but it seems to me that development is primarily done on Linux. I do think you're right though in that there's been a lot of mentality lately to try to somehow shove the "Linux" part under the carpet, in some kind of fear of alienating windows users. I don't really know what to make of that. I think part of the problem is that many windows users just see LMMS as a "free replacement for FL studio". Of course, LMMS is much more than that, and while we should take advantage of the familiarity that certain similarities bring to users, in the long run we shouldn't encourage that kind of image for LMMS. |
From: Jonathan A. <eag...@gm...> - 2014-03-01 06:04:40
|
Maybe so, but I like the direction things are going in. the images shouldn't be a problem to update. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Vesa <di...@nb...> wrote: > On 02/28/2014 10:20 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > Just a mock-up front page for the website. :) > > Screenshots are already outdated... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool. > Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyzer > Customize your own dashboards, set traffic alerts and generate reports. > Network behavioral analysis & security monitoring. All-in-one tool. > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=126839071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > -- Jonathan Aquilina |