Why is there no OS X Automator clone for Linux? (was: Serious OO/Debian problem...)

[Christopher Browne]

On 7/13/06, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On 7/13/06, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On 7/13/06, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > There hasn't been much innovation in the word processing field
> > > recently, so in almost all cases, any word processor is fine.
> >
> > The same is true for most of these sorts of applications.
> >
> > The *real* innovations that *could* come in are the ones that they
> > used to have back in the days when Amiga apps were programmable using
> > AREXX.  I had thought that GNOME and KDE were *supposed* to be about
> > this; about giving you the capability to write scripts that would
> > interface with and control the applications.  I'm not sure the KDE
> > folk ever quite had that in mind, and GNOME lost that when they ceased
> > to conclude that they absolutely needed scripting at the root and that
> > Guile wasn't paramount...
>
> I think a nice innovation would be including (Flash-based?)
> interactive tutorials with each app, just like modern 3-D games come
> with tutorials.

Any time someone suggests Flash, I wonder what the problem was that
they could possibly have picked that as a solution...  But that seems
an aside...

> But as for your idea...
>
> My brother wishes there was something like Apple Automator for Linux.
> (Automator is a scripting tool that now comes with Mac OS X which is
> extremely easy to learn. It is far easier to use than AppleScript
> because you just chain together a series of pre-made "actions" and set
> a few parameters for each action, often using drop-down lists. Look up
> Automator on Wikipedia for more information.)

Yup, that definitely is an instance of a technology conforming to what
I was suggesting.  AppleScript was a "system-controlling script"
system going back to the days when MacOS was rather more primitive
than it is today...

> We looked DCOP on Freshmeat but all we found was kdcop, which is not
> quite a drag-and-drop scripting tool. :-)

That is indeed the new direction for scripting of KDE; that it is
still primitive is not a problem, as long as it doesn't die on the
vine.  A primitive interface that can be made better is a good
thing...

> OTOH, is OpenOffice's support for Visual Basic for Applications not a
> start at scriptability?

It is, but I'd argue it is of the wrong sort, as it represents
scripting that only works *inside* OO.

The sort of thing you can do with Automator is to tell it to look up
in your Address Book for people with birthdays, and submit "Happy
Birthday" messages to them.

That isn't a function internal to any particular application; that
involves "hooking into" several applications.

This is, in effect, a "Unix way"; in Gancarz's terms, this is all
about fixing up principle 8, "Avoid captive user interfaces."

The typical word processor, or web browser, or spreadsheet, or address
book, or whatever graphical application, once made "user friendly,"
suffers from the problem that it is a honking big "captive user
interface."

Having "hooks" from the outside that allow getting in to get at useful
stuff gets us out of that captivity.

When OO implements an internal scripting system, that merely means
that you have a bigger exercise room when you get the daily prison
"exercise break."  You're still captive inside OO, even if you have
some hooks that allow you to call/write people that are outside the
jail...
-- 
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
Oddly enough, this is completely standard behaviour for shells. This
is a roundabout way of saying `don't use combined chains of `&&'s and
`||'s unless you think Gödel's theorem is for sissies'.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml