639
votes
|
|
664
8
25
|
|
|
|
|
40
votes
|
|
141
46
101
|
|
|
|
|
|
97
votes
|
|
173
36
76
|
|
|
|
|
|
251
votes
|
|
282
26
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
-30
votes
|
|
12
21
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
votes
|
|
34
16
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
|
I envision Ubuntu (and Linux in general), becoming an OS where whenever you are missing something, it simply asks "would you like me to install that for you?"
The less times we send the user to the CLI or even Synaptic, the better.
|
|
|
I guess it would be better if there is no prompt or but an option in the right-click menu.
Generally I like the idea about a suggested package which can read currently unreadable file types - this is great about free software: there is nearly for everything anything - problem is you just don't know it and this kinda solution may lead you to the wanted software.
|
|
Zanko
wrote on the 11 May 09 at 15:07
|
|
|
This is obviously a case in which packagekit should be used.
Also, it should be able to detect the version of RAR format, because unrar-free can't open most recent RAR format archives (maybe 7zip can ?).
|
|
itix
wrote on the 13 May 09 at 12:04
|
|
|
|
Solution #3 is out of the question since rar-free package rarely work. Let people decide whether they want to install non-free software or not by prompting. The CD does not need to contain these packages, so I don't get why solution 2 is there either. The question is about whether we should prompt people to install these or not the same way we do mp3 and nonfree video-codecs...
|
|
Tallyho
wrote on the 16 May 09 at 13:31
|
|
|
|
+1 for Darwin
|
|
nandayo
wrote on the 16 May 09 at 23:13
|
|
|
agree with this proposition : rar is very used, it is not a good idea to not make ubuntu able to extract it by default just because it is not free.
To not install the rar compressor because rar is not free OK, bu to not install the rar decompressor is ridiculous and will not change anything (except that people are angry to not be able to decompress rar files !)
|
|
cupantae
wrote on the 18 May 09 at 02:29
|
|
|
|
I was going to post Darwin Survivor's comment. You shouldn't ever have to "go somewhere else".
|
|
|
|
Solution 6 fixes the problem at its source, and also opens up the possibility of a simple api for other programs to access any archives easily.
|
|
|
|
PS. Not sure why after so many posts nobody else throught of this. It makes me even more concerned about Brainstorm...
|
|
|
|
So lets get this right. You guys want to continue using a static archiving program which cannot be extended to use new formats.. Hmm..
|
|
Ssdg
wrote on the 19 May 09 at 08:02
|
|
|
@AndrewLuecke I'm not sure, but the archive manager already works like that...
If the decompression program is installed > it decompresses
If the compression program is installed > it compresses
So get this right. You didn't looked at the current state of the archiving tools in ubuntu.. Hmm..
|
|
|
I checked it in the past
Yes, it will support RAR if the program is added, but if I make a new archive format (lets say .AUZY), it doesn't matter what I install, it wont be supported by the default program (because it doesn't know its even an archive).
Because it only can install formats that is hardcoded within the source code. We need something that allows developers to add .AUZY to the archiving program via a special module file.
That's the best way of doing it. Otherwise users need to upgrade their entire program to support all archive types within 1 program (and yes, we all know that distro's wont do that).
If you don't give a damn about integration, vote me down, and vote however (I'll reiterate that I no longer care because the only way to fix ubuntu I believe is a fork away from the old community).
If like me you care about integration, modularity, and having a powerful OS which no longer requires hacks to the source code to support new features, then vote me up. Sorry guys, but instead of having a free OS, I also believe we need an OS which can be extended as will.
The problem is that since Ubuntu is open source, people just say "we'll hack the source its alright". We SHOULD instead treat everything as closed source, and make it possible for people to add to the programs without touching the original source code.
|
|
|
@AndrewLuecke:
sometimes rewriting code from scratch is not a solution, it cost too much.
and treating open source software as closed source software is a nonsense.
the cost in time and money to add your fantazipformat ( .AUZY ) to the archive manager is way less than to implement a new archive plugin framework + application that handle them.
Just be rationale and think how many compression format will born from now to, let say, 2020? :D
|
|
|
Openningia, Why is it treating it as closed source nonsense? Treating end users and forcing them to apply patches to code is nonsense. In fact, expecting users to hack around in source code is just downright STUPID!
So let me reiterate.. Ubuntu users keep wanting to take shortcuts, and the end result is that we end up with crappy integration (just look at the kernel for the perfect example of how to constantly break drivers).
You are making a big assumption there too. Modularity is NOT hard to code. I know, I programmed a damned awesome plugin loader in C in uni. And I was almost a newbie. Took maybe a week (tops). So the cost of implementing a plugin loader I don't believe is that big.
It only takes 1 unsupported format for the users to require a second program. Furthermore, LTS ubuntu customers need programs that can last 3 years. Modularising them is the only way.
|
|
|
Coding modularity is not a problem, it is not hard, it doesn't cost too much, BUT coding from scratch IS a problem.
Because there is nothing like a modular archive manager as you suggested, it should be coded from scratch and that is hardly the best solution.
Implementing modularity in the existent archive manager likely will require a lot of refactoring which isn't needed if you just want to add the support for a new archive format.
I agree that some software needs to be developed with modularity in mind ( audio players, image manipulation ), but for the most of them modularity is over-engineering.
|
|
|
Translation: Lets do everything in a half arsed way.
- Eclipse is successful (IBM didn't)
- Firefox is VERY successful (based on modularity)
- Windows has exceptional hardware support as opposed to Linux (because windows drivers designed 2 years ago for vista still work for Windows 7, and in some cases, Windows XP drivers even work).
Modularity is NEVER overengineering. It may seem like it before you code something, but lets face it, when firefox was first released nobody dreamed it would be successful.
In this case, we can have no way of knowing how people will use it. But I can think of plenty of ways people could benefit.
|
|
|
oh please xD
Windows has exceptional hardware support because hardware manufacturers write drivers for Windows platform only :)
Microsoft don't develop any drivers, instead Linux Community is forced to develop its own drivers ( almost always with reverse engineering because manufacturers do not want to handle the hardware specifics ).
This is the real difference in hardware support.
|
|
|
You sure OpenNingia? Because plenty of official drivers out there required a specific kernel to work (like the X-fi ones did).
In fact, remember why Vista failed? Many people were complaining of BSOD's and such. This was due to a few changes with the kernel.
But with Linux, its in a constant state of flux. Its part of the reason. Developers have no way of guaranteeing that the drivers they write will work with any minor update, so they don't bother.
OSX has the same problem too (which is why barely any driver developers write drivers for it). Many of our customers complained that their high end audio devices broke every 2 or 3 months with the OSX updates.
Its a valid reason if you think about it. As a hardware manufacturer, you MUST be able to ensure the driver works reliably, or people whinge and call your company lame.
|
Post your comment
|
