Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
Sven Arvidsson wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 00:27 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: it takes few minutes to open /usr/bin here (almost no load on machine), next time (I assume cache helps a lot) it takes 10-20 seconds. system: debian unstable icedove 1.5.0.9.dfsg1-1 pentium 2.4 GHz 1GB RAM do you think I should file a bug? against what? where? I found a bug dealing directly with opening /usr/bin, http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322314 There is also a few links to performance related bugs here, http://live.gnome.org/GtkFileChooser yeah, this one in particular seems relevant: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310642 However they all seem to think that it's all because the directory is read (to be able to autocomplete etc.) which is not entirely true cause bash autocompletes as well yet I cannot seem to be able to make it stall on directories with few thousand files (local disk). Seems like the problem is getting mime type (as mentioned here before) or something of that nature... erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 15:53 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: Sven Arvidsson wrote: [...] Seems like the problem is getting mime type (as mentioned here before) or something of that nature... erik It would be nice if it was possible to turn this feature off. I really don't need the little pictures in front of the file names. Does anybody? -- Szia: Nyizsa. -- Need Help Repairing Your Credit? Eliminate or consolidate your debt. Cut by 50%, payoff in 12-36 months http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/MhtYWUi20XE4KS0UZbfSTlrE9AlC36THGKCGS/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Nyizsnyik Ferenc wrote: I really don't need the little pictures in front of the file names. Does anybody? Sure. The typical user GNOME wants to target does. They don't know enough to properly add extensions to their file names without coaxing by the applications, and they cannot deal with, say, a pdf file that is named readme.txt for some stupid reason. The problem is twofold: 1. GNOME is used by a lot more people than the ridiculously low skill level user they aim at, and the GNOME project are often really bad at not dumbing down their interface in non-reversible ways. This means a lot of users get unhappy at the way the interface gets dumber and dumber at every new release. 2. Broken, stupid, non/badly-engineered design on the underlying code is becoming more and more common on the desktop environments. The GNOME file-picker is a fine example of such things, but is hardly the worst offender. One only needs to read the average applet sourcecode to be nearly driven to tears of anguish and pain. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
Wim De Smet wrote: ... gnome file chooser discussion snipped ... indeed very annoying) but I don't think it's open()ing every file in those directories. This would require an ordinate amount of processing power not to mention disk I/O which I'm just not seeing. it takes few minutes to open /usr/bin here (almost no load on machine), next time (I assume cache helps a lot) it takes 10-20 seconds. system: debian unstable icedove 1.5.0.9.dfsg1-1 pentium 2.4 GHz 1GB RAM do you think I should file a bug? against what? where? Glad I've found out about ctrl-l and ability to just start typing (thanks to all who responded) but the performance is incredibly bad (compare to bash - there is no noticeable delay between me hitting tab twice and bash asking Display all 3758 possibilities? and it's same for other directories which are not as likely to be cached). erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 00:27 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: it takes few minutes to open /usr/bin here (almost no load on machine), next time (I assume cache helps a lot) it takes 10-20 seconds. system: debian unstable icedove 1.5.0.9.dfsg1-1 pentium 2.4 GHz 1GB RAM do you think I should file a bug? against what? where? I found a bug dealing directly with opening /usr/bin, http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322314 There is also a few links to performance related bugs here, http://live.gnome.org/GtkFileChooser -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On 1/10/07, Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wim De Smet wrote: ... gnome file chooser discussion snipped ... indeed very annoying) but I don't think it's open()ing every file in those directories. This would require an ordinate amount of processing power not to mention disk I/O which I'm just not seeing. it takes few minutes to open /usr/bin here (almost no load on machine), next time (I assume cache helps a lot) it takes 10-20 seconds. system: debian unstable icedove 1.5.0.9.dfsg1-1 pentium 2.4 GHz 1GB RAM do you think I should file a bug? against what? where? Glad I've found out about ctrl-l and ability to just start typing (thanks to all who responded) but the performance is incredibly bad (compare to bash - there is no noticeable delay between me hitting tab twice and bash asking Display all 3758 possibilities? and it's same for other directories which are not as likely to be cached). erik I get annoyed when I browse documentation in midnight commander; as soon as I navigate to /usr/share/doc, mc takes few seconds before settling down. Well, it IS a large dir, and my system is pretty weak (AMD k6 475 mhz, 192 MB RAM). Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On 1/5/07, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wim De Smet wrote: You're saying two things here. First you're saying it open()'s every file you come across, then you say it lists every directory. I've noticed it does list all files in a directory on the path you type (which on a system with sufficient ram only goes slow once but is indeed very annoying) but I don't think it's open()ing every file in those directories. This would require an ordinate amount of processing power not to mention disk I/O which I'm just not seeing. Try browsing to /usr/bin. As I wrote on this list last time this topic came up: The amazing thing is what it's doing. This includes: open /usr/bin getdents for each file stat it (to get modification time?) That's reasonable, and most programs would stop here with about .2 seconds used. Although a non-generic pick a program to use chooser shouldn't need to even care about getting modification times, which would bring it down to more like 0.001 seconds used. k this is the completion running. stat to get filetype? for each file open file use fstat on it (to get modification time? again?) read 4k of file contents, apparently to determine the file type to use in displaying various (identically meaningless) icons The second loop is the killer when it needs to read 3000 files. Tens of thousands of system calls, and the disk seeking all around to read some 12 mb of data. Pretty absurd indeed. This behavior is still happening with the current version, although the second loop only runs when it needs to display the content of a directory in the list box, so it can sometimes be avoided if a filename is typed in. Is there a bug in the gnome tracker? I couldn't find one but just had a cursory look. greets, Wim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On Friday 05 January 2007 08:02, Geoff Reidy wrote: Googling gnome file picker gives you a fair idea what people think of it. But wait, I just found a way to stop iceweasel using it, add this to user.js: The GNOME file picker is so bad, I'd rather run Firefox on Windows XP in Qemu than use Iceweasel with the GNOME file picker enabled. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpwsJxGpF6PQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On 1/5/07, Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 05 January 2007 08:02, Geoff Reidy wrote: Googling gnome file picker gives you a fair idea what people think of it. But wait, I just found a way to stop iceweasel using it, add this to user.js: The GNOME file picker is so bad, I'd rather run Firefox on Windows XP in Qemu than use Iceweasel with the GNOME file picker enabled. =) To be honest, I actually like it. The newest incarnation of it anyway. I think all those hits you'll come up will be at least partly based on the older one, which had a bit too many big buttons and a bit too little functionality. Then again, I like spatial browsing too, but most people seem to be trained on windows explorer and don't want anything else. Wim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007, Wim De Smet wrote: To be honest, I actually like it. The newest incarnation of it anyway. I think all those hits you'll come up will be at least partly based on the older one, which had a bit too many big buttons and a bit too little functionality. No, you got it wrong. It is kind of an Outlook(tm) problem: the engine below it is fubar, regardless of the UI. The file-picker tries to open() and read a part of every file to run it through mime-magic or whatever, which is *extremely slow*. I think they problably made it smart enough not to do it on special inodes, otherwise it would crap your system instantly if you tried to list /dev or in places where there are unix sockets and named pipes ;-) The fact that the file-picker it is also (IMO) a power-user detrimental design that requires more clicks to do something a proper file-picker would let you do with fewer is far more easily tolerated than the few secods wait it causes when trying to list a big directory. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On 1/5/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 05 Jan 2007, Wim De Smet wrote: To be honest, I actually like it. The newest incarnation of it anyway. I think all those hits you'll come up will be at least partly based on the older one, which had a bit too many big buttons and a bit too little functionality. No, you got it wrong. It is kind of an Outlook(tm) problem: the engine below it is fubar, regardless of the UI. The file-picker tries to open() and read a part of every file to run it through mime-magic or whatever, which is *extremely slow*. I think they problably made it smart enough not to do it on special inodes, otherwise it would crap your system instantly if you tried to list /dev or in places where there are unix sockets and named pipes ;-) The fact that the file-picker it is also (IMO) a power-user detrimental design that requires more clicks to do something a proper file-picker would let you do with fewer is far more easily tolerated than the few secods wait it causes when trying to list a big directory. You're saying two things here. First you're saying it open()'s every file you come across, then you say it lists every directory. I've noticed it does list all files in a directory on the path you type (which on a system with sufficient ram only goes slow once but is indeed very annoying) but I don't think it's open()ing every file in those directories. This would require an ordinate amount of processing power not to mention disk I/O which I'm just not seeing. Personally I still think most people have a problem with the interface, not the underlying engine. Though the one thing about gnome that sometimes bothers me is the tendency to half-ass things like these. A tendency which is all too common in big open source projects tbh. Wim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 08:43 -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: On Friday 05 January 2007 08:02, Geoff Reidy wrote: Googling gnome file picker gives you a fair idea what people think of it. But wait, I just found a way to stop iceweasel using it, add this to user.js: The GNOME file picker is so bad, I'd rather run Firefox on Windows XP in Qemu than use Iceweasel with the GNOME file picker enabled. I don't really like the concept of file pickers at all, but as far as they go, the GNOME one is probably one of the best ones I've used. I really wouldn't care much about the results of the Google search mentioned above. People seem to be much more verbal about their complaints then their praise. I wonder how many people took the time to thank Federico Mena-Quintero for adding the input field by default. http://primates.ximian.com/~federico/news-2006-03.html#29 -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 05:38:15PM +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote: I don't really like the concept of file pickers at all, but as far as they go, the GNOME one is probably one of the best ones I've used. Could you list some advantages that counter the Requires three times as many clicks as all other file pickers problem? Oh, and the displays information in tiny subwindows that don't relate to each other in obvious ways problem? Or the What the heck are the keyboard shortcuts? problem? How about the Let's hide features from the user to make it less likely anyone will use them problem? -- Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com. Reviews! Observations! Stupid mistakes you can correct! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 11:42 -0500, Carl Fink wrote: Could you list some advantages that counter the Requires three times as many clicks as all other file pickers problem? Oh, and the displays information in tiny subwindows that don't relate to each other in obvious ways problem? Or the What the heck are the keyboard shortcuts? problem? How about the Let's hide features from the user to make it less likely anyone will use them problem? These seems to be very general accusations. Can you provide some examples? For example, I have no problem navigating the file picker only with the keyboard. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT/FLAME] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)
Wim De Smet wrote: You're saying two things here. First you're saying it open()'s every file you come across, then you say it lists every directory. I've noticed it does list all files in a directory on the path you type (which on a system with sufficient ram only goes slow once but is indeed very annoying) but I don't think it's open()ing every file in those directories. This would require an ordinate amount of processing power not to mention disk I/O which I'm just not seeing. Try browsing to /usr/bin. As I wrote on this list last time this topic came up: The amazing thing is what it's doing. This includes: open /usr/bin getdents for each file stat it (to get modification time?) That's reasonable, and most programs would stop here with about .2 seconds used. Although a non-generic pick a program to use chooser shouldn't need to even care about getting modification times, which would bring it down to more like 0.001 seconds used. for each file open file use fstat on it (to get modification time? again?) read 4k of file contents, apparently to determine the file type to use in displaying various (identically meaningless) icons The second loop is the killer when it needs to read 3000 files. Tens of thousands of system calls, and the disk seeking all around to read some 12 mb of data. Pretty absurd indeed. This behavior is still happening with the current version, although the second loop only runs when it needs to display the content of a directory in the list box, so it can sometimes be avoided if a filename is typed in. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
