[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Mc Digest, Vol 70, Issue 3

Subject: Re: Mc Digest, Vol 70, Issue 3
From: joe piskor
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:19:46 +0100
Ok - good points all and I concur with a lot of them, but perhaps I an
clarify one or two...

On 02/07/2010 02:21 PM, MK wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:42:44 +0100
> joe piskor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Anyways, I'll put in my $0.02 worth...
>> Seeing MC evolve over time - and seeing its capabilities increase *a
>> lot* - I get the impression that it is trying to do a Windows (tm)
>> sort of thing, i.e. being a one-in-all solution for everything - a
>> solution looking for a problem to fix. By bundling so much of
>> everything into the application, we're drifting away from the
>> tried-and-true *nix approach to things: Lots of small, reliable,
>> simple tools that can be chained together in a way to do Big Things.
> I have to comment that I prefer the small dedicated tool (eg, I don't
> like IDE's of either sort, etc) and consider mc a small dedicated
> tool. You don't actually refer to anything concrete here, like this
> could almost be a form letter in which you have simply inserted <NAME OF
> PROGRAM HERE>; most of it is just vague prattle (no offence).
None taken; well, not much...

> I don't use the internal editor or viewer, I use vim and less, which
> this is easy to do and together with the F2 user menu makes mc almost a
> PERFECT EXAMPLE of a modular,  extensible *nix philosophy.

I also use vim and less via F2 and file associations, so if I led you to
believe I don't grasp or leverage mc's configurability, sorry. mc makes
a perfect wrapper for loads of my day-to-day tasks and is almost
invariably the first thing I install on a freshly built system if the
distro doesn't include it by default.

> So, basically, I think you have it backward.  Please tell us about which
> *existing* lightweight, small, simple *file browser* you would contrast
> to mc's apparently bloated "one-in-all solution to everything"...

I think you might have it backward; in no way am I implying there's
something better out there - as far as I know, there isn't - and I
certainly won't use a gui-type file manager except under extreme duress.
You're extrapolating my statements beyond their intention to fit an idea
of mc-bashing, which they most certainly aren't.

>> with - few exceptions - the New Improved
>> functions don't help my productivity (YMMV); they tend to force me to
>> rethink the way I perform day-to-day functions and slow me down until
>> my fingers start thinking for themselves once again.
> Again, this is the form letter.  Why don't you stop wasting time and
> say specifically which "New improved functions don't help my
> productivity and slow me down".  I've been using mc since the late 90's
> and keep it up to date, so right now I'm on 4.7.  It is substantially
> the same as the one I can remember from 10 years ago, I cannot off the
> top of my head think of a single thing to which your formuliac
> criticism would apply.

When default actions change (+-key wildcard file/directory selection for
example), your workflow continuity hits a speed bump. Even in suppoort
of greater flexibility, why should I have to dig into config files and
such to fix something that wasn't broken in the first place? I'm running myself, and as I said, have no intention of moving away from mc.
The small (and admittedly they are small) things that are bothersome in
recent revisions may not affect the way you use the tool or may be
beneath your radar.

>> You use a tool for a long time, and when the basics change you have a
>> new tool to learn - it's not just adapting to a minor change in an
>> existing tool as that simple change forces you to "think around it".
> You go on an on for several more paragraphs and still fail to even once
> refer to any specifics at all.  You are terrible writer, Joe.
That's what (early) Sunday morning after Saturday night will do to
you... ;-)

>> I get the impression that the list is
>> getting bogged down in trivial items that may enhance someone's "mc
>> experience" but do comparatively little for the rest of us. I've seen
>> other OS projects with the ability to cast votes for new features to
>> be implemented based on user requests. 
> I've been watching the list for the better part of a year and the list
> is exactly what the subscribers make it.  There are a couple of mc's
> developers who pay attention and respond to that.  It also seems to me
> that these "trivial items" are in fact 100% issues raised by the user
> base Joe, so I'm kind of curious who you mean by "the rest of us".  
Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that the threads on the list weren't
widely applicable and was viewing the content through blinders. In that
case, my bad, and apologies to all concerned.

> The idea of voting on features is an interesting one, but I think 
> 1) that would demand extra resources which the current developers may
> not have...I'm happy to see them just actively maintain a stable product
> 2) as a developer, I would NOT want to bother with such schtick on my
> projects.  Suggestions are sufficient.
> 3) as a user, I'm sceptical of the idea:  it is not something that has
> immediate or obvious appeal to me.  It could turn out to be a great
> thing, it could just as easily turn out to be a bad joke.
I believe the value of this kind of mechanism depends a lot on the
culture surrounding a project. It's very likely that it may ultimately
be more trouble than it's worth.

>> Right up front, I'm not offering a solution to a problem that may not
>> exist  [... ] I'd
>> just like the those upgrades to be unobtrusive and optional. Let the
>> tool adapt to the user; don't force the user to adapt to the tool...
> Wow, so you made it all the way through that meandering mess without
> referring to ANYTHING factual, or a EVEN ONE single feature.  How about
> a "for example"?  It could easily be that you have simply failed to
> read some documentation Joe -- it's impossible to tell since you won't
> commit to any meaningful, concrete complaint.
>> And get off my lawn!!! :-)
> No where near it.  ;P

I would draw your attention to the fact that since you failed to include
my opening statements in your reply, maybe it would help to remember
that up front I stated I was offering my opinion. If I felt *really*
strongly about perceived breakage in mc, I'd certainly have gone into
greater detail and/or filed a formal bug report or feature request. As
submitted to the list it was a statement of opinion, and I think that
was pretty clearly the tone in which my "vague prattle/meandering mess"
was written.

Sorry for wasting the list's (and your) time...

Mc mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>