What do you think of GConf and HIGification?

Message

charlieg · Post by **charlieg** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:36 am

What do you think about Gnome2's GConf and the HIG? Are they the best thing since sliced bread and have they allowed Gnome2 and it's suite of applications to clean up and be more sensible about their approach?

Some people label it as 'stupification', others as 'sensibification'. Some argue that more prefernences means more flexibility. Others counter that the majority of preferences are useless and, if anything, hinder application development by complicating things.

Has this been a good thing for Gnome or has it ruined the Gnome project?

Lovechild · Post by **Lovechild** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:07 pm

More power to it... I love the HIG and GConf it give me a usable desktop whilst still empowering me as a user.

Evangelion · Post by **Evangelion** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:15 pm

I don't use Gnome so I can't comment

shm · Post by **shm** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:18 pm

As a former GNOME 1.x user (especially GNOME 1.2), I'll have to vote for "Pretty Poor"

zhenlin · Post by **zhenlin** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:27 pm

I feel that GNOME 1 was terrible... The control panel was horrendous compared to GNOME 2. Kcontrol still scares me...

I really don't care about GConf. As long as it works. Although it would be nice for the documentation to say 'The configuration is in gconf://apps/...' or, if not 'The configuration is in ~/.app/...' so that I know where to look.

Nylle · Post by **Nylle** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:38 pm

Something I don't like about the windows registry is that it introduces a single point of failure. If my windows registry gets corrupted, all my settings are gone. Gconf seems to introduce a similar single point of failure, and that concerns me. Unless there is some very good way of importing and exporting settings, it will be difficult to migrate settings in one program from one machine to another.

Also I find gconf cluttered already, and what's to stop it from becoming more cluttered as the sets of apps supporting it grows. Is it generated dynimcally, or will settings from a program that has been removed live on? In that case it won't be long before it gets very cluttered.

About HIGs I think they are a great idea, as they make the desktop more consistent. However, that doesn't mean I agree with the current gnome HIG, but I was not part of it's conception so it is not strange that my views are not represented in it.

charlieg · Post by **charlieg** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:47 pm

Nylle wrote:Also I find gconf cluttered already, and what's to stop it from becoming more cluttered as the sets of apps supporting it grows. Is it generated dynimcally, or will settings from a program that has been removed live on? In that case it won't be long before it gets very cluttered.

That is sort of the point of gconf. A single point of clutter, rather than cluttering other areas of the desktop - especially application menus and preferences.

Hopefully Gnome will only keep the settings in gconf of currently installed applications.

And, a single point of failure? I dunno... plus it's all XML so that import/export point is moot.

Unne · Post by **Unne** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 2:57 pm

From a user's standpoint, I've never liked Gnome's config scheme.

aethyr · Post by **aethyr** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 3:35 pm

If your gconf files get corrupted, it will probably be the last thing you'll be concerned about because it probably means your harddrive is failing.

gconf settings are all stored in plaintext xml files. You don't even need the gconf-editor, you can just go in and change them with any editor you choose.

That's a far cry from the cryptic windows registry.

lurid · Post by **lurid** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 7:22 pm

Its pretty funny that everyone is attacking Gconf because its UI is tree based. Does any program with a tree based UI remind you of the Window Registry? Are you _that_ traumatized by Windows that anything that looks even remotely like it, regardless of funtion, makes you say it sucks?

Think of Gconf this way. If there were pretty little icons next to each selection with nice little drop down boxes it would look exactly the same as every other 'Control Center' out there. Remember, this program is for power users. Why make some fancy bloated control center thing like KDE/Windows have? Why not just make a small program that does what it does and does it well and not worry about fancy eye candy? Makes sense to me. Hell, you could be forced to edit the XML by hand.

KDE is cluttered and ugly. Gnome is clean and simple. What Gnome sacrifices for looks, KDE goes overboard with and clutters the UI. I prefer Gnome. I like the simplicity of the desktop, and a nice small program that gives me all the power any other DEs' control center has.

maKKus · Post by **maKKus** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 9:09 pm

It is really crazy that some people think gconf is like the registry, just because gconf-editor is looking like regedit. Please people think, to corrupt the windows registry you just have to corrupt one file. To corrupt the gconf deposit, you've to do a lot more and that for every user, plus destroy the schema's where the default value's are stored.

If something isn't right for a program in the gconf storage, just delete its directory in ~/.gconf, it will be created again with default value's. Try that with the registry.

kerrick · Post by **kerrick** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:52 pm

Nylle wrote:Something I don't like about the windows registry is that it introduces a single point of failure. If my windows registry gets corrupted, all my settings are gone. Gconf seems to introduce a similar single point of failure, and that concerns me.

Not at all.
The problem with the windows registry is that it is one gigantic file storing all your data, your single point of failure.
Gconf on the other hand used directories and XML files for each entry, eg. ~/apps/.gconf/apps/acme/%gconf.xml, so if that corrupts, you only loose you acme settings. Even better, if you loose your settings for metacity or something along those lines, it doesn't say "Error: Cannot find config files." It loads the default settings from the schema.

The advantages of gconf are:
1. Its easier for a programmer to get/set settings without worrying about broken configs.
2. Programmers don't have to create/manage a ~/.myprogram directory.
3. Programmers can be notified if their/another program changes their settings.
4. Its a single library, so you save some resources not having 20 configuration libraries running.
5. Its an easy to use centralized location where power users can change settings.
6. If you don't like their configuration tools you don't have to hack their program, you just write your own with their keys and stop complaining.

Besides, using ini files is more like the Windows registry considering the windows registry is a *#%@ing ini file.

If you really feel the need to compare something to Windows, lets compare Gnome to KDE to Windows and see which one is more like it.

shm · Post by **shm** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:18 pm

kerrick wrote: Besides, using ini files is more like the Windows registry considering the windows registry is a *#%@ing ini file.

Uhm, Actually, the windows registry isn't an .ini file. It's a properitary format that has changed several times in between Windows versions even. If you want more details, see http://www.csdn.net/Dev/Format/binary/WinReg.htm

The fact that gconf-- as how it's used in GNOME, and the Windows registry, are both tree based configuration systems that hide options from the user. I think the similarities end there. However, IMHO, GNOME abuses it's registry more than even Windows does. I do a lot of Windows (MFC application tools for hardware, and occaisionally drivers) development by day, and I use Windows for about 8 hours a day on most week days. And I can't think of the last time I used the Windows registry unless something was horribly broken with an application. With the times I've tried gnome2, I've had to use it a _lot_ more.

Gnome 1.4, although having gconf, wasn't quite as bad in how it used it. Often you could see options in regular dialog boxes-- I just found it much more intuitive (same thing with WindowsXP, KDE, and to a lesser degree, MacOSX)

kerrick wrote:If you really feel the need to compare something to Windows, lets compare Gnome to KDE to Windows and see which one is more like it.

Indeed. Both desktops do a certain inheriting of Windows behavior. KDE does more inheriting than GNOME IMHO. It just inherits better parts

kerrick · Post by **kerrick** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:33 am

shm wrote:Uhm, Actually, the windows registry isn't an .ini file.

Opps, my bad. I got user.dat and the win.ini confused. (Its been a long time.)

Honestly, I would like to know how Gnome abuses gconf. Gconf is not the reason why gnome's capplets are bare, its the reason that bare capplets are tolerable.

Lowspirit · Post by **Lowspirit** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 10:14 am

Evangelion wrote:I don't use Gnome so I can't comment

charlieg · Post by **charlieg** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 9:17 pm

shm wrote:IMHO, GNOME abuses it's registry more than even Windows does

You're mistakenly assuming that the purpose of GConf and the purpose of the Registry are the same.

GConf is meant to be a place to look after the advanced preferences of your applications, so power users can tweak their apps to their tastes. This removes all the confusing cruft that woud otherwise be present in each and every application.

This makes applications easier to use because there are no confusing settings. (At my workplace I know people who won't try to do things in Outlook because there are too many confusing options in the various menus.)

This also reduces the load on the developer as there is no requirement to create an interface between config file and app (done using Gnome tools) and no need to create a visual interface to tweak those preferences.

It's a good thing, but it's purpose it largely misunderstood.

lurid · Post by **lurid** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 6:37 am

You make a good point with Outlook, and for that matter, most of MS software. Too many options not only introduce bloat, but they lead to confusion on the part of the user. And even more so if there are any changes from one version to the next. I know people that have been using Word 97 for years and refuse to upgrade because the new versions have to many confusing options.

This is what Gnome attempts to avoid. ALL the options there, but they're not present within the application itself, thus minimizing confustion and bloat while maximizing productivity. Lets face it, business people generally aren't power users. They want to load their program and do what they need to do. There is no need to have millions of options all over the place. If you look at the people who use Gnome over KDE its this single point most of them point to; KDE has too many options and too cluttered of an interface. Gnome appears to be more simplistic by sticking all those options in a seperate program that no one but power users even know about, much less use regularly. But all the options are still there. It leads to a very nice elegant enviroment that doesn't overwhelm new users.

chrisdupre · Post by **chrisdupre** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 8:05 am

I believe lurid is right. I've used KDE and Gnome, and I like Gnome alot more because of it's simple design. KDE reminds me of Windows. Actually it's almost exactly the same as windows( all versions). Gnome has a much better feel to it, and I enjoy the simple design. Gnome 2.0 is very nice, and I can't wait until they develope epiphany a little more. When it matures I will use epiphany as my browser.

helmers · Post by **helmers** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:37 pm

I absolutely love The HIG, but I think that GCONF is a bit hard for a poor user to navigate(and a bit scary even). If the GCONF-editor could be made even more user-friendly, I think it is a good idea.

And the problem about the Windows registry(IMHO) is that it for some became a waste dump, like with us SB Live! owners, where Creative managed to dump 4MB of useless speaker presets into the registry, slowing my boot time back then by several seconds.

One thing I always have been wondering(sorry if this is explained in the thread): Is GCONF a database or a directory structure with real files in it?

shm · Post by **shm** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 10:25 pm

helmers wrote:: Is GCONF a database or a directory structure with real files in it?

The latter..

Toth · Post by **Toth** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:10 pm

lurid wrote:This is what Gnome attempts to avoid. ALL the options there, but they're not present within the application itself, thus minimizing confustion and bloat while maximizing productivity. Lets face it, business people generally aren't power users. They want to load their program and do what they need to do. There is no need to have millions of options all over the place. If you look at the people who use Gnome over KDE its this single point most of them point to; KDE has too many options and too cluttered of an interface. Gnome appears to be more simplistic by sticking all those options in a seperate program that no one but power users even know about, much less use regularly. But all the options are still there. It leads to a very nice elegant enviroment that doesn't overwhelm new users.

Bingo.

Gconf makes things easier on developers by giving them a common easy to use interface to set and retrieve settings. Gconf makes things easier on users by allowing advanced configuration to take place in Gconf leaving only common necessary settings in the application itself. Gconf rocks.

And the HIG...need I say more?

Look through the Desktop Preferences menu in Gnome, then look at the KDE Control Center, and you'll be able to tell instantly why I use Gnome instead of KDE. (Well, that and I think GTK2 looks better than QT).

-Toth

shm · Post by **shm** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:21 pm

Toth wrote: Look through the Desktop Preferences menu in Gnome, then look at the KDE Control Center, and you'll be able to tell instantly why I use Gnome instead of KDE.

Yeah, but at the same time, I hate how GNOME uses gconf to hide configuration options in gconf, and then decides what's "advanced" and what's not. If the regular preferences dialogs were removed, I think there would be no problem. Mode-less GUI interfaces are always a good idea, and I think GNOME developers realized this in Nautilus but not gconf, unfortunatly. This is why I prefer KDE 3.x to GNOME 2.x, and I perferred GNOME 1.2 to GNOME 1.4 (that, and I liked gmc better than Nautilus)

If it were used just as a configuration system, like kconfig is in KDE, I'd have no objections.

Toth · Post by **Toth** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:41 pm

shm wrote:
Toth wrote: Look through the Desktop Preferences menu in Gnome, then look at the KDE Control Center, and you'll be able to tell instantly why I use Gnome instead of KDE.
Yeah, but at the same time, I hate how GNOME uses gconf to hide configuration options in gconf, and then decides what's "advanced" and what's not. If the regular preferences dialogs were removed, I think there would be no problem. Mode-less GUI interfaces are always a good idea, and I think GNOME developers realized this in Nautilus but not gconf, unfortunatly. This is why I prefer KDE 3.x to GNOME 2.x, and I perferred GNOME 1.2 to GNOME 1.4 (that, and I liked gmc better than Nautilus)

If it were used just as a configuration system, like kconfig is in KDE, I'd have no objections.

Well, I think the entire point is that most users won't touch any of the things that can be configured in gconf. But gconf allows power users to still go in and tweak them. I do see what you mean though...if gconf looked like a configuration dialog instead of the way it looks now it would be easier to adjust those settings. However, I don't mind the way it is now.

What I really like about leaving "advanced" options in gconf is that when I use a Gnome application, I can configure the most common, necessary options in less than a minute and have a working app. When I feel like tweaking it I can poke around in gconf and see what other options are available for it.

-Toth

helmers · Post by **helmers** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 5:08 am

Thanks shm. As long as it is in different files, so I can edit it from wherever I like, I don't mind GCONF at all.

kesuari · Post by **kesuari** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:10 am

shm wrote:
helmers wrote:: Is GCONF a database or a directory structure with real files in it?
The latter..

I thought Gconf was more like an API: Anyone can write a new backend and a new frontend for it, so that you could, for example, make it an SQL database if you wanted.

While I don't use Gnome per se, I hate apps that don't follow the HIG (because the only non-GTK2-based gui apps I run with any regularity are Xmms (GTK2ify it already), Thunderbird (though I switch between it and Evolution randomly, I love IMAP) and xpdf (Acroread doesn't support scrollwheels and ggv on my computer is broken&it'll only open one window at a time and jumpscrolls). Galeon has on-and-off problems with this, so I think I'm going to have another look at Epiphany.