Re: What I love about Unity
Den 31. des. 2011 21:16, skrev Sean McNamara: Switched the emphasis? You mean to say that there is actually a way to browse applications by category in Unity, similar to how the menus were structured in Gnome2-panel? Well, that's news to me, and I've used Unity on 11.10 for tens of hours in a virtual machine while testing my software for Ubuntu compatibility. Just click Filters in the applications lens. Screenshot: http://ubuntuone.com/2zjemTsrtnehofubbOYOlv Imagine shipping Ubuntu with a Unity tutorial video on the CD, or (if that makes the CD spinners cringe at the file size of such) a video player that pops up and streams the video from the internet Stuff like that would be nice. It'll probably be easier to make things like that when things calm down. Jo-Erlend Schinstad -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: What I love about Unity
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Ted Gould wrote: > On Fri, 2011-12-30 at 23:03 +0100, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote: >> Den 30. des. 2011 20:30, skrev Ted Gould: >> > Thanks for writing this up. I appreciate it. We're never perfect, but >> > it's nice to see some positive reviews every once in a while :-) >> >> It was not meant as a positive review and I don't want it to be >> understood as such. > > Sure, it wasn't a review really. I guess it should have read "noting > some of the positive aspects." Though, in general, I was less careful > with my words since I wasn't replying to the mailing list ;-) > >> The point was to separate between what users see and >> what programs see and why that's important. The ultimate goal for me, is >> to teach everyone that there are no fundamental differences between >> 10.04 and 12.04. > > > In general, you are correct, but I think your language there might hurt > your argument. I think that, for most people, it seems drastically > different because the data is presented in a different way, but it is > fundamentally the same data. So instead of saying "nothing changed" it > might be easier to say "only the emphasis changed." > > As an example we could look at the use case of finding applications. > You can still browse for the applications in groups like you could in > the Applications menu of 10.04. But, it's not as handy. On the flip > side searching them is much, much, easier. So we've switched the > emphasis from browsing to searching. Switched the emphasis? You mean to say that there is actually a way to browse applications by category in Unity, similar to how the menus were structured in Gnome2-panel? Well, that's news to me, and I've used Unity on 11.10 for tens of hours in a virtual machine while testing my software for Ubuntu compatibility. I would sometimes get pretty fed up with having to type in the name of the application I wanted to launch, instead of just clicking through a few menus. And scrolling through the huge list of applications (I accrued many, many of them because of all the development packages etc) is not convenient, either; nor is it particularly snappy. If this is in fact an explicit feature of Unity, I'd like to know how to access it! I think one of the biggest flaws of Unity isn't a flaw of the software at all, but of the human beings who use it (remember, Linux for human beings?) -- 80% of the users don't know about 80% of the hidden nugget features of Unity, because it's new, different, and likes to "hide" a lot of stuff behind the obvious veneer. So yeah, your attempts to "emphasize" one thing over another have essentially produced a piece of software where the vast majority of the people will only see the obvious features that you stick right under their nose; and if they happen to desire a feature that's in any way occluded or hidden behind a hotkey or whatever, they simply will never ever use that feature because it's not apparent to them. Again, probably not a software flaw as much as a human flaw, but that's how it is. Imagine shipping Ubuntu with a Unity tutorial video on the CD, or (if that makes the CD spinners cringe at the file size of such) a video player that pops up and streams the video from the internet Or even, a *series* of videos: one for beginners that just enumerates the most obvious, basic stuff, and two or three more that go more and more in-depth with hotkeys and things that most people don't know about. Your biggest challenge for Unity is similar to what others before you (PulseAudio, systemd, etc) have faced: user education. So educate the users, in an accessible, highly-visible manner! Nobody's going to read the manual; I'm sorry but that just doesn't happen. A video is probably the best way. -Sean > > --Ted > > > -- > ubuntu-desktop mailing list > ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop > -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Screen recorder - Kazam
Hi, On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 2:23 PM, David Klasinc wrote: > Greetings, > > Recently I picked up Kazam Screencaster. I needed to record something > and noticed that Kazam is not working and has some dependency issues in > Oneiric. After trying out few other solutions none of them really suited > me. Around Christmas I started working on Kazam and made some > improvements while solving those dependency problems. > > Andrew Higginson stopped working on the project and made me a member of > Kazam team on Launchpad so I can take over from here. Cool! Congrats on volunteering to maintain this project! :) I'm not familiar with Kazam, but I'm learning about it now, since it seems interesting and useful... > > https://launchpad.net/kazam > > Right now most of the development is done in my PPA until I get things > stable enough and merge them in the stable branch of the project. > > https://launchpad.net/~bigwhale/+archive/kazam-oneric > > (yes, the typo should be there :/) > > Quick rundown of changes that I made: > > - Default backend is now gstreamer. > - Video is encoded with vp8 instead of x264. > - Audio is encoded with Ogg Vorbis. > - Audio/Video container is now WebM. Very cool! While I completely agree that these codec choices should be the default, is it easy for the user to configure Kazam to use some other codec? I'm not saying VP8/WebM is bad; rather, I'm saying some other codecs may have their uses (e.g. if you intend to distribute it as a raw video and you want the highest platform compatibility, VP8 is still not that heavily adopted on older Windows systems, or even older Linux distros). And the quality will be much higher if it is encoded directly to the format that you intend to distribute it in, rather than performing lossy transcoding. > - Package dependencies revised to include only essential packages. > - Basic Pulseaudio support. > - Independent audio input device selection > - Volume setting slider in the works > - The path to multiple source recording is now open. Next release should > support recoding audio on two channels (application sounds and > voice-over commentary, for example). > > Currently Kazam is still GTK2 and I'd like few pointers on what needs to > be done if I want Kazam to be included in the Ubuntu repositories for > Precise Pangolin. And if I missed the mailing list, someone please kick > me in the right direction. :) The best place to get started is to read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributeToUbuntu -- and follow the links from there. You're already very far along because you've already: -Written the software -Created a source package for DPKG -Put it in a PPA -Communicated with the community announcing your package and soliciting feedback This is a very large step in the right direction. The rest, as they say, is testing/validation and politics. :) Also I'm not 100% sure but you can probably get it accepted into Precise (in Universe, dunno about Main) with a GTK2 UI. The GTK2 libs will continue to stick around for years and years (and years) to come. Although if you are able, and there are no really challenging roadblocks, you should go ahead and try with GTK3. My general porting strategy for GTK3: 1. Build against the gtk3 libs and headers in your build system (easy) 2. Fix any compilation errors (can require some rewriting, but not that much usually) 3. Fix any linkage errors (can be painful if your favorite API is gone) 4. Test it out like crazy to make sure that everything works equivalently at runtime (time-consuming but easy) Are there any really low-level GTK2 APIs that Kazam uses that might've been removed or significantly changed in GTK3? I guess I could read the source, but I'm getting ready to head out the door right now, so... Anyway, Happy New Year to you as well, and thanks for working on this and being interested in contributing! Disclosure: I am not an Ubuntu Developer, though I do host a project on Launchpad, package it in a PPA, and have expressed interest in getting it into Universe in the past... so we are pretty much at the same stage :) Regards, -Sean > > > (more detailed explanation on my changes and future plans are posted on > my blog: http://www.twm-kd.com/linux/kazam-screencaster-0-12/ ) > > So much for now and a Happy 2021 to everyone! > > Regards, > David > > > > > -- > ubuntu-desktop mailing list > ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Screen recorder - Kazam
Greetings, Recently I picked up Kazam Screencaster. I needed to record something and noticed that Kazam is not working and has some dependency issues in Oneiric. After trying out few other solutions none of them really suited me. Around Christmas I started working on Kazam and made some improvements while solving those dependency problems. Andrew Higginson stopped working on the project and made me a member of Kazam team on Launchpad so I can take over from here. https://launchpad.net/kazam Right now most of the development is done in my PPA until I get things stable enough and merge them in the stable branch of the project. https://launchpad.net/~bigwhale/+archive/kazam-oneric (yes, the typo should be there :/) Quick rundown of changes that I made: - Default backend is now gstreamer. - Video is encoded with vp8 instead of x264. - Audio is encoded with Ogg Vorbis. - Audio/Video container is now WebM. - Package dependencies revised to include only essential packages. - Basic Pulseaudio support. - Independent audio input device selection - Volume setting slider in the works - The path to multiple source recording is now open. Next release should support recoding audio on two channels (application sounds and voice-over commentary, for example). Currently Kazam is still GTK2 and I'd like few pointers on what needs to be done if I want Kazam to be included in the Ubuntu repositories for Precise Pangolin. And if I missed the mailing list, someone please kick me in the right direction. :) (more detailed explanation on my changes and future plans are posted on my blog: http://www.twm-kd.com/linux/kazam-screencaster-0-12/ ) So much for now and a Happy 2021 to everyone! Regards, David -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Ubuntu usability is significantly decreased with Unity
Den 31. des. 2011 19:45, skrev Kevin Hunter: As I mentioned earlier, I haven't yet moved from 10.10, and thus any questions I have on this front are not properly researched before asking ... that said, this is the first I've been aware of "loads of other shells". Do you mean the various Gnome2, XFCE, LXDE, Unity 2d, etc? Or is this referencing something else? Well, the other desktop environments also use other shells. For instance, what we used in earlier versions of Ubuntu is called Gnome Panel. We have Unity, Unity 2D, Gnome Shell, Lxpanel (from LXDE), Xfce4-panel (from Xfce), Avant Window Navigator, Cairo dock, Plasma stuff from KDE, Enlightenment... There are many. Desktop environments contain a lot more than just the shell. But most shells can be used in most environments. For instance, there's nothing wrong with using Xfces panel in Gnome 3. Jo-Erlend Schinstad -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Ubuntu usability is significantly decreased with Unity
At 6:01am -0500 Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote: Where did you get the idea that I had suggested to remove anything? Something about the flow of this thread's conversation made me think it. Rereading it now, I can't say specifically what; you never said it specifically, so mea culpa. We have loads of other shells [...] As I mentioned earlier, I haven't yet moved from 10.10, and thus any questions I have on this front are not properly researched before asking ... that said, this is the first I've been aware of "loads of other shells". Do you mean the various Gnome2, XFCE, LXDE, Unity 2d, etc? Or is this referencing something else? Thanks, Kevin -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: What I love about Unity
On Fri, 2011-12-30 at 23:03 +0100, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote: > Den 30. des. 2011 20:30, skrev Ted Gould: > > Thanks for writing this up. I appreciate it. We're never perfect, but > > it's nice to see some positive reviews every once in a while :-) > > It was not meant as a positive review and I don't want it to be > understood as such. Sure, it wasn't a review really. I guess it should have read "noting some of the positive aspects." Though, in general, I was less careful with my words since I wasn't replying to the mailing list ;-) > The point was to separate between what users see and > what programs see and why that's important. The ultimate goal for me, is > to teach everyone that there are no fundamental differences between > 10.04 and 12.04. In general, you are correct, but I think your language there might hurt your argument. I think that, for most people, it seems drastically different because the data is presented in a different way, but it is fundamentally the same data. So instead of saying "nothing changed" it might be easier to say "only the emphasis changed." As an example we could look at the use case of finding applications. You can still browse for the applications in groups like you could in the Applications menu of 10.04. But, it's not as handy. On the flip side searching them is much, much, easier. So we've switched the emphasis from browsing to searching. --Ted signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Ubuntu usability is significantly decreased with Unity
Den 30. des. 2011 17:53, skrev Kevin Hunter: Yikes! I personally hope that this feature does /not/ go away. I've come to (very much) appreciate the focus-follows-mouse feature; similarly, I've fine-tuned almost 10 installations of Windows to do this for some friends who asked if they could get that feature after shoulder-surfing me. I do see that it wouldn't play nice with the global menu, but I'd hope there's room for compromise. With respect to the controversial topic of Unity, I'll say no more on this subject; I've been staying out of any conversation in regards to Unity because I've only used it vicariously through my advisor (I'm yet on 10.10). Kevin Where did you get the idea that I had suggested to remove anything? When you add new features, then you should understand how it affects other features. That means adding them relatively slowly. To me, that makes sense, because you won't always have to fix yesterdays problems. But even if one of the shells in Ubuntu isn't designed for maximum scriptability, I see nothing wrong with that. We have loads of other shells that are designed for that. Jo-Erlend Schinstad -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: What I love about Unity
Den 30. des. 2011 15:28, skrev Nenad: A story about indicators, etc. sounds as really good set of architectural choices. Having said that, architectural cleanup should not negatively affect existing user base by removing some workflows. Backward compatibility might slow down overall progress but green field development results in own set of problems. Ironically, technical people who would otherwise support architectural changes introduced with Unity are resistant to these changes because of some user interface shortcomings. I completely agree with that in some senses. Unity does not take anything away. Nothing is lost because of Unity. I often compare desktop shells to the web browsers. They can be considered "web shells". They're not technically comparable, but from a users point of view, they do the same thing. When Google entered the scene with Chromium and Chrome, they added to our choices. Some distros use it by default, and that's fine. I think it's a good browser. My preference is still Firefox and I would always install it as quickly as possible. Unity adds to the number of desktops you can choose from and does not remove any choices. However, I disagree with the notion that Unity should depend on the workflow from Gnome Panel. I would much rather that Gnome Panel continues to be developed with respect to itself and that Unity is developed with completely different goals. The world has changed a lot since the mid nineties. I think Unity reflects that, Gnome Panel not so much. But that's fine. We don't all have to be modern and walk in lines. Nobody has the legal power to remove any free software. But if software should be kept, it must be maintained, or it must be deemed to be perfect. That's difficult. If you want it to evolve, then you also need someone to actively develop it. If you want that to happen, then you need to give it attention. You should not focus on why you think Unity or Gnome Shell is bad, but on why you think Gnome Panel is good. Because that's what counts. According to your description these specs are easy to implement for remaining panels, then why support for look & feel of Gnome Panel was marginalized remains unclear. It's not unclear to me. Someone is paying the bills. Those someone have a different view of what the future should look like. The only thing they agree upon, is that it should not look like the past. Nothing wrong with that. Gnome wants to focus on the future of Gnome Shell and Canonical wants to focus on its vision, which is Unity. We cannot expect any of them to focus much on Gnome Panel, because that is not their vision of the future. So, if we want to keep Gnome Panel around, then we need to find some developers who are willing to keep maintaining and developing it. Perhaps people like Vincent Untz can be persuaded. If not, then we either need to find new developers, or let the old software die in peace. Just keep in mind that _anyone_ can start developing Gnome Panel. If all the anyones on the entire planet choose not to do so, then users should begin to wonder why. All of them contributed in serving some user groups, and none of them fulfilled "One size fits all" promises. The same will happen to Unity I guess. It's not comparable. You can use any programming language to interact with Unity and it's very high level. Literally. If you wanted to, you could write it by hand and not require a programming language at all. It's DBus. By the way, Gnome Panel switched to that from Bonobo a few versions back. I think maybe in 10.04 or something. It was a radical switch then, too. Most people didn't notice it, though. I didn't, even if I knew it was going to happen. That's how it should be. We should do these things from time to time, but we should do them because it needs to be done, not because of hype. Whenever something dramatic happens, we must always have a large number of users who can explain why it is so. Otherwise, we get massive amounts of speculation, conspiracy theories and general disarray. It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong. We just have to learn from this and never repeat this mistake. Proper communication would have ensured that all the nonsense would've never happened. Users should never be expected to understand the difference between Bonobo and DBus, GTK2 or GTK3, GConf and Dconf...As a consequence, they shouldn't care about Gnome 2 or Gnome 3. It's Gnome. It really isn't that much different. And I think that concludes todays pontification. :) Happy new year, everyone! Jo-Erlend Schinstad -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
