Dňa 12.06.2010 19:51, Atri Bhattacharya wrote / napísal(a):

On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 14:40 +0200, Rastislav Krupanský wrote:

...

Hi all.

I noticed in M7 that QT software management has option "Allow change vendor". This option but is missing in GTK software management. And on

Thanks for bringing this to the notice.

...

the other side, GTK has check/uncheck box "Close window when done", where i can set whether software management is closed after installation/removing packages. And this is missing in QT software management. QT it´s always closed by default. There is no option in QT software management to set this behaviour. Will be added these missing features? Now Qt and GTK software managements are totally different apps. Not only they look different, but they have different functions as well.

A common user would be comfortable with either KDE or GNOME and he will use one of the two. This is the biggest use case, is it not? Someone who likes the GNOME environment would want his package manager to have the feel of GNOME, not just in look but also in button placements and other settings like "Search as you type" and so on. Someone who likes his KDE desktop would similarly want his package manager to reflect the "KDE-way". It sounds reasonable that the two interfaces would therefore differ.

I understand that this is undesirable for a person who shuttles between KDE and GNOME (and believe me I am one of such), but the defaults are not designed with this in mind. For example you have file managers that differ quite a lot when you change from KDE to GNOME as the dolphin to nautilus change is big too, don't you think? As is the change from doing single-clicks in KDE to doing double-clicks in GNOME.

For those of us who like both sides of the coin, we can set the package-manager to our preferred interface, can't we? And I really do think that both these interfaces have their strong points and not-so-strong points, but I believe that can be worked upon. If there is some feature parity between the two interfaces, that is a serious issue and should not happen. That is why I am thankful for bringing this above point regarding the menu settings in the qt interface to my view.

There is no doubt that should fit to the dekstop. But this is an universal software managament, not specific apps for Gnome or KDE, like Dolphin or Nautilus. Like YaST Control Center. It's ported to QT and GTK, it fits to the desktop environments, but it's similar when it comes to navigation. As i wrote in my previous post, e.g. Mandriva's software management looks like the same in Gnome ,or KDE. -- S pozdravom / Best regards, Rasto -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Saturday 12 June 2010 15:46:49 Carlos E. R. wrote:

Yes, IMO, the differences should be in the interface, not the behaviour or features.

The difference in the user interface is problem too :) Both GTk and Qt libs provide similar tools, so if someone feels that there is a need for 2 code bases, they should at least follow same rules for user interface design. I don't care what decoration is used, I also don't care is it "Yes" first and "No" second, I want same buttons, questions, reports, on the same places of the screen. Then anybody can explain system related question without silly question "GNOME or KDE?". Otherwise we can create 20 Ubuntu style distros and live each in its own corner, watching openSUSE sinking in inability to do the simplest tasks. By the way, fragmenting user base by splitting communication in close to hundred channels already hurts, adding more special, local interests is not helping. We do lesser and lesser work as fragmentation continues. -- Regards Rajko, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 03:04, Atri Bhattacharya wrote:

...

...

Yes, IMO, the differences should be in the interface, not the behaviour or features.

The difference in the user interface is problem too :)

Both GTk and Qt libs provide similar tools, so if someone feels that there is a need for 2 code bases, they should at least follow same rules for user interface design. I don't care what decoration is used, I also don't care is it "Yes" first and "No" second, I want same buttons, questions, reports, on the same places of the screen.  Then anybody can explain system related

It is not just in look that the GNOME and KDE DE's differ.

...

question without silly question "GNOME or KDE?".

Asking a user if he is using GNOME or KDE is not silly. There are different channels on the IRC for openSUSE-gnome and openSUSE-kde. People who use one of these DE's have to reach out to the appropriate IRC channel and for that they have to know whether they use GNOME or KDE. Based on which channel he is in, he gets help accordingly. The only people who face a problem with this are those who use both desktops. The "Help" in both the interfaces are also good and useful I think.

...

Otherwise we can create 20 Ubuntu style distros and live each in its own corner, watching openSUSE sinking in inability to do the simplest tasks.

I don't understand what this means.

Well... at least I'm not alone in this opinion. I've been raising this for issue for a LONG time. I don't care what decorations there are on the common tools, but having completely different workflows between the GTK and QT software installers is wrong. I've said this over and over in the mailing lists. I've even been accused of trolling for saying this (which I'm not), I've been accused of belittling the efforts of those making the GTK interface (which I wasn't)..... and I've mostly given up on this issue because I got tired of talking to a wall. The people who think there should be a different _workflow_ in the GTK vs QT interfaces just don't seem to see the point. They don't have to do telephone user support. They don't have to struggle with newbie users trying to learn Linux. They don't have to spend more of their own time to learn both interfaces themselves so they can do the support. Now when I do installs I switch them ALL to QT... not because I think QT is better, but because I need a single tool interface to support. I don't think the QT interface is the best and has to be used everywhere. I don't think the GTK interface is the best either. I think they both have strong points... but with 100% independent development we get two weak choices instead of one good strong one. I can't emphasize enough how bad this is. :-( I don't know how to get the point across either. I also take issue with the fact that the GTK interface development is not being done under the openSUSE umbrella so to speak.. all communication is out in a Google Group. How many people here are aware of that? Yes I know there is an excuse why it's in the Google Group, but to be honest.. it's a pretty weak excuse. If the GTK YaST is an official supported project within openSUSE, then its communication should be part of openSUSE, not out in a Google Group. C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:22, Vincent Untz wrote:

Le dimanche 13 juin 2010, à 08:56 +0200, C a écrit :

...

I also take issue with the fact that the GTK interface development is not being done under the openSUSE umbrella so to speak.. all communication is out in a Google Group.  How many people here are aware of that?  Yes I know there is an excuse why it's in the Google Group, but to be honest.. it's a pretty weak excuse.  If the GTK YaST is an official supported project within openSUSE, then its communication should be part of openSUSE, not out in a Google Group.

Just curious: what is the reason (or excuse, as you put it)?

Vincent

Quoting Ricardo Cruz from 19 November 2009: ------------------------

wondering why this development is being done OFF the opensuse.org domain... is it secret or something? Why isn't this here in the cluster of projects?

That mailing list is still warm. The idea is quite the opposite of what you purpose. The yast2-devel mailing list is overkill for a lot of the development discussion wrt gtk, plus it's useful to have an official email address. Why the google.org domain name and not opensuse.org? Pure convenience. You can create a mailing list over google in 5 second and with all bells and whistles you could possibly require. ------------------------ If it's more convenient to create groups and MLs outside the openSUSE domain, then there's something broken. I do want to say (again), the changes and effort Ricardo and others have put into the GTK YaST are great - with some great ideas - but... I stand behind what I have been saying since 10.3... two completely different workflows for the software installer is counter-productive, and a major pain for those of us trying to support the two major DEs. C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 08:56 +0200, C wrote:

I also take issue with the fact that the GTK interface development is not being done under the openSUSE umbrella so to speak.. all communication is out in a Google Group. How many people here are aware of that? Yes I know there is an excuse why it's in the Google Group, but to be honest.. it's a pretty weak excuse. If the GTK YaST is an official supported project within openSUSE, then its communication should be part of openSUSE, not out in a Google Group.

C.

The gtk interface development is done by ONE volunteer contributor. For this version (11.3), most of the *discussions* pertaining to the development was done at a Google group [ http://groups.google.com/group/yast2-gtk ]. Development work goes on at svn.opensuse.org, and the build service is used for building packages. What do you mean by saying that the interface development is not taking place under the openSUSE umbrella? Are you only talking of the discussions we had at google-group (which we btw made an announcement of very early on in the release cycle in this mailing list and at openSUSE-gnome)? What about the development of the qt interface? Are those discussions done at openSUSE-* mailing list? Do you have access to these discussions? I am also curious as to what you believe the "excuse" is. -- Atri -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 22:46 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 2010-06-12 22:16, Rastislav Krupanský wrote:

...

Dňa 12.06.2010 19:51, Atri Bhattacharya wrote / napísal(a):

...

There is no doubt that should fit to the dekstop.

But this is an universal software managament, not specific apps for Gnome or KDE, like Dolphin or Nautilus. Like YaST Control Center. It's ported to QT and GTK, it fits to the desktop environments, but it's similar when it comes to navigation.

I understand, but what I feel is that there is nothing universal about the software management. When I click on an application in GNOME, I expect it to have a behaviour that goes along with the GNOME desktop [and I don't mean only in looks] such as "search as you type", different button order from KDE and so on. It is good that we have one tool for doing the software management across both KDE and GNOME, but a common user does only use one of these. So I see no reason why there should be a similarity between the two. In terms of features and behaviour, yes there should be parity no doubt about that. But that would require more coordination between the maintainers of the two interfaces. A common roadmap is something we, as community, should look into very seriously for both the interfaces. Then feature parity can be always ensured between the two.

...

As i wrote in my previous post, e.g. Mandriva's software management looks like the same in Gnome ,or KDE.

I don't see how this should influence the thinking. Mandriva does a lot of other things differently from openSUSE too. As I said before, if the tool has to feel native both to a GNOME user and to a KDE user, then there will have to be interfacial differences and some behavioural differences as well. This is because of differences between the interfaces and behaviours of GNOME and KDE as desktop environments. Really, how many users would use both of these DE's at once. Normal users use either of these don't they? Should the interface be designed with only people who use both DE's in mind?

Yes, IMO, the differences should be in the interface, not the behaviour or features.

True, but some difference in behaviour is inevitable if you have to design an application that feels native to GNOME as well as native to KDE based on what desktop environment you use it from. But this difference should be minimal I agree. -- Atri -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org