search

linuxmint / cinnamon

A Linux desktop featuring a traditional layout, built from modern technology and introducing brand new innovative features.
GNU General Public License v2.0
4.53k stars 735 forks source link

Improvements needed to the System info window #11161

Open mikkovedru opened 2 years ago

mikkovedru commented 2 years ago

I have been using Mint Cinnamon since 2014 and there are inconveniences related to the System info window that I found. I encounter them at least 10 times a year, so inflicting a big toll over the years. Fortunately, they are tiny changes that are easy to implement.

Issue 1 - inconvenient copying of the info to the buffer

Problem

  1. Selecting all the text with the mouse is not possible as the text fields are separated. image
  2. Right-clicking and choosing Select all also selects only the right side of one row. image
  3. The text in the left column is not selectable at all.

Ugly hacks

  1. Type everything by hand
  2. Send a screenshot
  3. Use the "Upload system information" button, upload my info to the Internet, lose privacy, but at least get the opportunity to then copy it.
  4. Use OCR software to take a screenshot, analyze/recognize the text and copy the result into the buffer. Surprisingly, this is the most workable hack in my case, after spending effort setting https://github.com/dynobo/normcap on my computer.

Proposed solution

  1. Make text selectable in both columns.
  2. Make it possible to select all the text in one go with the mouse.
  3. Make Select all work by selecting the full relevant system info text.
  4. Make an additional "Copy system information to keyboard buffer" button.

Issue 2 - Lack of information about the Cinnamon system - the codename

Problem

Mint/Cinnamon releases not only have numbers but also codenames. Mint 21 is called Vanessa. image image

This codename is used/mentioned in many places, but there is no way to find it out in System info except by separately googling and going to wiki. The numbers are quite a lot easier to remember, especially the Ubuntu's "2 digits of the year + release month, which is either April or October" scheme.

Ugly hack

I constantly have to go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Mint#Releases to find out what the codename was again.

Proposed solution

Add codename info either as part of the first "Operating System" row or as its own row.

Issue 3 - Lack of information about the codebase (Ubuntu) system, including the codename

Problem

The same problem as with the previous one, except much worse. The codename is used constantly in the news, guides, and repos (software sources; /etc/apt/sources.list.d/). And every time this is hugely confusing and irritating. Especially since the usage of the codename is not even consistent, and Ubuntu 20.04's codename Focal Fossa (it would be futile to expect people to remember a letter salad like that) can be Focal or just Fossa. Case in point: image If you don't know what it is, you will never guess. If you do know, it is still not useful, as you for sure won't be 100% sure.

I dare you to get the Mint's codenames "Una", "Ulyssa", "Uma", "Ulyana" correctly for releases 20, 20.1, 20.2 and 20.3. And those were the latest releases as of less than 2 months ago!

With more years in, the chance for confusion gets to 100%.

Proposed solution

Add an additional row with the text e.g. Parent codebase | Ubuntu 22.04 LTS (Jammy Jellyfish). Perhaps it should be named something else.

mtwebster commented 2 years ago

Cinnamon 5.4: image

As for the codename, we can consider adding it to system info, but each instance you've pointed out there also has the release number (21). The next release will be 21.1, and so on. If someone's discussing Linux Mint that's the primary detail I need to know. It's not necessary to know the codename. I don't say "Hey, Vanessa is out" or "Hi I'm having an issue with Vanessa". I say "Hey, Mint 21 is out". Honestly I consider it more of a nickname - useful I suppose, but not necessary.

Similarly, most users don't care what Ubuntu (or Debian) version/codename it's based on. Too much information can be as confusing as not enough.

mikkovedru commented 2 years ago

I would totally agree with you if that codename was indeed only a nickname. But it is not the case. The codename is essential for users who have to deal with packages. Even more so for power users. Even more so for users with long distro history.

I will use the example that finally motivated me to create this issue. The software I need requires a newer version of ffmpeg. I went to the project's page and here is what I see: image

Which one should I choose?

And notice that the year-month in "7:4.4.2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1" is a very rare occurrence. In almost all other packages, there is only a codename that is being used. So how do I know which one I have and which one I need?

There is no other way but to go on wiki for that info. Well...:

  1. that illustrates my point exactly - it's no bueno if you have to go to the Internet in order to figure out a critical info about your own system
  2. wiki is a relatively easy solution. And it was actually me, who added the Ubuntu's codenames to Linux Mint's wiki page. I did that because I was really tired of constantly googling for those codenames of Ubuntu/Mint distros many times a year, and to keep physical papers with the codenames around. Which even further illustrates my point.

There are a bunch of files in /etc/apt/sources.list.d directory. And not understanding or caring about the codename means that the software will not update itself.

An example. While writing this comment I encountered an issue in one of the files related with mkvtoolnix. The content of one of the files was deb https://mkvtoolnix.download/ubuntu/ bionic main and it was a problem. As soon as I updated it to deb https://mkvtoolnix.download/ubuntu/ focal main, I was immediately able to automatically update mkvtoolnix from v.53 to v.70. And that's not even the biggest jump. Imagine if one of the files still had a codename from 2014...

And now imagine a newbie Linux user, a casual user, or even a power user who hasn't encountered this particular package issue before. How easy and obvious do you think it is to understand what Bionic or Focal means, what they represent, and in which cases they should be changed (or not)? It is extremely unintuitive. But if the codename was present in the basic System info window, there is a much higher chance that the user will put 2+2 together.

leigh123linux commented 2 years ago

@mikkovedru Maybe you should file an issue at ubuntu and ask them to add a proper release and dist suffix to their packages. They don't even stick to the same format in the same release,

FTR I think code names are a stupid idea.

image