OnDemand icons

[uggla]

Hi!

I'm new to TC and I really like what I see. I just wonder why on demand applications isn't given a wbar icon? I have all my applications as on demand items and I think it's annoying that they don't show up on wbar until first run.

(With a few hacks I've now fixed this on my install but it needs some work every time I install a new app.)

Regards
/Uggla

[roberts]

Some users have many of OnDemand items. Wbar is very limited in the number icons that can be displayed in a single instance. On 1024x768 about  30 is max.

[jur]

I think I saw that the guys over at puppylinux are working on a gui to control wbar settings. It may be useful for us also. I'll see if I can find something about it.

[roberts]

I am amazed at what I just recently proposed in the development area is something that seems to then also appear in the public forum: Case in point. On Aug 02  I posted:

OnDemand makeover
« on: August 02, 2010, 12:21:45 PM »    
Here is what I am contemplating for 3.1...

1. Move OnDemand directory out of HOME and into TCE base directory, after all it concerns extensions.

2. Merge OnDemand menu items into the dynamic Applications menu.
    a) Thereby having a single applications menu area. Cleaner less complex.
    b) Prevent creating menu items for existing OnDemand menu items in the Applications menu.

3. Add OnDemand directory to the end of the users PATH for easy command line use of "load & run" applications.

I think this could simplify operations while still giving the use much control over quick boot times versus "load & run" OnDemand items:

Thoughts?  Comments?

The team responded favorably to my post. I have begun these changes for 3.1rc1.

User uggla would like OnDemand to be completely and totally transparent by also having OnDemand item in wbar.

curaga would like Appsaudit to gain a tab to audit what extensions are displayed in wbar,

Personally, I was leaning towards OnDemand being excluded from wbar.

So now that this is open to the community, what say you?

[3rail]

I like the fact that once I've loaded an on demand application (abiword for example), I get an icon in the wbar for it in that windows session.  

Am I missing the point?

[roberts]

Yes, as the specific OnDemand menu is going away.

Currently there is an OnDemand menu, which when an application is selected, it is loaded, thereby resulting in an additional menu item, albeit, in the Applications section of the menu, as well as a wbar icon if the extension provides such. Note the icon currently does not appear until the extension is actually loaded. So on the initial desktop OnDemand items appear only on the menu.

The specific OnDemand menu is being combined into the Applications menu. The question is: "Should OnDemand, i.e., not currently loaded, extensions also be shown in wbar?"  Doing so everything will appear as if it were already loaded. Selecting from either the Applications menu or from wbar icon will then load & run selected OnDemand application.

Currently the user controls which extensions are onboot and which are ondemand using appsaudit.
This would remain the same.

Bottom line, OnDemand items would appear indistinguishable from regular OnBoot items from the initial desktop perspective with the added benefit of much faster booting.

EDIT: By way of the Abiword example:
Booting to desktop would show Abiword in both Applications menu and wbar.
Clicking wbar icon would load & run Abiword.

[jur]

This is exactly what I proposed back in Oct '09 with tc2.6 already, and I have run my setup exactly like this with insignificant differences since then.

Looking at how my booting time is steadily increasing from the original lightning-fast fresh install with no extra extensions, I started wondering about booting speed. One of the first things that attracted me to TC was the prospect of a fast boot.

I see this topic has been discussed somewhat, so I started thinking how might the functionality of TCB be retained while not losing the speedy boot?

Well one thought is not to load extensions at boot time, but rather at run time, ie when an app/extension is first called.

In this scenario, the wbar icons would still be loaded at booting time, but nothing more. On clicking an icon for the first time after booting, the extension would be mounted and remain there for the duration of the session.

So instead of a long extended wait at booting time for ALL extensions to be loaded at once, many of which might not even be needed during a particular session, just the links would be loaded. The penalty is a short lag when clicking an app for the first time. A bit like cloud mode but local.

http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=3367.msg17582#msg17582

The details of how this is done this have also been discussed before in another thread.

I use my own wrapper scripts in $HOME/.local/bin, which is already in the path. Another wrapper script loads extensions:

Code: [Select]

#!/bin/sh
[ -z "$1" ] && echo "Usage: loadapp <extension>[.tcz]" && exit 1
TCE_DIR=`cat /opt/.tce_dir`
THIS_APP=$(basename $1 .tcz)
if [ ! -f "$TCE_DIR"/optional/"$THIS_APP".tcz ]; then
(popup "downloading $THIS_APP..." &) && tce-load -w "$THIS_APP" && killall popup
fi
if [ ! -f /usr/local/tce.installed/"$THIS_APP" ]; then
tce-load -i "$TCE_DIR"/optional/"$THIS_APP"
fi
exit 0


When OnDemand made its debut I was amazed to see almost identical scripts.

[roberts]

Amazing! Where pray tell is the OnDemand menu that works with all the various Window Managers. That you claim is: 

When OnDemand made its debut I was amazed to see almost identical scripts.

OnDemand also does not Download/Load, It Loads/Runs another difference from your posted claim.

Most of your suggestions work only from the command line and not integrated into  the system via existing GUIs  That may be fine for your use but not the goal of this project. Obviously you don't use appbrowser.

Finally there are only so many ways to call tce-load. I am glad that you like to run Core as you see fit. Your post contributes nothing to the question at hand, but then I didn't expect that it would. You seem only to want to engage in attacks. Shall I post your other personal attacks?

Finally because you suggest some command line modification does not make it a priority.

For some  this project moves too fast. For others obviously not fast enough.

Sometimes, I don't know why I bother with this at all.

[jerramy]

Whoa hey!  Not to be a kiss @$$, but I just wanted to say that I dig this distro more than any other distribution out there.  I find it's minimal size, and ease of adding extensions a major plus.  It's blazing fast, and relatively straight forward in it's use.

I also really appreciate the free and open atmosphere.  Something given for free, open to suggestions, and free of commercial ads...  It's clearly a labor of love, not greed.  I still sometimes stumble over forgetting to add things to .filetool.lst, and end up having to do something twice, but only once did I get a system that somehow got messed up (surely my own fault).

I've done Debian in the past, and liked the dependancy checking of dselect and synaptic.  Ubuntu is pretty slick, if you've got a fast computer with tons of HD to throw at it.  The idea of L4Linux leaves me wanting for more, but the actual distro is lacking.  Puppy is just too cute, and throws various applications in your face who's names I don't recognise.  GoboLinux has one of the best ideas for a filesystem I've seen, but there's no minimal ISO and uses heavy KDE by default.  DSL was one of my top favorites for a quick boot into a usable system, until it's lead developer disappeared...

TCL still has room to grow, but I'm pretty convinced that it's one of the best OS's out there.

[jur]

Amazing! Where pray tell is the OnDemand menu that works with all the various Window Managers. That you claim is: 

When OnDemand made its debut I was amazed to see almost identical scripts.

OnDemand also does not Download/Load, It Loads/Runs another difference from your posted claim.

Most of your suggestions work only from the command line and not integrated into  the system via existing GUIs  That may be fine for your use but not the goal of this project. Obviously you don't use appbrowser.

Finally there are only so many ways to call tce-load. I am glad that you like to run Core as you see fit. Your post contributes nothing to the question at hand, but then I didn't expect that it would. You seem only to want to engage in attacks. Shall I post your other personal attacks?

Finally because you suggest some command line modification does not make it a priority.

For some  this project moves too fast. For others obviously not fast enough.

Sometimes, I don't know why I bother with this at all.

I'm really sorry roberts, it was not meant as an attack at all...  it was meant as encouragement. Please don't take offence. I have always seen (and stated) your work as brilliant.

[bigpcman]

I am amazed at what I just recently proposed in the development area is something that seems to then also appear in the public forum: Case in point. On Aug 02  I posted:

OnDemand makeover
« on: August 02, 2010, 12:21:45 PM »    
Here is what I am contemplating for 3.1...

1. Move OnDemand directory out of HOME and into TCE base directory, after all it concerns extensions.

2. Merge OnDemand menu items into the dynamic Applications menu.
    a) Thereby having a single applications menu area. Cleaner less complex.
    b) Prevent creating menu items for existing OnDemand menu items in the Applications menu.

3. Add OnDemand directory to the end of the users PATH for easy command line use of "load & run" applications.

I think this could simplify operations while still giving the use much control over quick boot times versus "load & run" OnDemand items:

Thoughts?  Comments?

The team responded favorably to my post. I have begun these changes for 3.1rc1.

User uggla would like OnDemand to be completely and totally transparent by also having OnDemand item in wbar.

curaga would like Appsaudit to gain a tab to audit what extensions are displayed in wbar,

Personally, I was leaning towards OnDemand being excluded from wbar.

So now that this is open to the community, what say you?

Robert thanks for asking the community about this.

I have been creating wbar icons for ondemand extensions for a long time now so I agree with the idea. Most of the time it is simple but not always. Extensions that require "setup" need to activate specific instructions via a script or some other means when activated. For instance I activate samba and vnc using ondemand wbar icons. In my case the wbar icon runs a script that performs checks and setup procedures depending on various things.

From my point of view the system already supports ondemnd wbar icons it just takes a little work to do so and making it more automatic won't eliminate the need for some scripting for extensions that don't normally have a wbar icon.

But that said it would be good to have the ondemand applications that provide wbar icons present in wbar. However, since I generally load up the optional directory with quite a few of my favorite extensions it would be nice to be able to select which ones show up in wbar.

[roberts]

The need for icon control, both number of, and selection, will be part of the offering.