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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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".
|
|
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..
|
|
|
@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
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
Post your comment
|
