I noticed this first when testing ceni for 7.0, and *solved" it by specifing a different default shell (roxterm) in the menu, which I prefer anyway. Revised menu entry is this:

How do you feel about having a desktop icon for installing antix? This could be done using the rox pinboard or using idesk. This will make it easier to install and have desktop icons already availabe, which should make it easier for new users to add their own icons since they'll have a model, and it also extends the usability of preinstalled apps such as idesk and rox desktop. Here's a screenshot.



Hope you like it.

john

I split the control center into two separate apps: desktop and system settings. This has several advantages:

1. Only need to enter a root password once - when launching the system settings.
2. If we use gksu in a future release, the control center does not need to be rewritten.
3. Easier to add/remove buttons.
4. Easier to test and debug.

I also wrote a script that can be used to launch either control center. This is for users who like to use desktop icons or taskbar buttons. Here is a screenshot.



EDIT
In this screenshot, the start menu is almost completely covering the icon I use for launching antiXcc - the control center chooser. I included the start menu so you could what the menu entries look like as well.

Hope this is an improvement.

john

Very handsome, for sure. Not sure about the change yet, I liked how it was set up in 7.5 Test.

One item to consider:""Configure your Box" is a pretty geeky expression--is that your audience? If not, a simple"Configuration" would seem preferable to me.

Here is the"abscreen" app borrowed from the absolute linux project. (This is the app that I would like to replace my very limited and not very functional screen res app with). There are two instances of the app: on the left abscreen was launched by the user and on the right by root. (All values in the drop-down menus come from xorg.conf.) As you can hopefully see, only by launching the app as root will you be allowed to save your new settings.

There is a secondary app I would like to include as well - for getting refresh rates, but it requires a dependency called xresolution.



What do you think?

john

Well, the only other suggestion was to launch the original control panel (as presented in 7.5) as root. The problem here, I believe, would be that users would no longer have access to those configuration options unless they launched these apps as root. For example, if I used the control panel to edit some fluxbox files, then I would only be able to edit those files as root since they were edited as root. But sometimes it's just more convenient for me to edit one file and so I just use geany instead of the control panel. Am I making sense?

john

i like the control center from 7.5 test. i don't like to enter the root password every time either. but when i use control center i only use one or two options max. this new antixcc is more complicated that the one from 7.2. in 7.2 we have control-user and control-system and in this we have antixcc> bullet menu with desktop and settings>select bullet>ok> password(4 system)> settings. i don't know about that. my opinion, i don't want to mess with our work OU812.
and i like adding the refresh rate to options. but it's really necessary to have 2 menus one for user one for root? the resolution change and refresh isn't a damage making change. i vote for 1 menu. great work.
edit: to change a setting and then exit and enter again not good. and i think 1 control center is better because i for one i don't know which is where. what is in desktop and what is in settings.

OU812 wrote:How do you feel about having a desktop icon for installing antix? This could be done using the rox pinboard or using idesk. This will make it easier to install and have desktop icons already availabe, which should make it easier for new users to add their own icons since they'll have a model, and it also extends the usability of preinstalled apps such as idesk and rox desktop. Here's a screenshot.

Hope you like it.

john

I do like it, John, and I recommend that we include usability features wherever we can do so in a flexible way. I have long felt that usability and good technology need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, as far as I am concerned they are the same thing. Conserving space should never be done at the expense of reasonable usability. Otherwise we may as well go back to IBM Assembly Language programming on the IBM 360 or worse, way back to the ENIAC! __{{emoticon}}__

Great job with what you are doing. I am in full support of it.

Of course, we do want to use compact, efficient tools, and I think we have a great balance here. Those who want the truly tiny stuff can go to DSL or SliTaZ to get 50 or 25 MB images. To me, AntiX is about as small as it can get and give me the capabilities that I am looking for.

I would tend to prefer to keep admin functions in as few places as possible. One Control Center would be ideal, with menu or selection items for other functions if they must be broken off. Certainly any management or admin functions must also be seen either through the Control Center or on the Systems Menu. I do not want to hunt very far when I want to do an administrative function. The main reason I use AntiX is because it is very fast, but fast includes not only the time to start and the time to run, but also the time to get stuff under the fingertips to start it up. Having to dig through three layers of menus and click, click, click is bad user interface design in my opinion. The goal would be to keep it as simple as possible for the user, whether it is easy to code or difficult to code, though the top goal would be to make it easy to use and for the code to be easy to maintain as well.

I modeled the two control panel scheme - one for user config tools and one for admin config tools, after the tools that were available in the 7.2 release. In fact, I rewrote all of the 7.2 scripts before porting them to the gui versions you see in the 7.5 release. So really the two panel gui scheme is not that much different than what you saw in the 7.2 release.

As far as launching the control panels, you have basically three options: Menu entries, desktop icons, or taskbar buttons (icewm). The menu entries could be put just about anywhere you like, even together if it makes things easier for users. For those that like icons and buttons, you have two options: one button/icon for each panel or the launcher that I wrote that was designed to put everything in one place. So the launcher was not meant to be the only means by which the panels could be accessed, but only as an optional tool for users who wanted to use it. (In fact, icewm users don't need menus, icons, clicks, etc. Just hit [win key] + [space] and enter"config-desktop.sh" or"gksu config-system.sh" and that's it. This definitely meets usability requirements.)

So I guess you can't design the perfect interface ...
If one control panel, then you get the convenience of having all options available in one place, but you get the inconvenience of enter the root password many times.

If two control panels, then you gain many conveniences such as entering a root password once, while being slightly inconvenienced with needing two panels to configure your system.

So which is the lesser of two evils? Ultimately, I'm fairly certain we're only going to have one of the two versions. Whatever the community and anti agree on, I've got the appropriate scripts ready - do not worry, I'm maintaining all three versions of the scripts: zenity, one gui control panel, and two gui control panel. So whatever is needed will most certainly be ready. (Except I haven't pointed the screen resolution button to the new apps as anti's approval is necessary.)

I hope this clears things up a bit.

EDIT
I just conducted some experiments that may help answer your questions. I ran several tests launching the one panel version of the control center as root. Here's what I found.

1. Edited the fluxbox menu. Then launched leafpad as user and was still able to edit it. So no problems here.
2. Set wallpaper with nitrogen. No problems here.
3. Launched lxappearance. Changing icons or themes applied to root not user.

Therefore, if we go with a one panel config tool, it must be launched as user and a root password must be given for each admin function. This was the point I was trying to make earlier.

john

i don't know if this is a bug or not but here it goes:
on a movie file (avi wmv mpg) in"set run action" in"enter a shell command" the defaul antix is: mplayer"$@". when i open the file it only opens the video window and not the control window so we cannot set fullscreen,volume or any settings. i change my shell command to: gmplayer"$@". to see the controls window as well.

Oh boy. I really goofed this time - I reacted well before I took a close look at things. I'm sorry.

It looks like we need to go with the one panel version. Here's why: even though it might be a pain to enter your root password a few times, it turns out that the benefits of doing it this way outweigh the benefits of using the two panel control center as I suggested. The bottom line is this: scattered throughout the control center are apps that can be launched as user and apps that can be launched as root. Not launching the apps correctly really messes things up - I could go into detail but I won't. So the bottom line is we'll go back to the one panel version that was on the 7.5 test release.

I ported the screen resolution and get monitor ranges apps from the absolute linux project. They seem to work, but each one has a glitch. I wrote the author about my problems. Hopefully everything will be worked out since I think these would be good additions to the antix project. (Note: we need to install"xresprobe" from the repo for the monitor ranges app, but xresprobe seems like a very small app.)

john

OU812 wrote:I modeled the two control panel scheme - one for user config tools and one for admin config tools,

Having 2 control panels works well for me because then I know which actions I need to be root for ahead of time. Thanks for your work on this, OU812!

Well, I certainly can have a two panel version ready for interested users. However, be warned that the"admin" panel should not be launched as admin as only certain apps in the admin tabs need root's password. Thanks for the support.

john

OU812 wrote:Well, I certainly can have a two panel version ready for interested users. However, be warned that the"admin" panel should not be launched as admin as only certain apps in the admin tabs need root's password. Thanks for the support.

john

Keep up the great work, John! Finding out how things work now and the ramifications of what could happen in various scenarios is invaluable. I sure appreciate all of the thought, comments, and feedback you are providing and considering in this effort. It is efforts like this that make an outstanding end result. I am sure that anti will be pleased at the efforts! You certainly get my thanks!