Re: [Fwd: Re: [Synaptic-devel] synaptic-0.52-17 interface]

[sashko]

on 07/26/04 10:25 Sebastian Heinlein wrote:
> Furthermore I also don't see why using a software should result in
> offending the developers. 
actually, that is not what I was trying to do. But let's don't touch 
that anymore.

> Take a look at the change log included in each release. By the way I
> would call a clearer UI a benefit.
yeah, I would call it a benefit too, but only in the case when UI 
"improvement" doesn't decrease the functionality of software itself.

> > Example:
> > 1) I want "new in repository" packages to be sorted into sections. Can I 
> > do that? - The right answer is NO.
> As I have already said before, the main focus is not on pure providing
> of functionality. Why do you want to accomplish this? In which task?
I thought it is obvious.
Look, today I added three more repositories to my sources.list and that 
brought me another 300 pieces of software. However right now I'm 
absolutely not interested in super-duper-extra-special CPAN-Perl 
libraries, network sniffers, and tons of new dev-libraries mixed with 
all possible kinds of kernel modules. Instead of that I'd like to see 
what they offer for multimedia and office. That was pretty simple with 
the version prior to 0.5 (I guess). But now I can spend 2 hours 
"fishing" the packages I'm interested in.
And that is just because filters "New in archive" and "section" are in 
the same bunch and not applicable simultaneously.

The same problem I meet with "Upgradeable" packages. I don't want to 
upgrade all dev libraries because I know definitely that there is some 
kind of software which is tied to certain versions of libs, and I need 
that software. But I still would like to update the rest of packages...

> > 2) I have 2 repositories in my sources.list offering the last version of 
> > the same package, but one of them has extremely low download speed. Am I 
> > able to choose which one to download from? Well, you know the right 
> > answer already.
>
> At first you should put the faster repository before your slower one in
> your "sources.list". APT prefers the first mentioned repository
> automatically. We are working on a redesigned repository editor, but
> that takes more than one hour of work.
Sebastian,  the question is not about the editor. I can do that in vi 
easily. But I have to edit my sources.list MANUALLY. Then, what is 
gui-frontend for??? I usually add all new repositories to the end of the 
file, and believe me - to click on radiobutton with correct version was 
much simpler than to rearrange the address of repositories.

> Secondly you should check out the menu item "Force Version..." in the
> menu "Package" of version 0.52.
Oh, yeah. I've noticed it. Main menu-->Package-->Force version, it opens 
additional dialog window which contains ONE drop-down box and the OK 
button! That is what you call easily accessible simple interface?
For some reason I suggest that even to have that drop-down box on 
"info"-panel would be more obvious.

3) Sometimes on my home machine I'm just browsing through "not 
installed" expecting to find something interesting which I've missed 
before. Obviously I again want it to be split into section, just because 
there are section which I'm not interested at all. I believe that is 
what the normal user usually would do.

4) I dont know exact name of the package I need, but I remember that has 
something to do with phyton. Before I was able to type "phyton-" in 
search box and clicking "next" button few times, get to the searched 
rpm. Now it is posible. Alphabet sorting is completely useless if you 
have 4500 and more packages .
The same is if accidentally user decides to look for some xmms plug in? 
It was so simple, just type "xmms-" and here you are! And what we have 
now instead?

Now that "properties" window which I can call via right-click. Right now 
I'm working at 17" monitor. That additional window hides quarter of 
initial synaptic window. If I click in a list of packages - main window 
pops-up and covers Properties-window. It is just impossible to see them 
both clearly in the same time!


> Damn, you are slow. It took me an half hour to get to the current
> design.
you are damn fast! But that explains everything :)
I'm kidding.

> I made a bunch of UI proposals - some can be found in the archives. Take
> a look at the mails from November to spring. I feel very sorry that some
> of the discussion have been on IRC and are not archived.
Sebastian, I was completely satisfied with Synaptic before. And I feel 
guilty for not coming here before, at least, to say "thanx". But every 
next release of your project was better than the previous one and I was 
sure you will keep the right way...
 Obviously I didn't suspect that you're gonna change the ui in so 
radical way.


> Software development cannot be based on assumed self evidence(ness?).
> You have to specify the current problem and find arguments why your new
> solution would be a benefit compared to the current implementation. You
> cannot develop into the open sky.
alright, i got you. I'll try to make myself more clear.
1)  As for me, to have two separate set of filters ([sections, alphabet] 
and [new, upgradeable, installed, not installed... etc]) is a great 
benefit because you can apply different filters  simultaneously and in 
arbitrary combination. That makes the job of package management much 
more convenient comfortable and fast.  (at least for me).
2) To keep those tabs means present very useful information about every 
package in convenient, easily-accessible way. Personally I always want 
to see:
- description: just for case if i never saw that package before
- dependencies, if half of them are in red, probably I won't try install 
that package (now I have to wait until synaptix resolve all the 
dependencies for me)
- expert (that is how you call it in 0.48) - that is the third most 
important thing

3) keep search field with those two button (<first> and <next>). That 
was extremely useful thing in former synaptic. That "find" button cannot 
compensate the lack of search field.

 > I don't like using alternative layouts in one app. The learning curve
> gets higher if you change the layout later. Secondly users may have
> problems to recognize the app that is is reconfigured on another system.
I apologize man, but that argument is completely meaningless for me. All 
the software that I like the most has highly configurable UI, including 
all those detachable panels, movable buttons, docking windows, 
statusbars etc... And any use which has at least some experience working 
with that program can adjust the same state he is used to at any new 
workplace. He just go directly to Preferences--> appearance/layout, or 
right click on the toolbar --> customize. It takes not more than 2-3 
minutes. If some user has problems at that stage - that is the problem 
with his hands and it is better for him go back to windouze until it is 
too late.

> I also don't know why I should not also provide all features and
> functions to a novice/normal user? Should he or she change to the other
> layout only if or she wants to use one special function? How should a
> user get known to the "advanced" functions if he or she never sees them?
What are you talking about? That is exactly what you just did. You took 
away the best features of ui and users which started with v 0.52 will 
never know how good that software was before.
Of course you can provide all possible features by default, but that 
comes in contradiction with you previous argument, namely "let's don't 
frighten the Novice user with all that variety of buttons and tabs". So 
as the user is getting more experience with Synaptic it starts to 
explore it and discovers new useful features for himself, what's wrong 
with that?

And besides that, the case I've described is some quite abstract 
situation, I didn't meet for a long time already. Your project is not 
some kind of entertainment stuff (well, you know that better than I do) 
that is the package manager. The utility which can be used by root only. 
So it is expected that the user which has root access to machine,  at 
least has some experience and knows what is he doing.

> And at least it doubles the efforts for documentation.
this is the argument I have nothing to say for. That's your project.

> But this has already been said before in previous discussions.
so perhaps, our discussion is pointess... Such is life

By the way. One more question. I discovered new filter called 
"obsolete" in v 0.52. However when I'm applying it marks as obsolete 
half of software I'm using on a regular basis. Would you be so kind to 
explain the principle how that filter make desididion about whis 
software is obsoletted?


regards