5 ms·

>having an on screen keyboard for the lock screen is either hard or impossible It's dead simple in Gnome. In the settings menu, under Universal Access, just ch

by swebs 8y ago

>having an on screen keyboard for the lock screen is either hard or impossible It's dead simple in Gnome. In the settings menu, under Universal Access, just check the box that says "Screen Keyboard".

tyingq 8y ago
Yes, as mentioned, problems vary with the desktop. In this case it's MATE that can't have an on-screen keyboard on the lock screen...even though you can have one on the login screen. Edit: There is a workaround (switch user button, enable, go back), but there are other desktops with no work around, like Cinnamon.
- yebyen 8y ago
  > Highly customizable, especially the desktop interface The freedom to choose MATE, which doesn't solve this issue for you, is included in that statement. But this "Highly customizable" vs "uniform experience" on the other hand, are mutually exclusive descriptors. Freedom of software choice includes the freedom to take away complexity. In this case, assuming that you have a keyboard and it interfaces in the usual way, without overlapping the screen, and that it works and you can use it, all drastically simplify quite a lot of complexity that the developer would otherwise have to prepare consideration for on your behalf. Don't you prefer that developers of orthogonal software packages each are individually free to spend that time on other concerns? I'm almost certain that you could also be starting from the gnome login screen into the MATE desktop manager, or use MATE with LightDM, or some other login screen that does support on-screen keyboards, if you really need it. And sure, that's extra work for you, and it's sometimes a little bit harder than configuring Windows, but you only have to do a customization once if you're happy with the result.
  - tyingq 8y ago
    That might make sense if the login screen also didn't have an on-screen keyboard. But it does have one. That makes it pretty clear it was an oversight. They do have a fix in MATE now, it's just not yet backported to a current Linux distro.
    - yebyen 8y ago
      I misread the issue is about the Lock screen and not the login screen, my mistake. That's a bummer! But you're saying they've fixed it, woohoo? The phenomenon of the "current Linux distro" is an interesting one, too. I used to be a desktop Linux evangelist (guess I still am too, but now I use a Mac since it's what they handed me at work...) Stuff like this is why I always recommend Debian Unstable for a desktop for developer use. Finding out that the developers already fixed a thing that's bugging you, but you can't have it because the reviews and publication process which puts the fix into your hands won't take place for another 3 months is infuriating. It is transparent though, even if it's infuriating. And you can also choose to use Debian Unstable, which I found in many years never to have been a bad decision.
      - MayeulC 8y ago
        I also tend to recommend rolling distributions. Arch-based ones are often quite nice to use, and frequent updates regularly improve the user experience, while rarely degrading it. Arch is often said to target more advanced users, but beginners shouldn't be afraid of Antergos or Manjaro. I've also heard nice things about OpenSuse Tumbleweed. Debian/sid has its freeze phase, which makes it less of a rolling release, and can contain quite unstable software at times. I see a lot of potential in declarative distributions (NixOS, GuixSD, and others), but in the end, you just have to pick your tradeoffs ahead-of-time: stability, ease-of-use, documentation, userbase, features, recent packages. I can also see some value to the more "Win32" model where you update apps manually, hence have a different release channel per-app. Declarative distributions can definitely target that, but that's also a possible use-case for Flatpak. And in any case, it's a lot more involved. I wouldn't dread about telling a user to manually update every piece of software manually, if Windows didn't already push them into that mindset.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        There's a happy middle ground between the two I think. You can have a standardized self-contained and portable format (like AppImage or even regular AppDirs) and a standardized channel for updates without all the extra middlemen of repos or the bloat of app-specific update checks. AppImage actually specifies such a mechanism.

by swebs 8y ago

>having an on screen keyboard for the lock screen is either hard or impossible It's dead simple in Gnome. In the settings menu, under Universal Access, just check the box that says "Screen Keyboard".

tyingq 8y ago

Yes, as mentioned, problems vary with the desktop. In this case it's MATE that can't have an on-screen keyboard on the lock screen...even though you can have one on the login screen. Edit: There is a workaround (switch user button, enable, go back), but there are other desktops with no work around, like Cinnamon.

yebyen 8y ago
> Highly customizable, especially the desktop interface The freedom to choose MATE, which doesn't solve this issue for you, is included in that statement. But this "Highly customizable" vs "uniform experience" on the other hand, are mutually exclusive descriptors. Freedom of software choice includes the freedom to take away complexity. In this case, assuming that you have a keyboard and it interfaces in the usual way, without overlapping the screen, and that it works and you can use it, all drastically simplify quite a lot of complexity that the developer would otherwise have to prepare consideration for on your behalf. Don't you prefer that developers of orthogonal software packages each are individually free to spend that time on other concerns? I'm almost certain that you could also be starting from the gnome login screen into the MATE desktop manager, or use MATE with LightDM, or some other login screen that does support on-screen keyboards, if you really need it. And sure, that's extra work for you, and it's sometimes a little bit harder than configuring Windows, but you only have to do a customization once if you're happy with the result.
- tyingq 8y ago
  That might make sense if the login screen also didn't have an on-screen keyboard. But it does have one. That makes it pretty clear it was an oversight. They do have a fix in MATE now, it's just not yet backported to a current Linux distro.
  - yebyen 8y ago
    I misread the issue is about the Lock screen and not the login screen, my mistake. That's a bummer! But you're saying they've fixed it, woohoo? The phenomenon of the "current Linux distro" is an interesting one, too. I used to be a desktop Linux evangelist (guess I still am too, but now I use a Mac since it's what they handed me at work...) Stuff like this is why I always recommend Debian Unstable for a desktop for developer use. Finding out that the developers already fixed a thing that's bugging you, but you can't have it because the reviews and publication process which puts the fix into your hands won't take place for another 3 months is infuriating. It is transparent though, even if it's infuriating. And you can also choose to use Debian Unstable, which I found in many years never to have been a bad decision.
    - MayeulC 8y ago
      I also tend to recommend rolling distributions. Arch-based ones are often quite nice to use, and frequent updates regularly improve the user experience, while rarely degrading it. Arch is often said to target more advanced users, but beginners shouldn't be afraid of Antergos or Manjaro. I've also heard nice things about OpenSuse Tumbleweed. Debian/sid has its freeze phase, which makes it less of a rolling release, and can contain quite unstable software at times. I see a lot of potential in declarative distributions (NixOS, GuixSD, and others), but in the end, you just have to pick your tradeoffs ahead-of-time: stability, ease-of-use, documentation, userbase, features, recent packages. I can also see some value to the more "Win32" model where you update apps manually, hence have a different release channel per-app. Declarative distributions can definitely target that, but that's also a possible use-case for Flatpak. And in any case, it's a lot more involved. I wouldn't dread about telling a user to manually update every piece of software manually, if Windows didn't already push them into that mindset.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        There's a happy middle ground between the two I think. You can have a standardized self-contained and portable format (like AppImage or even regular AppDirs) and a standardized channel for updates without all the extra middlemen of repos or the bloat of app-specific update checks. AppImage actually specifies such a mechanism.