[gobolinux-users] Features ideas

Sergio Tortosa Benedito sertorbe at gmail.com
Sat Apr 4 03:08:28 NZDT 2015


2015-04-03 12:57 GMT+02:00 Jean-Roch HUET <jeanroch.huet at yahoo.fr>:

> Symlinks are different from ".lnk" files.
>
> Symlinks exists on Windows too, but only since Windows Vista.
> Il allows to redirect instructions for a folder to another (created for
> compatibility with previous versions, to remove the "Documents and
> Settings" folder, for instance). It's just like the "ls" of Linux.
>
> .lnk is just a basic concept : il launchs the file when you click on it.
> There's no redirection from instructions. It's easy to create on Linux.

Ow, if that's the case then there's  no need for a kernel module, just an
application should be enough (one which takes the .lnk and does the proper
action), a basic application for that (one which the applications are
fixed) should took two to three days to write.

Hiding its extension is just for visual comfort :
> a beginner with an OS is disturbed by extensions when he discovers the OS.
> - Step for step, he begins to understand that file extension defines the
> program which open the file (missing on Linux, but easy to create).
> - But for him, a file without extension (but with an icon) is a shortcut.
> This is a standard habit.

Then, applications are shortcuts?  (In linux executables don't have
extension).

After thinking about it, I think you're right concerning the .url files, it
> could be dangerous for the security (file which leads to a website with a
> virus, etc.).



Your idea of a screenshort to the page is good, but I don't think it could
> be done with a kernel module. This is more for the GUI itself, this is more
> the role of KDE than GoboLinux.
>
Maybe I didn't expressed myslef correctly, but what I meant was that should
be at the file manager level (in KDE, GNOME,Enlightenment,  Pantheon, LXDE
...).

>
> About the name restriction, limits are necessary (but only if they can be
> switched off, of course).
> Limits allow to create standards, which allow compatibility...
>
There's already a standard in Linux, whether Windows does not follow that,
well it's pretty much their problem, howver this could be done in the file
manager (this shouldn't be enforce in the kernel or something like that as
this is mostly for compatibility with Windows, thus a "novice"-level
feature, it doesn't belong int ht ecommand line, however if the file still
appears in Windows I don't think is much of a problem anyway.
So one thing is standard compatiblity, and another one is bug-to-bug
compatibility.

This is a point of friction on Linux forums when I talk about it, but Linux
> certainly has a technical victory with its kernel, however Windows has a
> commercial victory with its number of users.



If we want to develop Linux, we have to step toward Windows direction to
> seduce users.
>
While the first point is ,horrifying sadly, true  the second one is wrong.
If you try to imitate Windows then all what you will have is a imitation of
Windows, which sounds pretty much less than Windows. If you want to seduce
someone don't try to show the same, but something better, I mean it's like
saying "hey! here's pretty-much-windows-but-better OS, wanna try?", is not
something that difficult as Windows is poorly designed ( don't take my
word, search in internet for designers talking about Windows).

The great example is Android: the number of users brought developpers which
> increase the kernel a lo

That's not as true as you might expect, as Google does not work that much
on the kernel, and the subsysyems they work with are not the one needing
love (mainly drivers).

>




> The number of Linux users has not increased despite of Ubuntu or any other
> versions. Windows remains the first one.
> MacOSX has increased. For me, there are 2 reasons :
> - Clarity of the system
> - Games
>
> Here's the third, marketing. Make a search about games and you will find
that:
 - Lots of people are bringing their games to Linux (even some AAA!) thanks
to Valve.
 - If there's a Mac version, it's possible there's a Linux one as well.
 - Even then, if they don't have Linux version, they tend to have an option
for OpenGL (making the execution with wine a heck easier and faster).

More and more games are made for both DirectX and OpenGL (and a game made
> for MacOSX with OpenGL could be adapted on Linux easier than from Windows).
> It increases the number of MacOSX sold (despite of the price).
>
> For me, main obstacle for Linux remains the FHS, that's why I think
> GoboLinux has the potential the other distrib lack...
>
Nope, it is not, but it may help, there's a list which specifies which are
the Linux problems from a desktop point of view.
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html

>
>
>
>
>
> Le 03/04/2015 11:56, Sergio Tortosa Benedito a écrit :
>
> Ow... That explains it all.
>
> So let me clarify myself, what you want is (for Windows compatibility) to
> hide .lnk and act as if they were symlinks right? Well,  I think that's a
> great idea ( and if we want it to work on every program a kernel module is
> certainly needed) but I wonder whether we should hide it's extension (As I
> would like to help to recognize that's still a Windows link not a Linux
> one).
> However, I'm against doing that for ".url", it should be clear what it is
> anyway, and unlike the .lnk case I find the benefits quite dubious/small,
> if this were to be implemented I would recommend it to be through the file
> manager and a screenshot of the page as icon.
>
> Hmm... I don't want to limit Linux, what happens in Windows with this? The
> error is as fs level or the os level?
> _______________________________________________
> gobolinux-users mailing list
> gobolinux-users at lists.gobolinux.org
> http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gobolinux.org/pipermail/gobolinux-users/attachments/20150403/0509a5d9/attachment.html>


More information about the gobolinux-users mailing list