Unity Workarounds

I'm currently running the unity desktop shell on my development computer. I got fed up with KDE's lack of support, and the gnome-shell just annoyed me. Unity seems like a good start, but suffers from several problems. I've found workarounds for all of these, and thought I'd post them below.

Scrollbar Corruption:


One of the major changes in unity is the thin scrollbars (technically called "overlay scrollbars", I believe), which are enabled by default for all GTK applications. This is what I'm talking about (image from techgarage.com):

These work fine for native GTK applications, but applications built using the wxPython toolkit suffer from render corruption when you try and scroll a styled text control (bug report). This bug manifests itself in many applications, including my current favorite development text editor editra. Here's a screenshot of the issue:

Solution:


The problem can be avoided by turning the thin scrollbars off. How do you do that? Easy - launch the application with the "LIBOVERLAY_SCROLLBAR" environment variable set to 0, like this:

You can of course edit the menu item for editra to include this, or add the line "export LIBOVERLAY_SCROLLBAR=0" to your ~/.xprofile file (create it if it doesn't exist).

Panel Corruption:


Whenever I change a setting in the compiz config settings manager (ccsm), the top panel of my unity desktop becomes corrupted. Previously the only way to fix this was to log out and log back in again (effectively restarting unity). Here's a screenshot of the problem:

Solution:


When this happens you can restart unity without having to logout, or close any applications. Simply run (either by pressing Alt+F2, or in a terminal):

unity --replace

CAPTCHA Fail

I can understand the need to filter humans from machines on the Internet, but we need to do a much better job. It seems like the most common captcha software I run into these days is reCAPTCHA. The system has some noble goals - specifically, users who submit captchas are actually helping digitize books. However, here's the problem:

What the hell does that say? The first word is obviously "the", the second? "Claccupr?". Perhaps I have bad eyesight, but I often get these wrong. Here's an alternative proposal:

Instead of asking humans to perform text recognition (something computers can already do reasonably well), ask them to do something that comes naturally to humans, but not to computers. How about asking the user to pick which image they might find at a beach. Or ask the user to pick the image that represents the largest object in real life. Use context that humans understand instinctively, but computers do not.

Any ideas? Someone should build it!

Why your python editor sucks

I'm doing a reasonable amount of python-coding work these days. It would help me to have an editor that doesn't suck. My requirements are:

1. Small & Fast. I'm not after a massive clunky IDE, just an editor with enough smarts to make editing multiple python files easier.
2. Sensible syntax highlighting.
3. Understands python indentation, PEP8 style. Specifically, indents with 4 spaces, backspace key can be used to unindent.
4. Can be integrated with one or more lint checkers. Right now I use a wonderful combination of pep8, pyflakes and pylint. I want the output of these to be integrated with the editor so I can jump to the file & line where the problem exists.

That's it. I don't think I'm asking too much. Here's the editors I've tried, and why they suck:

1. KATE. I love kate, it's my default text editor for almost everything. However, there is no way to integrate lint checkers. I could write a plugin, but that's yet another distraction from actually doing my work.
2. Vim. I'm already reasonably skilled with vim, and Alain Lafon's blog post contains some great tips to make vim even better. My problem with vim is simply that it's too cryptic. Sure, I could spend a few years polishing my vim skills, but I want it to just work. Vim goes in the "kind of cool, but too cryptic" basket.
3. Eric. When you launch eric for the first time it opens the configuration dialog box. It looks like this:
   How many options do I really need for an editor? Over-stuffed options dialogs is the first sign of trouble. It gets worse however, once you dismiss the settings window, the editor looks like this:
   
   Need I say more?
4. Geany. Looks promising, but no integration into lint checkers.
5. pida. Integrates with vim or emacs for the editor component. Looks promising, although the user interface is slightly clunky in places. Pida suffers from exactly the same problems as vim does however, but I may end up using it.

There are a few options I have not tried, and probably won't:

1. Eclipse & pydev. Eclipse is a huge, hulking beast. I want a small, fast, lean editor, not an IDE.
2. Emacs. Can't be bothered learning another editor. Doesn't look that much different to vim, so what's the point in learning both?
3. KDevelop. Same reason as Eclipse, above.

I suspect there's a market for a simple python editor that just works. Please! Someone build it!

Product Branding Critical to User Expectations

A recent post on kdevelopers.org caught my attention. In a post tagged "rant" (I love rants), "tstaerk" outlines his situation:

I am in a small team where we provide a Linux Terminal Server (LTS) for a company. It is based on NX. Every employee in this company can use the service, however, we provide it free of charge and out of enthusiasm. That means, we are not paid for setting it up nor for giving phone-support. We sometimes have 70 concurrent users on the server, that may mean we reach 500 users on the whole. The server is running KDE 3.5 as desktop environment. Recently, we evaluated - no, let me keep this understandable - we sat together and discussed the possibility of upgrading to KDE 4.

Everyone including me was against the upgrade. This is especially ashaming for me as I am spending every weekend to develop KDE. So what were the reasons?

KDE4 seems to have suffered a lot from people complaining that it's not an easy upgrade from KDE3, and to a certain extent, the complaint is justified. When KDE4 first arrives on the scene, it was really little more than a tech demo, and certainly not usable by normal users (I use the term "normal" users with all due respect - "normal" in this context means users not in the KDE development scene, and perhaps not as technically literate as the developers). However, the hype surrounding it's release meant that lots of normal users upgraded and were subsequently disappointed. With KDE4.2, we're finally getting to a stage where the KDE 4 series is actually usable as a desktop environment.

However, that's still not answering the original concern: KDE4 is still not a replacement for KDE3. Tstaerk goes on to list some of the shortcomings he sees in KDE4:

If you install a KDE 4 desktop by default, you do not have the possibility to add icons to your desktop by right-clicking onto the desktop. That would mean to us: Take 500 phone calls, explain users why it is no longer possible, explain 500 times why we do a change if it is a change to the worse... You got it, 500 times an ENOTAMUSED.

If you install a KDE 4 desktop by default, you do not have the possibility to move the clock in the panel. For me, the clock is ticking constantly on the left where I do not want it. Our users will be upset seeing another change to the worse. Yes, there is a work-around but it is so complicated that I do not want to tell it 500 times on the phone

If you install a KDE 4 desktop by default, you get a strange icon in the upper right corner. No one could explain to me what it is called, but everybody said it was something about Plasma. Users will click on it and eventually hit "Zoom out". Then, their screen is filled with strange gray squares. Just imagine you have to sit on a phone and answer 500 phone calls (for no money) from users who all tell you something about "squares" not knowing they should call it "activities".

Does he have a point? Perhaps.

In some ways, calling the new product KDE4 implies an easy upgrade path from KDE3, which is misleading, since many aspects of the product have been written from scratch, and behave in a totally different manner. It would have been a better decision, I think to brand KDE4 in such a way that it was obvious that it was a new product, that would not work in the same way. This in turn might have saved a considerable amount of grief when developers found that their snazzy new technologies were being ignored, since users could not use the product like they were used to.

So, the moral of the story?

Be careful how you brand your product, especially when a newer version breaks compatibility with an older version. Is it an upgrade, or a new entity in it's own right?