From: Mark D. <ma...@ki...> - 2005-06-14 04:20:01
|
I just accepted a patch that enables the use of the "Open file" button when receiving a file from someone, but it is ONLY enabled when the user is running GNOME and they have gnome-open installed (or they're using Windows, but that's unrelated). There's been some talk along the lines of, "If we don't support all desktop environments then we shouldn't support any." That's stupid. I'm sure KDE has something similar to gnome-open. If someone writes a clean patch that uses it when the Gaim user is running KDE, I'd be happy to accept it (as long as it's clean--that's important). Same thing with the browser preference. I still like forcing GNOME users to use the GNOME default browser, but I'm open to patches that inform the user they must configure their browser using the GNOME preferences. -Mark |
From: Sean E. <sea...@gm...> - 2005-06-14 05:34:40
|
On 6/14/05, Mark Doliner <ma...@ki...> wrote:=20 > There's been some talk along the lines of, "If we don't support all deskt= op > environments then we shouldn't support any." That's stupid. I'm sure KD= E has > something similar to gnome-open. If someone writes a clean patch that us= es it > when the Gaim user is running KDE, I'd be happy to accept it (as long as = it's > clean--that's important). Absolutely. Further, I don't think *anyone* will complain about the File Transfer "Open" feature as I'm convinced the only reason anyone complains about the browser preference is because they were used to opening links in new tabs and don't like that it's now one step harder. We should make a rule "existing users aren't able to complain about changes in features or preferences." Undoubtedly they prefer to defend what they're used to other than what's best. ;) -s. |
From: Levi B. <tak...@gm...> - 2005-06-14 13:40:37
|
> There's been some talk along the lines of, "If we don't support all deskt= op > environments then we shouldn't support any." That's stupid. I'm sure KD= E has > something similar to gnome-open. If someone writes a clean patch that us= es it > when the Gaim user is running KDE, I'd be happy to accept it (as long as = it's > clean--that's important). Sounds good. *Adding* features for environments that support them is fine; I'm only against removing existing ones. > Same thing with the browser preference. I still like forcing GNOME users= to > use the GNOME default browser, but I'm open to patches that inform the us= er > they must configure their browser using the GNOME preferences. I'll submit one shortly. --=20 Debianista! |
From: Levi B. <tak...@gm...> - 2005-06-15 20:49:50
|
> Same thing with the browser preference. I still like forcing GNOME users= to > use the GNOME default browser, but I'm open to patches that inform the us= er > they must configure their browser using the GNOME preferences. Screenshot at http://bard.sytes.net/gaim-gnome-browser-pref.jpg Comments? --=20 Debianista! |
From: Sean E. <sea...@gm...> - 2005-06-15 20:57:40
|
On 6/15/05, Levi Bard <tak...@gm...> wrote: > Comments? Perhaps the most important advantage to removing preferences is that it de-clutters the preferences dialog. We still have a lot of finishing to do in that area for 2.0.0 as your screenshot demonstrates, but including an entire browser tab just for options we (or I, mainly) don't want anyone to use is counter to that. -s. |
From: Andrew S. <gt...@ma...> - 2005-06-15 23:10:39
|
Sean Egan wrote: > On 6/15/05, Levi Bard <tak...@gm...> wrote: > >>Comments? > > > Perhaps the most important advantage to removing preferences is that > it de-clutters the preferences dialog. We still have a lot of > finishing to do in that area for 2.0.0 as your screenshot > demonstrates, but including an entire browser tab just for options we > (or I, mainly) don't want anyone to use is counter to that. Are you saying that you're trying to remove the browser preference entirely? If you're not completely getting rid of it, then this is no more clutter than normal. I don't like the idea of preferences disappearing based on external factors because it strikes me as inconsistent and shatters observability. The normal behavior of gaim changing because of which desktop-environment is chosen will confuse people that don't understand the difference between a desktop-environment and any other window manager. One specific tech support instance going through my head goes something like this: "Hey Andrew, I got KDE working but gaim broke for some reason. It keeps opening things in a different browser and I can't change it." If patches would be accepted supporting all sorts of specific cases like this, then eventually there could be a whole list of these exceptions. It is not okay to just push this information into a FAQ somewhere and have gaim appear broken to people. -- Andrew Sayman |
From: Sean E. <sea...@gm...> - 2005-06-16 06:20:32
|
Someone needs to make "Reply All" the default for GMail. Greasemonkey[1] script anyone? -s [1] http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sean Egan <sea...@gm...> Date: Jun 16, 2005 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [Gaim-devel] Using desktop-manager specific stuff To: Andrew Sayman <gt...@ma...> On 6/15/05, Andrew Sayman <gt...@ma...> wrote: > Are you saying that you're trying to remove the browser preference entire= ly? If > you're not completely getting rid of it, then this is no more clutter tha= n normal. If it were possible, I'd definitely do so, yes. Because removing preferences is a good thing, and we like to good things when possible, we should remove preferences when possible. > I don't like the idea of preferences disappearing based on external facto= rs > because it strikes me as inconsistent and shatters observability. The nor= mal > behavior of gaim changing because of which desktop-environment is chosen = will > confuse people that don't understand the difference between a > desktop-environment and any other window manager. One specific tech suppo= rt > instance going through my head goes something like this: Your arguments are based on the supposition that people change desktop environments all the time. I strongly doubt this is the common case, but I admit there are such people. However, I'd rather upset them than the people who stick to just one desktop. Someone who regularly switches between GNOME and KDE is far more likely to be apt enough to figure the behavior out than the person who doesn't even know what GNOME is to figure out why Gaim opens links in some other browser than he wants. -s. |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2005-06-16 15:20:23
|
I am concerned about the lack of a browser preference in gaim for gnome users forom a support point of view. Already I have had people telling users that the fact they use gnome "does not matter" and that the browser pref is there, they just are not seeing it. The reality of the situation is that gnome's UI for handling browser related preferences is insufficient. People are not happy with the behavior of links when they click them in gaim and use gnome. Obviously this is something gnome should fix, and we ought, if it has not been done already, submit a usability bug to gnome about this. that being said however, in the mean time we have people asking *us* about how to get better behavior, and because a developer is not always the first to reply, they get confusing and inconsistent answers. I think we ought to consider putting up with a grayed out preferences tab *for the present* pending a closing of a related bug in gnome's tracker to deal with this situation. That way people would understand that the poor behavior is something gnome must fix, that way people would not be confused by the presence of browser prefs on their platform when a submitter doesn't see browser prefs. luke |
From: Andrew S. <gt...@ma...> - 2005-06-16 17:23:57
|
Luke Schierer wrote: > I think we ought to consider putting up with a grayed out > preferences tab *for the present* pending a closing of a related bug > in gnome's tracker to deal with this situation. That way people > would understand that the poor behavior is something gnome must fix, > that way people would not be confused by the presence of browser > prefs on their platform when a submitter doesn't see browser prefs. This begs the question: What about the next time that they break it? Why turn a gnome bug into a gaim bug? -- Andrew Sayman |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2005-06-16 18:32:44
|
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:23:27PM -0400, Andrew Sayman wrote: > Luke Schierer wrote: > > I think we ought to consider putting up with a grayed out > > preferences tab *for the present* pending a closing of a related bug > > in gnome's tracker to deal with this situation. That way people > > would understand that the poor behavior is something gnome must fix, > > that way people would not be confused by the presence of browser > > prefs on their platform when a submitter doesn't see browser prefs. > > This begs the question: What about the next time that they break it? > > Why turn a gnome bug into a gaim bug? > -- > Andrew Sayman As it stands, *our existing users* think gaim has a browser preference *for all environments* But this is not the case. IF gnome fixed this, then our users would still have had some period of time when they saw a browser page pointing them at gnome's preference. So on it being broke, they would remember that being there and even if it no longer is, would remember to complain to gnome, not to us. luke |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2005-06-16 18:49:55
|
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 02:30:48PM -0400, Luke Schierer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:23:27PM -0400, Andrew Sayman wrote: > > Luke Schierer wrote: > > > I think we ought to consider putting up with a grayed out > > > preferences tab *for the present* pending a closing of a related bug > > > in gnome's tracker to deal with this situation. That way people > > > would understand that the poor behavior is something gnome must fix, > > > that way people would not be confused by the presence of browser > > > prefs on their platform when a submitter doesn't see browser prefs. > > > > This begs the question: What about the next time that they break it? > > > > Why turn a gnome bug into a gaim bug? > > -- > > Andrew Sayman > > As it stands, *our existing users* think gaim has a browser > preference *for all environments* But this is not the case. IF > gnome fixed this, then our users would still have had some period of > time when they saw a browser page pointing them at gnome's > preference. So on it being broke, they would remember that being > there and even if it no longer is, would remember to complain to > gnome, not to us. > > luke I have filed gnome bug #307962 requesting that they improve the usability of their browser preference. Overall, I think Sean is right, in that if GNOME simply did the Right Thing, we would not be here talking about this. luke |
From: Andrew S. <gt...@ma...> - 2005-06-16 17:14:56
|
Sean Egan wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sean Egan <sea...@gm...> > Date: Jun 16, 2005 2:17 AM > Subject: Re: [Gaim-devel] Using desktop-manager specific stuff > To: Andrew Sayman <gt...@ma...> > > > On 6/15/05, Andrew Sayman <gt...@ma...> wrote: > >>Are you saying that you're trying to remove the browser preference entirely? If >>you're not completely getting rid of it, then this is no more clutter than normal. > > > If it were possible, I'd definitely do so, yes. Because removing > preferences is a good thing, and we like to good things when possible, > we should remove preferences when possible. I completely disagree with that. Removing preferences that aren't necessary is a good thing. I'm reminded of some older programs that just assume that "netscape" will exist on the computer somewhere and default to this without allowing one to change it. I can get around this problem by creating a script called "netscape" somewhere which runs the browser I really want. That's a horrible solution to have to take when dealing modern GUI programs. Until there is some grand unified method for everybody to have a program called "browser" which always does exactly what everybody wants with a URL (including behave differently based on the program that executes it), you'll have the problem of needing a browser preference. >>I don't like the idea of preferences disappearing based on external factors >>because it strikes me as inconsistent and shatters observability. The normal >>behavior of gaim changing because of which desktop-environment is chosen will >>confuse people that don't understand the difference between a >>desktop-environment and any other window manager. One specific tech support >>instance going through my head goes something like this: > than the people who stick to just one desktop. Someone who regularly > switches between GNOME and KDE is far more likely to be apt enough to > figure the behavior out than the person who doesn't even know what > GNOME is to figure out why Gaim opens links in some other browser than > he wants. My argument isn't against using GNOME's default when GNOME is up and running. I think that not informing the user of this is foolish. Yes, somebody that switches around and uses gaim in multiple DEs may be adept enough to find the FAQ explanation for what's going on, but why should he be? One extra tab is not so horrible that you should force people to go hunting for the answers in some other obscure and unrelated place. -- It's better to be king among kings than king among pawns. -- Marina Kim |
From: Brandon D. V. <br...@dv...> - 2005-06-16 17:56:10
|
[ Note that I have no desire to be a larger part of this discussion / decision. Just dropping in with some hopefully helpful information. ] On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:14:25PM -0400, Andrew Sayman wrote: > Until there is some grand unified method for everybody to have a > program called "browser" which always does exactly what everybody > wants with a URL (including behave differently based on the program > that executes it), you'll have the problem of needing a browser > preference. The BROWSER environment variable is emerging as the way to handle this problem. The advantage of assuming a binary like 'netscape' or 'sendmail' (to name the canonical example) exists, is that as a user I don't have to reconfigure every application I use to point somewhere else. I can just shim the 'netscape' or 'sendmail' executable as some script or symlink or what-have-you in one place and then all of my applications will pick up the change. The BROWSER environment variable is clearly a cleaner way to make such a change globally. HTH, Brandon -- Pseudo-Random Googlism: june is brain injury awareness month all rights reserved |
From: Brian J. T. <bj...@co...> - 2005-06-16 18:18:16
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brandon D. Valentine wrote: > [ Note that I have no desire to be a larger part of this discussion / > decision. Just dropping in with some hopefully helpful information. ] > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:14:25PM -0400, Andrew Sayman wrote: > >>Until there is some grand unified method for everybody to have a >>program called "browser" which always does exactly what everybody >>wants with a URL (including behave differently based on the program >>that executes it), you'll have the problem of needing a browser >>preference. > > The BROWSER environment variable is emerging as the way to handle this > problem. Except that this method pretty much sucks when you're talking about a GUI desktop environment. There is no way to propagate environment variable changes to already-running applications, so changing your browser pref would generally necessitate restarting your desktop session. That's pretty stupid, IMO. -brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCscJb6XyW6VEeAnsRAtJoAJ9Wh4WI7DRR0a2PVud2Hn72MUL8vwCgswKh IFaUQKTIEdnNhsM/DKTvR2U= =9H5U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Robert M. <rob...@de...> - 2005-06-17 11:38:25
|
Brandon D. Valentine wrote: > The BROWSER environment variable is emerging as the way to handle this > problem. No, it's not. Eric Raymond came up with it about 10 years ago and next to nobody uses it except Debian's /usr/bin/sensible-browser, which looks for $BROWSER and falls back to defaults which are configured with Debian's alternatives system (/usr/bin/x-www-browser or /usr/bin/www-browser for a terminal, opening in /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator if $DISPLAY is set). I'm unaware of anyone else who pays the blindest bit of attention to $BROWSER (or ESR in general?). If anything, I could patch Gaim to always use /usr/bin/sensible-browser on Debian systems, but that is liable to confuse KDE or GNOME users who are set to use sensible-browser by default in these environments, but can still configure them differently. Regards, Rob |
From: Brandon D. V. <br...@dv...> - 2005-06-17 17:08:06
|
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote: > Brandon D. Valentine wrote: > > The BROWSER environment variable is emerging as the way to handle this > > problem. > > No, it's not. Eric Raymond came up with it about 10 years ago and next > to nobody uses it Perhaps you should google "setenv BROWSER" and "export BROWSER"? It seems to me that some folks are using it. It couldn't hurt to encourage its adoption. Gaim picking up on $BROWSER and doing the right thing couldn't hurt. If you're going to support reading the browser preferences from GNOME, also picking up $BROWSER when present wouldn't hurt. Brandon -- Pseudo-Random Googlism: twenty two is a higher octave of four for the same reason |
From: Sean E. <sea...@gm...> - 2005-06-16 17:59:02
|
On 6/16/05, Andrew Sayman <gt...@ma...> wrote: > My argument isn't against using GNOME's default when GNOME is up and runn= ing. I > think that not informing the user of this is foolish. Yes, somebody that > switches around and uses gaim in multiple DEs may be adept enough to find= the > FAQ explanation for what's going on, but why should he be? One extra tab = is not > so horrible that you should force people to go hunting for the answers in= some > other obscure and unrelated place. "Obscure and unrelated place'? How is "Configure Browser Preferences" unrelated? Why is not informing the user that Gaim will open links in the same browser every other application he's using "foolish"? When we have the infrastructure to let a good number of users not worry about their web browser configuration at all, why not use it to its full ability? How is not showing a Browser tab in GNOME really all that different from not showing a Browser tab in Windows? I'm totally unconvinced that this is an issue to anyone beyond either a philosophical argument that the UI shouldn't change depending on which environment variables are set (which is what you're arguing) or that it's slightly annoying that links started opening in new Firefox tabs. Give me one convincing argument that shows people will actually benefit from keeping this preference, that someone actually *needs* to configure his browser in Gaim separately from how it's configured for the rest of his entire system, and I'll gladly concede. Until you can prove an actual need for that tab to exist, rather than a philosphical belief that it should, I'm staying put. The most I might be willing to compromise right now is a "Configure Browser Preferences" item in GtkIMHtml's right-click menu. -s. |
From: Levi B. <tak...@gm...> - 2005-06-16 19:09:47
|
> Perhaps the most important advantage to removing preferences is that > it de-clutters the preferences dialog. We still have a lot of > finishing to do in that area for 2.0.0 as your screenshot > demonstrates, but including an entire browser tab just for options we > (or I, mainly) don't want anyone to use is counter to that. Perhaps important to note is that "Gnome Default" is the only item in the drop-down, and that clicking the part about configuring your gnome browser will launch the gnome browser pref app. --=20 Debianista! |
From: Robert M. <rob...@de...> - 2005-06-17 11:41:00
|
Levi Bard wrote: > Perhaps important to note is that "Gnome Default" is the only item in > the drop-down, and that clicking the part about configuring your gnome > browser will launch the gnome browser pref app. Why not have a few more preferences panes, like a UI to your distro's package manager, the daemons you have running, the X config, and the kernel modules you have loaded? What if someone wants to change their wallpaper from GNOME? Let's add a button to lauch the GNOME or KDE wallpaper applet too. In fact, we could avoid the whole browser problem by using GtkMozEmbed and displaying everything ourselves! Or we could just use the browser that the user's configured in their desktop environment's single configuration dialog for this thing. I'm pretty much with Sean on this one, although it's worth doing the same for KDE too. Regards, Rob |
From: Kevin M S. <ke...@si...> - 2005-06-17 22:31:14
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Robert McQueen wrote: > Levi Bard wrote: >> Perhaps important to note is that "Gnome Default" is the only item in >> the drop-down, and that clicking the part about configuring your gnome= >> browser will launch the gnome browser pref app. >=20 > Why not have a few more preferences panes, like a UI to your distro's > package manager, the daemons you have running, the X config, and the > kernel modules you have loaded? What if someone wants to change their > wallpaper from GNOME? Let's add a button to lauch the GNOME or KDE > wallpaper applet too. In fact, we could avoid the whole browser problem= > by using GtkMozEmbed and displaying everything ourselves! >=20 Okay, now you're just being stupid. The point of having the browser preference has always been because Gaim interacts with the browser to launch URLs. If we have a gnome-default option in the listbox (meaning we're already detecting that gnome is installed and running), I see no logical reason why we can't have that browser pane also have a button that launches the gnome browser configuration applet (as long as it is done in some intelligent way). Gaim doesn't interact with the wallpaper or have any use in managing packages, so that's completely unrelated and does not make any sense. Kevin |