[Bug 1085169] Re: LibreOffice Menus Stop Working even with libreoffice=1:3.6.2~rc2-0ubuntu4 and indicator-appmenu=12.10.3-0ubuntu2.1
Same here, happens when more than one office document is opened. I also have a 2 monitors (laptop internal, DVI external) with TwinView setup. (so quite similar to Ed Hill's setup). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1085169 Title: LibreOffice Menus Stop Working even with libreoffice=1:3.6.2~rc2-0ubuntu4 and indicator- appmenu=12.10.3-0ubuntu2.1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/indicator-appmenu/+bug/1085169/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1064962] Re: [SRU] Global menubar items do not work when opening a document directly from nautilus with no LibreOffice instance running
@Björn Michaels Sorry, to say it this way, but in my eyes this bug is not fixed at all because what led all these people here to vote affects me is definitively not off the table. So it is rather a way of closing the eyes and ignoring what is happening instead of just acting to close this bug (which really caused some uproar if you look a bit around in on or the other forum in the internet). @all I simply recommend to all of you to vote affects me on the launchpad bug 1085169 It is somewhat vague but actually depicts the problem many users are facing very well: the menu in libreoffice stops working after some time. Full stop. So I suppose we all will get what we want then: the users being confronted with this bug will still get some attention and the developers having their new bug (unnecessarily) opened. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1064962 Title: [SRU] Global menubar items do not work when opening a document directly from nautilus with no LibreOffice instance running To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bamf/+bug/1064962/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1064962] Re: [SRU] Global menubar items do not work when opening a document directly from nautilus with no LibreOffice instance running
@Scott Severance Saying that the initial bug report has been fixed is ok for me. But: there are still issues with the menu (and I mean really big issues). Today I had to close and open LibreOffice nine times to get the menu back to work (and this really was only today). So please do me a favour and explain why it is not possible for the developers to say this bug report is fixed, but the issues that have been discussed in this report are still happening. Why is it then not possible that the developers themselves create a new bug report to show us that the developers are still working on the problems. I really would like to hear when these issues will be fixed or at least if/that somebody is working on them or if/that somebody took even notice of the other things discussed in this bug report. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1064962 Title: [SRU] Global menubar items do not work when opening a document directly from nautilus with no LibreOffice instance running To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bamf/+bug/1064962/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
Providing the IP address works for me, too. But this is only a workaround. What about those who want to add a printer without researching the IP addess (for instance on a large scale network.) Furthermore, if someone configures the printers of a network to search for an address via DHCP this will as well lead to some problems, as the IP address might change over the course of time. (And I do not want to change my printer settings every now and then.) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
The device with the network address 192.168.1.11 is one of two network printers (a Brother MFC 9840 CDW). I am adding the output of the avahi-browser commands here as txt file. ** Attachment added: Output of avahi-browse -a -v -c- r via LAN https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/987212/+attachment/3208922/+files/avahi-browse-a-v-c-r-output-LAN.txt -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
Sorry, could not find out, how to add more than one text file, so here the second textfile. ** Attachment added: avahi-browse-a-v-c-r-output-wlan.txt https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/987212/+attachment/3208924/+files/avahi-browse-a-v-c-r-output-wlan.txt -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
Third file?field.comment=Third file ** Attachment added: avahi-browse-a-v-t-r-output-LAN.txt https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/987212/+attachment/3208925/+files/avahi-browse-a-v-t-r-output-LAN.txt -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
And the last one. ** Attachment added: avahi-browse-a-v-t-r-output-wlan.txt https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/987212/+attachment/3208926/+files/avahi-browse-a-v-t-r-output-wlan.txt -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
Ok, I did some checks and research myself: 1) as it seems dnssd does not work over WLAN 2) seemingly it is a problem with my router (at least I see no other cause for the problem). So what now? The problems with dnssd over WLAN appeared only AFTER the upgrade from Ubuntu 11.10 to 12.04LTS. So the WLAN router cannot be the only cause of these problems, I have here. Before the upgrade I could print via WLAN. The router is a Speedport W303V Type A -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/system-config-printer/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848065] Re: system-config-printer: Windows/Samba printer authentication too complicated
@steve taylor have a look at bug 987212 it could be that you are affected by the same issue. Something in cup's dnssd module is seemingly broken (at least if you try to discover printers over WLAN). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848065 Title: system-config-printer: Windows/Samba printer authentication too complicated To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/system-config-printer/+bug/848065/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
Ok, I tried what you told me at home (got the same problem here in my home LAN) 1) Yes, I can access the configuration interface of the printer via WLAN 2) Yes, I can ping the printer (over WLAN and LAN) --- At first all the commands, tested while connected to network via WLAN 3a) Running lpinfo -v (while on WLAN) results in: network lpd network ipp network ipps network https network http network socket network beh direct hp network smb direct hpfax network lpd://BRNF3DB2C/BINARY_P1 3b) running sudo /usr/lib/cups/backend/dnssd (while on WLAN) results in: - no response (I had to ctrl + C to stop the command) 3c) running /usr/lib/cups/backend/snmp (while on WLAN) results in: network lpd://BRNF3DB2C/BINARY_P1 Brother MFC-9840CDW Brother MFC-9840CDW MFG:Brother;CMD:PJL,PCL,PCLXL;MDL:MFC-9840CDW;CLS:PRINTER; 3d) running route (while on WLAN) results in: Kernel-IP-Routentabelle ZielRouter Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface default speedport.ip0.0.0.0 UG0 00 wlan0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 00 wlan0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 2 00 wlan0 3e) running nmap on the address of the rounter (while on WLAN) results in: Host is up (0.014s latency). Not shown: 994 closed ports PORT STATE SERVICE 21/tcp open ftp 23/tcp open telnet 80/tcp open http 515/tcp open printer 631/tcp open ipp 9100/tcp open jetdirect -- Now the same while connected to the LAN via cable --- 4a) running lpinfo -v (while on LAN) results in: network lpd network beh network https network ipps network socket network ipp network http network smb network dnssd://Brother%20MFC-9840CDW._ipp._tcp.local/ network dnssd://HP%20Color%20LaserJet%20CM2320nf%20MFP%20(8869EE)._pdl-datastream._tcp.local/ network dnssd://Brother%20MFC-9840CDW._pdl-datastream._tcp.local/ network dnssd://HP%20Color%20LaserJet%20CM2320nf%20MFP%20(8869EE)._printer._tcp.local/ network dnssd://Brother%20MFC-9840CDW._printer._tcp.local/ direct hp direct hpfax network socket://192.168.1.11 4b) running sudo /usr/lib/cups/backend/dnssd (while in LAN) results in: DEBUG: Found Brother MFC-9840CDW._ipp._tcplocal... DEBUG: Found HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP (8869EE)._pdl-datastream._tcplocal... DEBUG: Found Brother MFC-9840CDW._pdl-datastream._tcplocal... DEBUG: Found HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP (8869EE)._printer._tcplocal... DEBUG: Found Brother MFC-9840CDW._printer._tcplocal... network dnssd://Brother%20MFC-9840CDW._ipp._tcp.local/ Brother MFC-9840CDW Brother MFC-9840CDW MFG:Brother;MDL:MFC-9840CDW; network dnssd://HP%20Color%20LaserJet%20CM2320nf%20MFP%20(8869EE)._pdl-datastream._tcp.local/ HP HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP (8869EE) MFG:HP;MDL:Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP network dnssd://Brother%20MFC-9840CDW._pdl-datastream._tcp.local/ Brother MFC-9840CDW Brother MFC-9840CDW MFG:Brother;MDL:MFC-9840CDW; network dnssd://HP%20Color%20LaserJet%20CM2320nf%20MFP%20(8869EE)._printer._tcp.local/ HP HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP (8869EE) MFG:HP;MDL:Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP network dnssd://Brother%20MFC-9840CDW._printer._tcp.local/ Brother MFC-9840CDW Brother MFC-9840CDW MFG:Brother;MDL:MFC-9840CDW; 4c) running /usr/lib/cups/backend/snmp (while in LAN) results in: network socket://192.168.1.11 HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP MFG:Hewlett-Packard;CMD:PJL,PML,PCLXL,POSTSCRIPT,PCL;MDL:HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP;CLS:PRINTER;DES:Hewlett-Packard Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP;MEM:MEM=111MB;COMMENT:RES=600x8; HP Color LaserJet CM2320nf MFP 4d) running route (while in LAN) results in: default speedport.ip0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 00 wlan0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 1 00 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 2 00 wlan0 4e) running nmap (while in LAN) results in: Host is up (0.0068s latency). Not shown: 994 closed ports PORT STATE SERVICE 21/tcp open ftp 23/tcp open telnet 80/tcp open http 515/tcp open printer 631/tcp open ipp 9100/tcp open jetdirect If you need more info or more test results please tell me. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/system-config-printer/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
@Till Kamppeter btw: a few minues ago I found your PPA, in which you put some changed/updated cups packages. I added it and installed you (cups) packages. But, I am afraid they do not help here either. So this seems to be a problem which is different from the one you already fixed. Greetings Sebastian -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/system-config-printer/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
Same here, updated three laptops to Ubuntu 120.4 LTS. Printing works fine as long as I am connected to the network via (LAN) cable. The moment it pull the cable and switch to WLAN I get the message unable to locate printer. (All other functions work when connected via WLAN: so I have mail in Thunderbird , can browse the internet with Firefox and sync my stuff with UbuntuOne. It is just the printing which does not work over WLAN.) Additionally, I cannot find/locate/add any new printer when connected to the WLAN. But I see both network printers (in my home-network) when connected via LAN. Seems that CUPS and/or Avahi have a big problem with WiFi at the moment. (I can see and find printers when using connecting my Mac over WiFi, so the problem does not originate from the printers ). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/system-config-printer/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 987212] Re: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer.
Just to add something: 1) I certainly use Ubuntu 12.04 and not 120.4 ;) 2) the problems occur on three different laptops, of different age and totally different hardware configuration. I therefore expect that this problem might bother quite a lot of people and without wanting to hurry anybody: I think this is a really, really huge problem (especially if the problem hits a larger group of people). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/987212 Title: Wireless printer Processing - Unable to locate printer. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/system-config-printer/+bug/987212/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 973270] Re: Printer does not provide REQUIRED job history.
Hi, I got the same problem and made some tests on several machines. I made the discovery that the problem occurs always, when you try to print via W-LAN (Wifi). The moment I plug a cable into the PCs I have no printing problems at all. Can anybody confirm that the he/she can make the same observation? Or is this just specific to my network? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/973270 Title: Printer does not provide REQUIRED job history. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups/+bug/973270/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 973270] Re: Printer does not provide REQUIRED job history.
@James Tunnicliffe Damn! Then I have a different problem... ok I'll file a bug report for this one then. But thx for the fast reply. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/973270 Title: Printer does not provide REQUIRED job history. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups/+bug/973270/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 991250] Re: [MASTER] Slow Ubuntu One synchronization after 12.04 release
Can we get an estimate when this will be fixed? It is not only an annoying problem, it is worse than that, for I am syncing my Ubuntu One files now since yesterday and still only have 25% of them downloaded. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/991250 Title: [MASTER] Slow Ubuntu One synchronization after 12.04 release To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntuone-client/+bug/991250/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 991250] Re: [MASTER] Slow Ubuntu One synchronization after 12.04 release
By the way: just referring to bandwidth reduction as the root of the problem sounds not entirely correct. I have be monitoring the syncing process for about forty minutes now, using the u1sdtool --current-transfers command. It seems that the syncing process is not only painfully and achingly slow but very often is also cancelled and reset. I cannot even sync my mp3, not to mention any larger file, because every time the bytes read entry (output of the command mentioned above) reaches the size of 2MB it is reset to 0 and starts again. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/991250 Title: [MASTER] Slow Ubuntu One synchronization after 12.04 release To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntuone-client/+bug/991250/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 635023] Re: firefox plugin-container using 99% CPU - overheating and lock-up
I would assume that everybody has this bug or is having this problem. I asked of couple of friends who use Ubuntu and tried to figure out why some of them have the CPU overload problem and some other have no problem at all. It turned out that those who do not suffer from the problem have the Flashblock add-on installed. I installed the plugin myself et voilà no problem anymore: no cpu load of (up to) 380% (!!!) and no overheating anymore. I used the sharehoster site share-online.biz as a testing ground. The moment I deactivated the Flashblock add-on, restarted the browser and visited the site to download anything, the CPU was rising higher and higher within a few seconds. With the add-on activated there were no problems at all. I, therefore, assume that you only have to stumble upon a site with the wrong flash adverts to let the plugin-container display that CPU- eating behaviour. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/635023 Title: firefox plugin-container using 99% CPU - overheating and lock-up To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/635023/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@Danillo (and @all who want a summary of the whole discussion) Concerning sheer, childish stubborness 1) comment 2# told us already the bug won't fix - there was no explanation besides saying it is a design decision 2) comment #13 stated they will explore an RTL decision (after it was pointed out that the launcher, in the current implementation) could create inconvenience for RTL users --- nothing has been done about that up to now. It was stated that they are working on it but (to be nasty) they were working on windicators as well --- even if they come up with an RTL solution in the near future, you can say that this whole issue could haven been avoided if the launcher had been created with (at least) an OPTION to make it movable (this is called BAD design) --- thus, WE pointed out the design issues very early, but they never did do anything about it --- now, look at the MultiMonitor solution (which is no solution at all, just utter crap) 3) in comment #17 the statement was simply spoken go away and fork or use Docky/Awn if you want to change anything, because we do not want the design to be changeable. --- were was the sentence it is open source and you can provide a PATCH to solve the issue --- instead it was directly stated that they do not want any patches. If you want changes, then FORK it. --- Where is the inclusion of the community in this statement? I only see exclusion! 4) comment #47 is the first of many more written by different users, where it is said that the number of votes (at that time around 40 votes if I remember correctly) are only representative for the number of people without any access to launchpad. It was stated that there are many more people, known by the posters of the comments here, who also have a problem with a non-movable launcher. --- This was more or less ignored. 5) Comment #51 referred explicitly to the MultiMonitor issue. --- there was a chance to rethink the design until the precise release. --- the comment was about one year before the Precise Release 6) comment #61 is Tal's first involvement with this bug and the confirmation of the MultiMonitor issue (under which I suffer as well, btw.). Furthermore a very understandable question of the validity of the stubborn won't fix position --- one could state that the developer and designer side displayed some sheer, childish stubborness before the community side brought this up 7) comment #62 is a comment written by me. I just wanted to point out that one should not mix up Smartphone and TV OS design with that of a PC desktop. Where is the problem of having the options integrated in the code? A TV/Smartphone manufacturer will certainly not ship an OS which offers all the available option of the used OS to drive his devices, but a desktop user, on the other hand, might just want a little bit more comfort 8) what follows are: --- many discussions about the validity of the usability studies conducted on the design --- the community feeling disregarded because seemingly legacy behaviour and users of older Ubuntu version were not included in the design concept (despite the fact that these old USERS and COMMUNITY members made Ubuntu popular) --- the question why the launcher cannot be moved even though the BFB is a part of the launcher, now --- the comment that there is no manpower to change it at the moment a comment (by an Ubuntu developer that the launcher might be made movable after Precise) a fast comment by Mark Shuttleworth stating that this is not true and that the launcher will NEVER be movable again no explanation what the NEW reason for this decision was no new reason was given, despite the fact that nobody wanted the launcher to be movable for precise, we just wanted the idea to be implemented some time in the future --- again no discussion about the idea to offer the community to create a patch and integrate it into Unity --- a patch by a user who is currently working on a movable launcher --- again there is not comment on this by the official side --- after uproar that there is no comment, we get the answer that the design decision is won't fix and the developers lack manpower they have manpower to create a launcher which appears on every screen in a multi-monitor environment they had the manpower to create their own (Unity) desktop shell they did not think about manpower when talking about the original design of the launcher X) BTW: there was a comment of Mark elsewhere (blog, interview?) about two bugs which are really a pain in his ass because of the stubbornness of a small group who fight for it. I suppose he meant this bug and the minimize/maximize issue discussed elsewhere --- thanks, I am feeling very famous at the moment --- I better do not write what I really think about such a comment, be it written on a personal blog, or given in a public interview Z) I saw the new Ubuntu TV design: good work.
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@Tal Liron It's just sheer, childish stubborness at this point. All of the reasons provided for the won't fix on this bug (and let's remember: those kept changing) turned out to be excuses. They decided not to make the Launcher movable, and they're going to stick to that decision whatever the cost, because they're too proud. I fully agree with you. As I said before (and thus I repeat myself now, too): it would be nice to hear at least an official statement that the people who made the design decisions made some very bad decisions concerning the launcher and that the will consider solving the issue by thinking about a movable launcher after Precise. But saying we lack manpower is not an excuse at all if the development team rejects the idea of a movable launcher entirely. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 882274] Re: Community engagement is broken
@Danillo (and @all) What I liked very much about your comment are two things: Firstly: If there still is activity in a bug and there's even people forking Unity to fix it, then the bug's not just someone's pet peeve, it's a real problem for a lot of users. Otherwise, the affects me too is just pointless. You really get to the heart of one of the problems. The affects me too system is absolutely without any meaning if the usual answer to 80, 200 or 250 affect me voters can simply be there are millions of Ubuntu users so those few 'affects me too voters' do not count. If there are millions of Ubuntu users so be it, but if the affects me too votes have to climb a ladder of let's say 500,000 rungs (i.e. votes) to be considered worth discussion this is a really meaningless system. Perhaps one should create a bug report the affects me too system is broken. But then again we would need some hundred-thousand affects me too voters. Secondly: Now, I've always felt that Unity has always been several steps ahead of Gnome Shell both in usability as in customizability, but GS extensions make Unity fall behind. It's very important that a similar system for Unity like suggested be discussed instead of being so quickly dismissed. Firefox does have headaches with add-on support, but that payed off, making it a huge factor for it's dissemination. I can't live without some Firefox add-ons, and neither can Ubuntu: if we didn't have Ubufox and Firefox Unity Integration, Firefox in Ubuntu wouldn't just lack overlay scrollbars, it would look like a complete alien. If Unity extensions had an extensive disclaimer about their lack of warranty and how that they break Unity's design and may possibly break other things in the system, they wouldn't need support from Canonical, would they? They don't even need to have Canonical involvement at all. I now, this is a long excerpt of your comment, but I think it is worth reading again (by everybody). And I mean it: really everybody should read this because this is a very important and good statement. This is the reason why Unity should be extensible. And btw.: when I referred to the new extension system of Gnome Shell and asked why we cannot have something like this for Unity, a simple answer by the developers would be not now, but perhaps later. We lack manpower but see the necessity of such a system. But there was nothing like that. Now, we have a very good explanation by Danillo, why we need extensions. And I am thrilled to hear some answers about that. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882274 Title: Community engagement is broken To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/882274/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@Tal Liron he remaining option is that I break the walls in my office and staple my desk to the ceiling so that I can make sure that the leftmost monitor is my primary monitor, because that's the only configuration Unity supports. :/ Funny as your comment is, I am afraid that it is not true anymore. In Precise there seemingly won't be any primary monitor. The launcher will appear on every screen. Not that I like this solution more than the old one (and I commented on this crap solution before), but one might say that this solves at least the primary monitor issue. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
If you want to prove your point, the best way to do this is to do usability tests, and not with the Gnome-2 power users, but with the simple people that Ubuntu is aiming for. Get two Ubuntu computers, one with the default left-launcher and another with the bottom-launcher from Unity plugin rotated, and, with a similar approach to the design team, invite users to use them and share their impressions. I did so twice. I posted what I found here. I tested the usability with basically more people that Canonical did in their usability test with a huge and vast number of 20 test subjects. I did not even get an answer to those posts. Oh and by the way have a look at this blog posting: http://marcoceppi.com/2011/12/ask-ubuntu-32k-mile-marker/ Quite interesting that seemingly the most asked question about Unity is simply and straightforward: How can I configure Unity? Interesting, isn't it? As I said before. I could be content with a launcher which is not movable if some people here told me that they can CURRENTLY not implement many options to configure Unity but will do so in the near future (after 12.04). Instead you get the answer we will not offer such options. This whole bug report is about your freedom to decide how to configure your desktop or at least to offer developers an API to modify Unity. Instead you can write scopes and lenses The previous reason for the lack of movement of the launcher was the BFB, but now that reason is gone, there is a lack of humanpower. May I say we told you so ? The BFB was the reason to make the launcher not movable and now the reason is gone but the problem stays. The problem here is that some people, me for instance, feel mucked around for being given a reason which in its core was not really true. The human-power aspect is to me absolutely invalid because it points out that there are design errors (as some here have pointed out). And many people spoke about the design problems in Unity way before the discussion about this bug here exploded and way before they decided to put the BFB in the launcher. As to left-handed people, this is an important usability issue, and there already exists a (accidental) work in progress for fixing that: bug #654988 is about mirroring the interface. The fix for Unity 2D was released, and a fix for Unity 3D will be released when it is possible So only people using RTL languages can be left handed? an effort to help Pavel Golikov to test and to iron out the plugin would make its possibility of a future acceptance into the Unity main code smoother. Focus should be turned to this. Some said they would like to help Pavel but only if somebody among the development crew said that the improved code (patch) had a chance to be accepted. Currently all they say it is a design decision, we will never accept anything which is not in the scope of our design plans. Among those people is Mark Shuttleworth who said the launcher will NEVER be movable. To me a really prescient notion. There was already a patch for the minimize/maximize issue with the launcher (bug 733349). The patch was rejected because there were no design plans for a launcher with a configurable behaviour of the icons clicked. If you want to prove your point, the best way to do this is to do usability tests, and not with the Gnome-2 power users, but with the simple people that Ubuntu is aiming for So the old Gnome-2 power users do not count? Shall we throw them over board? Are they not of importance anymore? Have they done their job of bringing Ubuntu forward and advertising it among other users? Until then, there's a Compiz plugin that anyone can install, and it should really get more technical support from the community Heard of quid pro quo? They want more community (power) users to help. So give them something to identify with Unity. We want some more options and possibilities to configure it. There is more than a porn, a youtube, a calendar scope/lens system and all those other strange new scopes and lenses. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@Tal Liron I already mentioned that strange new Multi Monitor concept before. But up to now, there has not been any comment/answer to that. @Fernando As I said before I was happy that all of the last comments were not about leaving Unity behind but instead focused on bringing forward valid arguments of why to make the launcher movable. So please do not start the Unity bashing again. Next people will again start to discuss which desktop environment is the better one. That is not what we need. Running away from a really big problem, by switching from Unity to XFCE will not change anything and will not bring up a solution for the problem. Most of those people who posted their comments here and discussed the issues (Pros and Cons) of a movable launcher want Unity because it is a good idea and, therefore, I suppose most of them like Unity. If you do not like Unity then this is your choice and it is ok for me as long as you do not start using this bug report as a platform to advertise a different desktop environment (be it xfce, ldx, gnome shell or whatever). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@Maarten Kossen Swiping into any direction would be a nice and handy metaphor for turning the pages of a book. But instead of this the swiping will reveal the launcher which people might not even know exists because it is auto-hidden on a touch screen? Well, nicely done. For me this sound not very logical or intuitive. Especially since many people use tablets as some form of high powered e-reader, e-book, webbrowser and not much more (besides reading e-mails). @all The fact that so many people have problems with only one feature and debate it for over one year now, would make me think about the decisions. I think that all of us really like Ubuntu, the idea behind Ubuntu and even Unity. If we didn't care for Unity, we would not start debating a single feature but instead we would criticize the whole Unity Shell (which is exactly what we are not doing at the moment, which is very good.) The point is, one can see the arguments against a moveable launcher. But many of them are not really valid anymore. And I am sorry, I cannot see any really conclusive and convincing argument against a movable launcher in the far future. @John Lea (and I am afraid I have to get a little bit academic now) You didn't get my car metaphor right. I was not talking about blocking future developments and innovation. Innovation is a good thing. I was talking about something that in psychological theories is called the horizon of expectation. If you see a product you expect things. If these expectations are not met they break that horizon of expectations and usually are met with criticism and debate. My analogy was about the doors in a car. Not the number of doors, but the doors itself. If you have a car with two, four or eight doors. You will expect all of them to work as doors and not as windows. You create your own horizon of expectation derived by your life experiences, they define your habits and pattern of thinking. The criticism that emerges when breaking this horizon will inevitably create debate, which in itself is not bad. Breaking the horizon of expectation very often resulted in new innovations. But breaking the horizon several times, on multiple points will automatically result in defamiliarization (or alienation) of those who see their horizon of expectations broken too often by the same event/thing. Basically the premise under which you developed Unity was good, and well thought. The design is creating familiarities on different points by creating elements you can relate to because they are known, working features in smart phones, desktops of operating systems, netbook interfaces etc... The problem arises when those points which apparently create familiarities are broken when the recipient (user) experiences moments when those familiar paradigms, which create stability, are not working as expected. The people here want exactly one feature added. And indeed you can postulate that every single concession made here will result in debates on other places about different topics and different bugs. And thus you might complain that too many user features will result in an unmaintainable Unit. The difference is that there are very very few bugs on launchpad which are debated to extensively, so vigorously and so passionately. This should make you think about it. I once told here before. I think the idea of Mark Shuttleworth of a dictator, as somebody whose power lies in dictandi ingenio, in the power to command if requested and if necessary, is basically a good thing. Too much debate about everything will destroy a product and make it a formless mass which is unmaintainable code. But a Roman dictator had only a short period of this time of absolute power to command and make decisions. He was never held responsible for those thing he commanded during that period of reign. But after a few month this reign was over and there was again a debate culture in the Roman Senate and the Assemblies. What I want to say: if so many people, at least a significant and audible number of people, want something, then wouldn't it be right to raise against the topic. Bring it before the assemblies and the senate (so discuss in in some internet fora/forums, on mailing lists of the Dx or design or desktop teams). Make the members of those lists read this whole discussion that is raging for over one year now. And then decide again what is right and what is wrong. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@Maarten KossenThere is at least one major argument There is at least one major argument for not moving it: cross-device functionality. It should be able to works well on a tablet or smartphone exactly as on the desktop Good. Then make it configurable only on the desktop and not on TVs, smart phones, etc... . I never even tried to configure my TV and would never blame anybody if my TV were not configurable. And I would never blame anybody who coded a smart phone OS which would only allow basic or superficial configurations. I am used to a smart phone to not being very flexible if it comes to configurations. But I can complain about a desktop pc or a laptop which does not offer the flexibility the normal user is used to. Do not get me wrong. I really, really like Unity. It has some great futures and even if there are many bugs I see a great future for Unity. But the way a couple of bug/feature requests are handled currently really pi**es me off. As I said John Lea's answers are the only rational answers so far. And the only ones which are somewhat satisfying. But the main problem is that he talks about future visions and where the development will take us in a couple of years. As I said before Mark Shuttleworth said more or less directly that some features will never be implemented. And this is crap. I can understand that one says:we do not have the manpower. I can understand the answer not now, there is not time for this. or the answer at the moments there will emerge too many bugs. But there are people here who would help to code patches to make the initial steps possible (and yes, I know, there would be need for somebody who maintains these patches, which would be the next problem). And telling them:we do not want you and your help and we do not want your patches because Unity will never ever include that feature, that is a behaviour I cannot stand. Ubuntu became what it is today by and through the community. And telling a part of this community that the ship is now heading down the river into a new direction and that everybody who does want adjustments to the current course has to jump from board and board a different ship, that is not very kind and very grateful to those who have invested much of their private, spare time to help the community to grow. I did never talk about Unity being bad or crap. I like it. I did not talk of changing the course, I only see the need for adjustments, instead of changes. But every time you start to criticize the design decisions you are treated as an enemy to the whole project. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@John Lea I usually accept reasonable arguments given for decisions. And in this case I can accept that once cannot expect the launcher to be movable in the near future. But: Mark Shuttleworth himself stated that the decision is won't fix and will stay won't fix. And I had the feeling that he wanted to make very clear that we should never expect the launcher to be movable. So I am thankful for your answers and glad to hear that you yourself see a possible future of a Unity which includes a movable launcher. And as far I remember it was you, who said himself once that he wants a movable launcher himself. Still, you should not raise too much hope. We have now a solution of a movable launcher and it needs some patches but it is there. Still there is not even the debate of including it in the default repositories. Instead one has AGAIN to add ANOTHER ppa. I hate that huge list of ppas that one has to add to Ubuntu to make some simple modifications. There is this great software center and still I have to add dozens of ppas. Why that. On a different topic: a little bit more of honesty would be nice. (Not by you, but by the design team as a whole and by Mark Shuttleworth). Many of the arguments against a moveable launcher have become invalid during the development of the dash and the launcher itself. The only argument left now is that a moveable launcher would introduce errors. There are more design issues that would be fixed by a movable launcher than there are design advantages that come to mind when thinking of a launcher that is fixed to the left edge of the screen. So, blatantly speaking, the design decisions which made the launcher stick to the left were all simply errors. They were bad decisions. They make NO sense at all. And the fact that making a launcher movable is not possible because of bugs which would appear, the fact that giving it the flexibility that everybody in this world expects from a launcher (which you could also call a dock) produces errors and seemingly was never considered to be configurable at all, is to me a real evidence for an absolutely wrong and bad design (decision). So after people came up with arguments and design decisions against a movable launcher, arguments and design decisions which all have been shown to be invalid, I now really am tempted to say that a little bit of honesty would be nice. Thanks again to you, John Lea, for this honesty. But there were the others, who simply told us crap and brought forward arguments which weren't true at all and who did not even apologize for telling us crap and selling us this crap as the seemingly true reasons for a launcher on the left side. Nobody has said anything about the reason that the launcher should be on the same side like the BFB. A reason which obviously is now rendered irrelevant because the BFB is part of the launcher. Where are the Windicators, which were the reason for the movement of the minimize/maximze/close buttons to the left corner of the windows. For once, I would like to hear an apology or at least an honest explanation of the design decisions which were made. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@Magnes left hand side is quite good default, but everyone is different, there are lefthanded people and poeple who have different preferences than you, your test group or anyone. And you left (no pun intended) them with no choice. Thanks to point this out. Indeed this is the one really important point, which is often ignored by all those design decisions. @John Lea You really do not need to explain. My thanks were honest. You at least appear to be someone who really cares. Instead of just throwing arguments based on design decisions at us, you try at least to explain. But anyway, as Magnes pointed out, the initial design decisions were wrong and bad and (excuse me for that)... they were dumb. My problem is that we, so the community, pointed out those mistakes when Unity was initially released. We were fed mock explanations and all these explanations were obviously untrue. Your explanation, why the launcher cannot be made movable at the moment, is the only truthful explanation I have heard so far. But it is an explanation which only describes problems that came into being by wrong decisions. I can understand your explanation. Really. But the explanation also points out that design error have been made. Design errors that could have been avoided in the beginning if people had listened to the users which were complaining. Instead we were ignored and treated with only thinly veiled contempt. Even now, when there are 209 affects me voters we are ignored.It is said that there are millions of Ubuntu users and we are only 209. Whoever says so is unbearably ignorant. These 209 voters are a representation, a proxy, for those who really are affected by those issues. Do these (design)-decision-makers really think that only 209 voters want the launcher to be movable? And yes, there will be those who would keep it at the left side, even if it were movable. And there are those who want it at the right or at the bottom of the screen. You can indeed not satisfy every single user with the solution of a fixed launcher position which sticks to the left, to the right or to the bottom. Exactly this is the point WHY it should be movable. And now one last comment. Have a look at this https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1aHvJ-iIw- 59bXTYBmIhQqEx0za2h9jpFE_RhZ2VOvJc/edit?authkey=CJO5wPkHhl=en_GB It is one of Canonical's documents (found here http://design.canonical.com/the-toolkit/unity-multi-monitor-interactions/) . It is one of the few (if not the first) which shows at least some design goals. Thank you for that. But now read a quote: Locating the Launcher There is no means to set the location of the Launcher in the Display Preferences panel. Instead, the Launcher is always available on every display. Really? This is Canonical's great solution? Certainly this will work. But this is NO solution. It is a patch, or worse it is simply a form of jury rigging. Instead of acknowledging that there was some mistake in the basic design the solution is a quick fix. And this is a LTS version? Well, certainly this solution will not produce any more errors. But do you think that any big company in the word will think this to be a real solution? A serious and respectable solution? Stop kidding yourself. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
John Lea wrote: the cost is because adding configurability exponentially increases the number of permutations that need to be designed, user tested, implemented, bug fixed, etc.. If I buy a car, I expect that one can open all of its doors. Certainly the manufacturer would have saved money and avoided errors if he simply had designed the car so that only one of the doors could be opened, while the other doors would just be some form of adornment. Still the fact that I bought a car would make me feel cheated if I bought a car with only one functioning door. And indeed, the manufacturer could tell me to buy a different brand of car from a different manufacturer if I want a car with four functioning doors but what would you answer in this case. You would feel cheated because already the sound of the word car forms an imagine in your mind. An image of how a car should work and which basic functions it should have. If you say desktop operating system you also have some ideas in mind, how this should work. If somebody says operating system for mobile phones, computers, cars, TVs, etc... then you would still expect the operating system of the desktop to fulfill some functions which you are already used to by many years of using other operating systems. You cannot break dozens of paradigm which the users are used to. And it is a real impudence to tell all those old Ubuntu users to go away and use another, different operating system or switch dozens of the system defaults. Even Microsoft has legacy functions built into the (default) desktop [which is the only desktop], so that you will always experience a rather smooth evolution of the system during the individual development cycles. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 882274] Re: Community engagement is broken
First of all it would be nice to see here some answer to Tal's comment #112, which includes some very good and valid points. ANd I do not see any sane and logical way to ignore the arguments he gives. But where is the answer to the arguments he wrote? Secondly, concerning kikl's comment (#113): You think that one should be silent and not complain further if it comes to certain bugs. They are marked as won't fix and should not be discussed further. You do not understand the reason for any further discussion taking place? Well, perhaps some people, like you and the won't fix party, should have a look at a couple of launchpad bugs. All of them have in common that they do have problems due to basic design issues . Obviously there was much thought on design in Unity planning, and less thought on more practical aspects. The most important of these bugs is, in my opinion, bug 727171 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/727171). Reading the comments in bug 857668 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/857668) should offer some more interesting insights into the issues triggered by mere design decisions. Further problems are described in bug 777241 and ... well let me stop here listing them all. Some of them duplicates, some of the smaller issues. My problem is indeed not a design decision that led to a won't fix position concerning certain bugs. I can get used to many design decisions. The problem is a) how these decisions are communicated b) on what ideas these decisions are grounded/based On the way of how these decisions are communicated you should only read Tal's comment #112. It was said that the launcher will not be moveable because it should be tied to the BFB. Now the BFB is part of the launcher but still the decision to not make the launcher movable stays . Ergo the explanation that the BFB and the launcher should be on the same side was a lie. And I am very sorry to put it that way, but to me it is and stays a lie unless I will hear some more thoroughly elaborated explanation to the community why the decision to let it be a won't fix bug stays. So, my complaints are not about a single bug. My complaints deal with communication of problems and design decisions. they deal with the way the community is treated. I am not stupid. We are not stupid. Many people have not forgotten, what the initial explanation to not fix a bug was based on. But we are treated as if we had the memory capabilities of a fly. The community engagement is broken. And that is fact. Obviously we are treated as second class citizens, who need not be informed, who need not be able to have a look at design decisions and general agendas/plans. It seems that some people forget that the users who use Ubuntu now for many years are those who helped spread the name of the distribution. Those who helped making it popular and who found bugs. Who filed these bugs. Those who talked about usability issues and pointed them out to the developers. And now, these users do not have the right anymore, to have their arguments heard and discussed on a base of equals? Now is suddenly the time when a design decision is always the ultimate argument, even though nobody wants to explain what the design plans are, actually. Even though nobody wants to discuss these design decisions? We, the users, the community, will never be able to come up with logical and valid arguments to discuss a design decisions and bring forward arguments against it, if and when we do now the general agenda and plans behind that decisions. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882274 Title: Community engagement is broken To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/882274/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 882274] Re: Community engagement is broken
Referring to this answer: If you agree that there should of necessity be some bugs we will not fix, who do you think should decide which of those suggestions or wishlist items should be in, and which should be out? Don't you think the underwriters, designers and developers of the project should have that right? That this will result in the best product? If it's not them, who should it be? Again: if there were the same solution for Unity that is now implemented for Gnome Shell, this discussion would be obsolete. Nobody could be complaining about won't fix bugs, because there would always be the possibility to write your own patch and make it available as an installable extension. But then we would need such a place in the Sofware Centre (instead of dozens of PPAs). Offer those, who complain about the won't fix situation, the possibility to simply upload their patches if they are willing to write them. Make these patches not default, but make it easily possible to install these patches via the Software Centre. But to not offer that possibility, though some people are willing to write those patches (or already have written those patches) and to deny them the possibility to thus participate in the community, though they are willing to do their share, that is what I call hypocritical. No average user would install a PPA and thus no average user has the opportunity to decide if he/she would like some of the patches which modify Unity because he/she cannot try these patches. A section in the Software Centre which is easily reachable would be a solution. Nobody expects Canonical to invest money to pay developers to program solutions which are not on the agenda. Those who pay the developers decide what should be programmed. BUT you cannot and must not deny anyone the possibility to participate. Otherwise this is NOT community and this is NOT anything for human beings. Then it would only be Linux for Canonical beings. And you can really say then canonical beings or Canonical beings. A canon defined by those who pay the developers and designers, a canon defined by Canonical. So, what about the simple question of a section in the software center which reads Unity Extension? Not Unity Indicators, not Unity Scopes and Lenses. There are some who want more than just some fancy new icons and filters for their searches. And some of them already have implemented their own solutions and would perhaps like to offer them. Many people do not want to use dozens of PPAs just to be able to modify some simple things. Nobody expects you to invest money or developer power into those things. But make it possible that the work of those people who invest their time can be appreciated. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882274 Title: Community engagement is broken To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/882274/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
Have a look at: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/gnome-shell-extensions-site-enters- alpha-makes-adding-extra-features-easy/ Having this for Unity would solve all the problems. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 882274] Re: Community engagement is broken
Just have a look. Here one can see how dealing with a community can be done easily. http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/gnome-shell-extensions-site-enters- alpha-makes-adding-extra-features-easy/ Especially that part hits the mark: This is despite the fact that many of the extensions presently available are at odds with the GNOME Shell design philosophy; GNOME are nevertheless throwing weight and resources behind catering to those users who want them. Why isn't this possible for Unity. A Software Center section which offers add-ons to Unity (and not only Scopes and Lenses). And if this is perhaps planned for the future, why isn't it communicated to the Ubuntu community? This would solve many problems. If you had such a section in the Software Center, and if there wasn't any need to activate it or to first add a new PPA, then this whole bug (882274) could be seen in a different light. Offer the community developers a section in the Software Center a section to offer tweaks and plug-ins for Unity. A section, which can be easily reached, without the need for the average user to add a new PPA. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882274 Title: Community engagement is broken To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/882274/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 646724] Re: not all files show up in files-place
What if have been asking myself now for a time is the reason why there is no nautilus data source/nautilus data provider? I suppose I do not get the problem entirely, because otherwise it would have been implemented already. After you installed a fresh system you could simply copy back all files from a backup hard drive and they should show up then when nautilus notifies Zeitgeist about the copying process of the files. The only problem would be that you still have to find a way to inform Zeitgeist about all the files which have already been there after you did a system upgrade instead of a fresh install. What, thus, makes the dig up the past option still necessary. Anyway I see one big problem with the dig up the past action: a normal user will not know that it exists. And therefore a normal user will still think that search in Ubuntu is broken if using the dash to find certain files. A nautilus data provider would also solve a different problem I recently discovered. Whenever you change the name or location of a file which has already been indexed by Zeitgeist, then suddenly the dash won't show it to you anymore. So instead of informing Zeitgeist of the fact that the file has been changed (and this providing Zeitgeist with the new location or the new name of of the file) the file is completely ignored from then on. Try it. Change a name of a file and then search for it in the dash. Even though it had been found before the change, it won't be found after the renaming. I know that there is/was the GtkRecentManager and nautilus GIO plugin. But seemingly it does not work the way that I expected. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/646724 Title: not all files show up in files-place To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/646724/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
Now, I am the one, who does not understand the fuss. I actually thought we went one step further down the right direction. At least in the direction that most of the people here wanted this discussion heading. * we could have an option to reveal the launcher after a top left corner hit (so the movement returns to being the original slam-into-top-left-corner, then move to your app icon) * we could allow the launcher to move to the bottom of the screen. However, this would require a patch which took into account all the related issues, like animations and transitions, and the direction of various arrows. We would not accept a patch which reduced the quality of the existing experience for those who like it. Mark To me this reads like Canonical won't pay anybody to program a moveable launcher, but will accept a well written patch which allows the launcher to be placed at the bottom of the screen. So if all design requirements are met the new option for the launcher will be accepted. At least this is how I understood it. I do not know why anybody would now want to leave the Ubuntu train. Nobody could expect Canonical to invest money into a development when they see other, more pressing, features to be implemented. I was complaining here, because I thought that won't fix means that the also will not accept any patches. But with this new answer I am pretty pleased. I am no programmer, so I am afraid I cannot implement the code for a moveable launcher myself. But still this gives me hope that there is the possibility of a moveable launcher. That is all I wanted. To hear it could be feasible and we will accept a patch, if it is well written. @Maarten Kossen: Don't you think yourself that you sound somewhat exaggerated and hypocritical? Look at the comments of this article: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/11/ubuntu-desktop-designers-clarify-on-configurability/ there are tow main elements that permeat all comments a) more configurability is great (there are not very many comments stating that they want the number of options stay the way it is) b) many people state in the comments that Canonical/Ubuntu should learn to do PR work. And I have to agree with this. If this all was already on the agenda for a long time then why did not anybody say so month ago? Much of the fuss about many of the aspects in Unity would have been avoided. I, personally, am annoyed by the unmovable launcher, but I could have lived with it if I had thought that this would be one of the few things that would not be configurable. But instead it all appeared as if there would never be much space for configuration at all. So seemingly I was wrong and there will be a couple of options to configure the system. But many discussions and much of my frustration could have been avoided by some simple statements to the public (or to the community). You say yourself you would prefer the launcher to be movable. So you cannot be entirely content with the system. I look at my own work and see that there are many things that I can improve. I do not applause myself because I did not make much errors today or yesterday; I simply look for those things I can improve. Real approval or praise is never uttered loudly, it is the lack of complaints. In a music concert you do not applause after every performance you can do so after everything was finished and everything found your approval. If someone needs approval or applause for the things he does, he knows he does it wrong. It is hypocritical to thank somebody for his work, though, in the same comment you state that you would prefer that something would be improved (like having a movable launcher). You thank for something which you do not really like. So please do not brown nose and please do not call anybody here a drama queen. To be critical about something and pointing out errors that is always more productive than just saying oh wonderful, that is great. Finding something great and thanking for everything never brought us forward. Do not look at those who congratulate you for your achievements, look at those who criticize, then ask yourself if the criticism is correct and if there is something which could have been better. That is the reason why we have grades at school which range from A to F. I am content with the most recent development. I certainly will not thank for this development, especially when I look back at the recent 12 month and the whole discussion in and on this launchpad page. To be content is the most honest thing I can do. Especially when looking at the mentioned OMG Ubuntu article. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
Now, to be a little bit more productive, I stumbled upon this several times now during the last three days: http://www.webupd8.org/2011/10/how-to-move-unity-launcher-to-bottom-of.html So, there is currently a rough patch to make the launcher moveable (or rather to move the launcher to the bottom). As already pointed out (several times), I am not a programmer. But perhaps somebody with programming skill can have a look at this patch and help getting it ready for inclusion into Ubuntu? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
If you all do not mind, I want to answer to the request of Mr Shuttleworth to define the term power user and will then elaborate on my perspective on the term Power User. Wikipedia: A power user is a user of a personal computer who has the ability to use advanced features of programs which are beyond the abilities of normal users, but is not necessarily capable of programming and system administration. In enterprise software systems such as Oracle or SAP, this title may go to an individual who is not a programmer, but who is a specialist in a transaction or a business process. The Super User in enterprise programs (SAP, Oracle) often refers to an individual who is an expert in a module or process within the enterprise system. http://www.webopedia.com: A sophisticated user of personal computers. A power user is typically someone who has considerable experience with computers and utilizes the most advanced features of applications. http://www.techterms.com (excerpt) Power users [...] require top-of-the-line machines that are optimized for their work purposes. Power users include video-editing professionals, high-end graphic designers, audio producers, and those who use their computers for scientific research. Professional gamers (yes, there is such a thing) also fall under this category. [...] So now that we have some definitions I suppose we can go on, can't we? All in all, these definitions state that one does not necessarily need to have programming skills or be a system administrator. But one knows how to use special software and how to use the more advanced features of the operating system and of an application. This then would mean that a Power User is anybody who does not use his PC only for checking e-mails, writing text documents and searching/browsing the internet. A power user is somebody who uses advanced and/or special applications, who knows where to find certain options in the operating system, who knows how to modify the actions triggered by a left or right mouseclick, who knew (in Widnows or Gnome 2) how to modify the taskbar so that it does autohide etc A power user is somebody who has a certain workflow and knows what he want and expects from an operating system. Somebody with experience, somebody who has modified his workflow over many years so that he knows now exactly what he wants. (Or what she wants) What Unity does: it breaks with old paradigms of the operating systems known. This is certainly not always bad. But even Windows 8 will have a legacy mode to get back to the old desktop one knows. That is the special issue here. Being a Power User is simply being able to customize the system, so that the OS can be fitted to your expectations, to your daily workflow. Currently Ubuntu is NOT for Power Users. Because Ubuntu/Unity makes the user fit to Unity's workflow, not vice versa. Your favourite, Mr Shuttleworth, was the user who preferred the mouse? Maybe this user was indeed no Power User, especially if he did not know anything about the options of the operating system. Still, being a Power User is not being somebody who uses the Keyboard and preferring the keyboard over the mouse. I consider myself a power user. I use advanced features of LibreOffice Calc, to create formulas, I write scripts in python to analyse text data, I use databases to store the found data and conduct further analysis on this data. I use programs written in python and java (not written by me) to do much of the interaction with the databases. I use specific tools to do analysis on text corpora. (Some of my friends and colleagues use different tools and different methods to work with audio corpora or even videos. They use even more different tools to analyse the data.) Still, most of the time I prefer using the mouse. Clicking on something IS faster than typing things. Especially if I can put the icons (of small scripts) where I want them to be. I use the keyboard only if it is faster. But everytime I have to take a hand away from the mouse to get to the keyboard, to type something, and then I have to go back to the mouse I loose time. I want hot corner actions to be modifyable in the system by default (without installing ccsm). It is fast to switch workspaces with those hot corner actions. I want to show the desktop by clicking in the launcher instead of hitting Alt+Tab. And if I say, for me it is faster to work when I can go to the bottom of the screen to reach the launcher, I want to be able to place the launcher there. I am a Power User. If I want to configure the system and if I need to search the internet (or the Software Center) to find application to do this configurations, I am normally somebody who says so be it so!. BUT if those things I want to modify or configure have existed in many operating systems for many years and I usually can take them for granted, and if, additionally, some of these features are denied to me unless I fork the system
[Bug 882274] Re: Community engagement is broken
@Tal Liron I am sorry, if I was misunderstood by you. To say they are hiding behind their design decision was my way to describe that they do not deal with complaints uttered by the community and that they do not see any need to explain their decisions. With reasonable I meant that most of the complaints, arguments, ideas and propositions given by the users in bug 668415 were very reasonable but any answer by those who make the (design) decisions was only that it is a design decision without any further (real) explanation. I never said that the community is not composed of reasonable people. Exactly that is my point: the community IS composed of reasonable people but I sometimes get the bad feeling that the dev teams do not take the community (us) for reasonable people. They do not take us for serious. Concerning the aspect of us being biased fans I am afraid you are utterly right. I defended many of the ideas and concepts on which unity is based and always told people that it will certainly get better. Because Ubuntu has a good philosophy behind its concept and because all the years they released very good software composed of very good ideas. But due to the lack of transparency and dues to the lack of attention paid to the normal (community) users I became more and more angry and started to question whether there is any sense in defending design decisions which are never really explained to the community. The funny thing is what happened, when I started to simply explain to users, who asked for certain aspects of the system and wanted to know if it is still in development and if it will be changed, that those things won't be changed due to design decisions. Those people looked at me and asked why? They did not think that any of the design decisions was reasonable and took it nearly for granted that this was work which was still in development. But every time I brought that experience forward as an argument just to rethink the design I was rebuffed. Despite the fact that I elaborated on this user testings, on which the design decisions were based, several times, when I said that I have (had) a bigger user base to refer to, when it comes to describe experiences with users. I do not understand why the ubuntu devs do not at least take the experiences I made into account. This does only mean that I want somebody of the devs to listen. A reaction would suffice. A mature reasonable reaction. And if they do not want to change a feature, I only want a thorough explanation why. Just to shortly refer back to my beloved bug 668415 ;) The biggest problem I now have with this bug is that we were recently told that suddenly the dev team is rethinking the positioning of the launcher. As there were problems with multi monitor support etc... Well, my problem: these issues were all discussed by the (community) users who told about those problems in the bug month before the Oneiric release. This is one of the situations when I feel treated like a small child and I suppose many other felt that way, too. We warned about those issues month before and the only answer to these reasonable concerns was: it is a design decision. Without any further explanation. And suddenly they can rethink their design decision. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882274 Title: Community engagement is broken To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/882274/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 882274] Re: Community engagement is broken
While messages (or texts in general) written in English, are sometimes prone to be misunderstood if it comes to understanding the terms and styles of address, due to the illusive nature of the pronoun you I would like to point one simple aspect of your message out to all the reader and perhaps yourself. If you is used by you, Mr Shuttleworth, to address me, as a person, I have to question why, exactly I am the evil doer now, especially if I have done nothing wrong but to speak out what was already written many times before? I only emphasized that it could be rather helpful for any person participating in a community to understand the processes used in decision making. And by referring to this wish to understand the process, I only participated in a discussion started by this bug report (which was not filed by me, so here again, who is meant with you?). So again: on what data was that design decision based? And who actually participated in the process of making the decision? A simple question which can be answered in many forms, but none of the replies and answers yet given to this question, has ever been addressing the question itself. I only hear you utter your own complaints about those complaints that are brought forward by other. If the community is, in your opinion, a factory of bug solvers and bug filers, then please say so. But if the community is, or should be, a community of those who are enthusiastic about Ubuntu, have visions about Ubuntu, want to spread Ubuntu ... then you should take the opinion of these people into account and attach more value to their words. I spent many hours to set up Ubuntu PCs for my friends and for my family. I talked about Ubuntu and promoted Ubuntu at work and wherever else I could. There are many entries, filed by my, in many places on the internet, where I tried to promote Ubuntu. So in your opinion this is worth nothing, because I -- and many other -- are selfish and demand without providing solutions. I am sorry. I studied Latin, Greek, English and French with a focus on historical comparative linguistics. I am a linguist, or more precisely a philologist. So I am not a programmer. Am I to be rendered mute by this fact, because I can only speak my opinion if I contribute to software by programming it? Is this your vision of Ubuntu? A quid pro quo or do ut des relation? Indeed, Ubuntu, the name of an operating system for every human being. I defended Ubuntu and especially Unity. I said it will mature and many of its feature, like the dash, like indicators, are very promising. I hoped that there would be reasoning if 154 users voted for affect me, so that at least somehow the decisions that was made would be reconsidered. So that at least somebody would tell the people we will think about it, but we cannot promise that we will change anything. Instead it was a it stays that way and Basta! decision. This is what this bug is about. And this is what you did not understand a bit. The word is transparency. I do not demand a change in the system, I do demand an explanation why the change will not be done. And do not tell me that making it possible to change the position of the launcher will produce bugs and tons of errors. Some time ago it was said, by one of the lead developers, by one of your lead developers, that it would take two weeks to change this and a little bit of additional time for fine tuning. So what is the answer to this. To 154 people? And supposedly there are more than 154 people, but most of them will perhaps not have a launchpad account. Unity is great in many aspect. And I can ignore the current problems with the multi monitor support, despite the fact that I work with two monitors. For it was communicated very early that these problems will be addressed. And I was content with it. But some decision I do not understand and I deem these decisions pure ignorance. I am sorry to put it that way, but I have an opinion, I have a mouth to speak this opinion, and I have a mind to assess the answers which I hear. Disagree with me. Disagree with 154 people. That can happen. Plato was not a friend of democracy either. The reign of the mindless he called it. Still he intended the good for the people. If this is your idea of making decisions, then this works for me. But be honest about it. Say that you do not want opinions. That you want only exchange. And if my private and puny work at promiting Ubuntu is not enough to take me serious. And if among those 154 people is nobody deemed worth to be paid attention than be it that way. But then you should think about closing launchpad, for then it is not for the public, then it is only for those who contribute and are actively working to develop Ubuntu. What will I then loose next? Will we loose the possibility to switch between Keyboard layout? Because there are not many people who write in English, Greek, French and Hebrew on the same PC? That would strip away another error source. Perhaps
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
After reading the first lines of the article I nearly skipped it and thought it was only written from a much too narrow, geeky perspective. But I am glad I continued reading because all the things the author writes are really, really true. He definitively hits the mark. So thanks for mentioning the article. I can recommend it to everybody else, too. Nevertheless, concerning the way how the whole discussed has developed so far, I suppose we will again hear that the opinions of other people are wrong and that the decisions made in the ayatana team are right and that nothing will change at all. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 882274] Re: Community engagement is broken
@Paul Sladen Would you mind explaining to me where, in any way, Mark Shuttleworth's answer made it clear that there is a we as in Canonical plus Ubuntu community? Tal wrote about the patches that were rejected and about the total lack of transparency and communication. And he did this more well spoken and eloquent than I could ever put it; especially because I am feeling more enraged than you might imagine. At the moment Canonical blocks any patch (like that of Marco Biscaro) which does not fit into their design concept. Where is the community in this? I do not see any we. Make me see the we. I beg you. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882274 Title: Community engagement is broken To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/882274/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 882274] Re: Community engagement is broken
Btw. This was originally posted on bug 668415 I am reposting the link here because I think it is worth the read (despite the first lines of the article being somewhat awkward) http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/why-ubuntu-1110-fills-me-with-rage/19103 It is not about Unity bashing, it is about pointing out some of the very strange design decisions. And to repeat myself again: I like Unity in general. There are only a few, small details that I do not like. And I suppose that many other people see it the same. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882274 Title: Community engagement is broken To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/882274/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 854556] Re: expo mode in unity oneiric does not work properly anymore with twinview
Same problems here. This is definitively a problem as it makes the expo mode nearly unusable when using more than one monitor. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/854556 Title: expo mode in unity oneiric does not work properly anymore with twinview To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/854556/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@Tal Liron I currently imagine myself going to buy a new car and ask if they have got the model in black colour instead of white colour and if they have got different seats and perhaps even a more sophisticated navigation system. I wonder what exactly I would say if they told me that they only have got white colour, one type of seats and one type of navigation system. I wonder how exactly I would react if they told me that they won't sell me any car without navigation system and that I can only buy this model. It would be really nice, even hilarious, if they even told me that I can go to a car mechanic to remove the navigation system but that they definitively will not sell me the car without the system. If you now find this situation awkward, I really hope it makes you ponder the whole situation a little bit more thoroughly. Most people here want more customization. When people go to buy a car nobody expects them to be car mechanics themselves or to visit a car mechanic after they bought a car just that they are able to make some personal customizations to their car. Everybody expects that the product offers some flexibility so that it can be fitted to the needs of the customer. Now, can anybody tell me what exactly is different in the wold of computer technology? Why is the answer always to go and install some add-ons if the demand was for some simple flexibility and customization? The go and fix it yourself mentality does not belong in the 21st century, it did not even belong in the second half of the 20th century. The time that all cars have to be black and have the same set of features is over. So it is with computers. Even my old Grandpa would second this opinion, he prefers his Microsoft Windows bar to autohide and that though the default setting of Windows Vista is that the bad is always visible -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/null/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
Addition: I am sorry, it should read ... that the bar is always visible... -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/null/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
@IKT Let me ask this questions in a very special way: Hello? Is someone there? Did you actually read the discussion on this launchpad page? This, here, is a filed bug which includes a request (or wish). Being part of a open source community means to contribute? Well, then everybody IS contributing here. The moment they state their opinion they are contributing. The opinion should be important When 112 users complain about a behaviour in the system it is very important that they state their opinion because normally developers should react to these complaints. Thus, everybody who states his opinion is important solely for the fact that (usually) his opinion, or his vote, should be an indicator for how critical a bug or requested feature is. The problem is that this is not done here. There is no reaction to this (possibly because the most developers do not receive any notifications about this bug anymore). There are two bugs/feature requests with a huge group of affects me voters. Both are completely ignored. Do not dare to tell anybody on this page to tell them that they should submit a bug report. If the content of the report is not to the liking of the Canonical design team or whichever Canonical team it will not be debated. That is the bitter truth in here. Do not dare to tell me something about a community. I use now Unity simply as a normal user. I will not defend it anymore. I will not explain its behaviour to anyone anymore. And especially: I will not file bug reports. They do not want to hear different opinions coming from the community? Well, then seemingly they do not need the help of the community. They can pay some people now, to search for bugs. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/null/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733349] Re: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
@Roland I am afraid it IS handled the same way in other cases. For instance, bug 668415 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/668415) was treated the same. Users (= 105 Affects me voters) complained about the inability to move the launcher. They said they want the option to move the position of the launcher (just the OPTION, they did not want the default position changed). It was told to us that this won't fix by design decision. A user offered to write a patch. But the patch was never written. (I would have been demotivated , too, if I had been in his place - why should I write a patch which will never be used? Not everybody wants to fork unity just for the sake of two or three changes). The whole way to state that something is implemented by design decision is an interesting way to answer a question. It is is like A asks: why is it done that way and B answers it is the best way to do it that way. After B's simple answer the problem is that A still does not know WHY it is the best way. To say it is a design decision is no argument at all; it is no proof at all; it is no reason at all. Worse is the fact that saying it is a design decision takes one thing away from the user: the possibility to argument against the decision. And btw. to say that Canonical made usability tests etc. with a group of users is NO proof at all. The group of people who were chosen for the tests was too small (15 people) and the number of different types of users was not equally divided among the test subjects. (see http://design.canonical.com/2010/11/usability-testing-of-unity/) Because of these reasons the group of test subjects was not representative for anything. I appreciate the fact that Canonical did sponsor a research of usability on a group of test subjects. But 105 voters in bug 668415 and 97 voters on this bug here should make you rethink any design decision which was based on 15 people. Heck! I do not even know if these design decisions are in anyway connected to the usability tests conducted at the end of 2010. But if they are not based on these tests, then tell me what exactly is the base of reason which made these design decisions come into existence? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349 Title: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733349] Re: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
Did you all know that somebody tried to raise a discsussion on the Ayatana Mailing List? Have a look at the archive https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/maillist.html Look for Hide application windows via launcher From: Ed Lin, 2011-06-21. There are no real, official comments by Canonical employees. Would be wonderful to hear something about that from the Canonical perspective. Instead they are completely ignoring the whole issue. You would normally expect that somebody would be so mature to reconsider something that was said before. If some developer stated at the beginning of the whole discussion that they do not want the launcher behaviour to be changed, then: so be it. But when these developer hear about the uproar this causes they should try to think again about the whole issue. Instead they are behaving like children that are offended because somebody did not like their idea. Most people here do not opt for a complete change of the DEFAULT behaviour of the launcher. They just want the possibility to configure the launcher behaviour. By the way: the term to CONFIGURE seems to be the main issue with the whole changes that Unity brought. Nobody wants to tweak the whole system. But a little bit of freedom and individuality should be possible. Let me quote something from Wikipedia A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349 Title: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 438868] Re: Numerous applications have focus issues after emerging from a screensaver or suspend
Yep, noticed the return of the problems, too. Firefox 5.0 very often loses keyboard focus if I have more than one Firefox window opened (no matter how many tabs I opened within the windows). Interestingly, the problems are now more grave than before. When I lose the keyboard focus, the old tricks do not work anymore. When I change to another virtual desktop/workspace and then change back to the one on which I have opened the window the problem still exists and I still have no focus. Btw.: I noticed a second before that I do not only lose the keyboard focus, but also I cannot click on any flash video (like, for instance, those on youtube). There is no reaction to mouseclicks. There are only two possible workaround to regain keyboard focus (or a correctly working Firefox Window ): 1) Close Firefox completely and then reopen the windows. So I let sessionmanger handle this and I have to hope that all windows, on which I had been working, will open correctly. 2) The second solution is somewhat strange. I can open a new Firefox window, in addition to those which I have already opened. This new window will -- certainly -- get the keyboard focus. But then I can change to the original Firefox window which displayed the focus issues and there the keyboard focus works again as well. It should be said that in all cases I recently encountered I lost the focus in ONE of the Firefox windows not in all of them. So I was able to type into window A (no matter in which tab is was working) but somehow Firefox windows B lost its keyboard focus and later one it won't regain the focus. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/438868 Title: Numerous applications have focus issues after emerging from a screensaver or suspend To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/compiz/+bug/438868/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 779905] Re: when sessionmanager restors a session with more than one winow, only the first window gets a global menu
I get the same problem here. I opened two different windows, each with several opened tabs. I close Firefox, so that sessionmanager saves the opened windows including their opened tabs. When I reopen Firefox, the windows are arestored, the tabs are restored, but only one of the Firefox windows has a working global menubar, the other one has only the normal menu integrated in the window. For me even a reboot does not help. Sessionmanager restores only one window with working globalmenu-extension. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/779905 Title: when sessionmanager restors a session with more than one winow, only the first window gets a global menu To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/globalmenu-extension/+bug/779905/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733349] Re: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon
Hoping that enough people read this, I will write a few more words here: I started a discussion on the Ubuntu Power Users mailing list (Ubuntu- power-us...@lists.ubuntu.com) and I want to invite you all to join the list and participate in the conversation/discussion. I hope there is a chance that at least some people of Canonical will listen to the results of the discussion in the group. Especially I tried -- or am trying-- to convince the users there that we need a tool for a better configuration of the system (especially Dash and Launcher). And we need it to be installed by default in the normal standard installation of Ubuntu. A good start would be, for instance, to have Marco Biscaro's, patch integrated in Ubuntu and make it a configurable option. So the default behaviour would still be according the design decisions but one still can change the behaviour via the configuration tool. Another things would be to trip Ubuntu Tweak down to some basic feature and add to this trimmed down version those configuration options which, for some moronic reason, are currently only accessible via CCSM. I think that especially these Unity options , which are integrated in CCSM, should be part of the Unity/Ubuntu version of the normal Gnome Control Panel. There is not sense to make a user download CCSM just to change some basic behaviour of the system. Additionally the main problem is that CCSM is dangerous: I do not know how often exactly I broke Unity because I changed something in CCSM. So that is not good and we need to do something against it. I hope that at least Jono Bacon will live up to his functions as a community manager and answer to those complaints on the Ubuntu Power Users List. Maybe we can work together so that they will at last listen to our complaints. So again, please join the list and perhaps we will find a way to improve Unity. And perhaps we will manage to Unity those two groups of users which currently are separated by the policies of the Canonical developers. I want an Ubuntu with Unity. And I want this Ubuntu to be a good choice for normal users and for advanced users. It must be possible to get to this point somehow. Perhaps they will listen to us, if we all together join this mailing list and start to come up with ideas via the normal way. I hope that Jono will answer to the complaints on the list within the next day. Otherwise I would be very disappointed by Canonical's efforts to listen to its community and communicate with its community. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349 Title: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
Ok, hoping that some are still reading answers to this bug I will drop a few lines here: Two days ago I started a discussion on the Power User mailinglist (ubuntu-power-us...@lists.ubuntu.com). I hope that together we can come up with some solutions to the problem that Ubuntu Unity lacks anything like configurability. I want Unity to be more configurable and I want Canonical to listen to the users if they come up with such an issue. Concerning, for instance, bug 733349, we got a user who wrote a patch which should -- in my opinion -- be integrated into Ubuntu by default. If it is against their design decision then ok: but one can still keep the default settings of the system to work according to their design decisions and on the other hand one can try to offer options to configure the system easily. This both can be done. On the Power User List I am trying to convince the people that we need a trimmed down version of Ubuntu Tweak (or something like that) which will be integrated into the default installation as a part of the Gnome Control Panel. Thus one can integrate those options to configure Unity, which are currently found in CCSM, into the default installation (and one can thus include them in the Gnome Control Panel). In anyway I cannot understand why these options are only available via CCSM. The tool easily breaks Unity and additionally it makes no sense to offer options, which decide if the launcher dodges windows or stays visible all the time are only accessible by installing additional software. So please join the discussion there. It seems that the larges part of the members of that list are on the side of those who want to make Unity more configurable. But the more voices the better. I want a real discussion and I hope we can thus convince the Unity developers to listen more to the users. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/null/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733349] Re: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon
First of all: thanks to you Marco for fixing this! @John Lea and the Canonical team What I do not understand is the politics behind some of the decisions here: 1) there is a huge number of users who want a change to the current state of things and gladly somebody had the abilities to implement these changes into code 2) The code is seemingly good enough that it can be packaged and made available for download 3) Considering the representative number of voters I would assume that there are a lot of people who would want to use these changes of the behaviour of the launcher's icons. 4) The designers and developers are always talking about making the unity desktop and Ubuntu a good and comfortable experience. 5) What exactly is comfortable in having to download an extra package (i.e. patch) to get some more functionality. If this will be done to every simple wish of the users you will have to call Ubuntu no a system for human beings but instead a system for patchworks. Where is the problem of making this at least a configuration option? Like the option which makes you decide when the launcher disappears and when not? 6) If there are so many users voting for a change it is a blatantly impudent answer to make this a downloadable patch. Make this at least an option in Ubuntu. Some kind of checkbox or drop down menu option. A user invested some of his private time to get this fixed. He tried to help Ubuntu via this contribution. It is like hitting him, and everybody who voted for this bug to be fixed, in the face. Simply packaging the code and making it available for download is something for which Canonical's support is not needed; to make a thing downloadable, that is something which a user can make himself. People here voted for this bug because they saw the need for this to be implemented as this is an expected behaviour of the launcher which is not met. To click on an icon an nothing happen that is behaviour which is really unexpected. It makes the system appear as if there were something to working correctly. It was discussed above: you click on the launcher icon of an application which is already focused and nothing will happen. Well, wonderful! Among the bugs I have seen, this is the third bug now, for which many people voted and which is set to Won't Fix after a very long discussion. I am considering the possibility to post a bug request on launchpad: I want to get rid of the this bug affects me option, because it seems that voting on this option does not have any sense. Bugs get fixed and implemented when one or two persons vote for them, other bugs are not implemented at all, even if 100 people vote for them. You do not want anybody to vote: you ignore the votes. So please remove the option. It is better that way. You only disappoint the users who think that they can change something by voting for bugs to be fixed or features to be implemented. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349 Title: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733349] Re: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon
@All The problem I have with this whole decision is that a real question was raised in the whole discussion and then it was ignored: 1) When the window of a program/application is already focused and you click the corresponding launcher icon (of that program) you expect usually that something happens 2) The current behaviour is: nothing happens 3) nothing is really not very much (forgive me the irony) 4) The patch submitted by Marc is really interesting because it sees to the fact that there should never be a button (or menu option, or link, or check-box...) which does not show any reaction when a user clicks on it 5) If the path is not accepted this bug report still cannot/must not be set to won't fix. The reason for this is simple: you still have a user who expects a reaction when he clicks on the icon. If there is a situation where this expectation if not fulfilled (ergo nothing happens) then there is still an error present. 6) This is perhaps not the original bug report. But still the question was raised during the discussion of this report. 7) I would at least expect another proposal. For instance, if the window is already focused and somebody clicks still on the icon you can have an effect that makes the window glow for a second so that one sees that the launcher icon indeed does not serve in hiding/minimizing the windows but instead focuses them. In case of an environment where the whole desktop is cluttered by different small windows this would even help in showing which window is active in the moment (though this would be a side effect, for I usually expect a user to know which window he/she is currently using). @Michael Concerning the idea that somebody has to maintain a patch: I know that. There are two possibilites 1) Canonical closes launchpad for the public and makes it a system where people can only post the bugs they found. And in the best case even that should not be possible and instead all bug requests should be filed via apport. So they won't get any patches by users which they would have to maintain. And on the other hand no user will be disappointed that he/she invested much time in fixing a bug and still the work he/she put in it won't be appreciated. (Certainly the possibility to reject a patch because of lacking quality should be considered. This would indeed be a reason to reject a patch.) The solution to send the bug reports via apport (and only apport) is ideal because thus a users will not have the possibility to request changes which belong to a wishlist and therefore Canonical is spared from any discussion about their design decisions. Normal users which have a own opinion will still rage and rave about some of these design decisions because one sometimes gets the idea that decisions were made without much thinking and discussion, but as there are many good design decisions made as well, this should not be a problem because many people will be content with what they get. 2) You (meaning Canonical) accept the fact that people post requests in which they demand changes to the system. But Canonical should then make clear that they do not want any extra work from non-canonical members because they are not willing to maintain patches from users. So do not post any messages on planet.ubuntu or anywhere to get people to fix bugs, as I deem this insolent. Canonical cannot request users to work for free on those bugs they deem worthy to be worked on but completely ignore those bugs in which they are not interested. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349 Title: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733349] Re: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon
@The Fiddler Thank you. @All I personally would like to discuss the whole topic of design decisions. I know that to some I am becoming a nuisance because this is not the first bug where I start complaining about the term design decision but, to me, it seems to be the source of many disputes. Why shouldn't users be able to configure some options if they do not like them? It is a design decision is not the ultimative answer to all questions concerning changes to the behaviour of the system. And it must not be the only answer. I can understand Jorgen Bodde, when he states that he does not use unity because he does not like a specific behaviour of the launcher. I myself use unity, despite the fact that I want the launcher at the bottom and not at the left side, and despite the fact that I want windows to minimize when I click a launcher icon. Still I hate these things I want to reconfigure. I stick with Ubuntu at the moment because I really hope that we will see a change in the system. I hope we will see more options to configure the system. If it won't be possible to configure more options of the system, I will search for another distribution. Perhaps in a year or so. I really want to use Ubuntu and I want to use Unity. But I will not pay any price. I hate it if an operating system dictates me my workflow. An operating system must be configurable, so that I can modify the system to meet my needs. I am the user, I am the customer, I am the client and thus I am the one to whom the system has to bow. At the moment it is the opposite: the system controls my behaviour and my workflow. This is wrong. If it is a design decision to have a launcher at the left and an icon to do nothing if it is clicked under certain circumstances then this is ok for me only under one condition: if I can change this behaviour, I really liked the idea of Jono's power user community. But, honestly, I do not want to install extra tools to do some basic modifications to the system. Heck! What next? Will Ubuntu 12.04 include the great feature of a fixed wallpaper which I cannot change, because of a design decision? Or will I be forced to never open more than five windows at once, because of a design decision, where somebody of the Ayatana team decided that more than five windows per virtual desktop are confusing the normal users? Will I need Ubuntu Tweak to change the desktop wallpaper, or to change the resolution of my screen, or to change the system sounds? I find it already restricting enough that I have to install CCSM to configure the behaviour of the launcher. Especially if CCSM is cluttered with unnecessary options, especially if it does not work correctly with unity and easily breaks the system but just clicking on the wrong option. Tell me, anybody, where is Ubuntu going? Are 91 voters enough to make obvious that something has to change? Or will this discussion be buried in silence because the official Canonical developers ignore it? Tell me, will this end like Bug 668415 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/668415) where 89 people voted for the simple possibility to configure the position of the launcher and instead gut rebuffed several times with the words this is a design decision? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349 Title: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 796566] [NEW] libreoffice's file dialogue has gvfs problems
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: libreoffice When trying to work on a samba share mounted via gvfs-mount the Open- File dialogue of libreoffice does not work. (System Ubuntu 11.04, natty) To reproduce: 1) mount a samba share with the gvfs-mount command (example: gvfs-mount smb://myserver/myshare) 2) open libreoffice writer (or calc, or whatever) 3) go to the menu - file - open 4) now go the the share mounted via gvfs 5) try to open any odt/ods/... file 6) nothing will happen Next try: 1) open nautilus 2) open the mounted share 3) click any odt/ods/... file to open it 4) libreoffice will open and you can try to modify the file (thus, this way you actually CAN open opendocument files stored on a samba share) 5) try to save your changes 6) error dialogue pops up Thus: Libreoffice is not usable in an work environment where windows and ubuntu computers work on folders shared by samba. (By the way: windows pcs work fine with the shares) I tested the behaviour on five pcs, all installed with ubuntu 11.04 (natty). All showed the same error. The only workaround was to install/configure an nfs server for the linux pcs. (Which is no workaround at all). ** Affects: libreoffice (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/796566 Title: libreoffice's file dialogue has gvfs problems To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/796566/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 668415] Re: Movement of Unity launcher
I am glad to see that we see here an increase in voices that call for a change of the Launcher. Just to comment on one statement that I read here: Some here are not postulating the idea that one should be able to change the position of the Launcher for its own sake. This is different. Some time ago mobile-phones did not allow any customization at all. But the more these little devices became part of everyday life the more the became configurable. A new Android smartphone now makes it possible to configure several aspects that were not configurable before. Certainly these options are not as vast as on a desktop but they are perceivable and usable. Now, we have a desktop operating system (Linux/Ubuntu) which has emphasized simplicity since its creation. And, basically, this was a well rounded idea. A normal user does not need many customizable aspects in his operating system. But a normal user calls this system, on which he is working, not Desktop without a cause. The user interface of the computer's operating system has replaced the normal desktop on a working desk that one has used for decades. I want to be able to control my own workflow and when I want to put the launcher on the bottom of the computer screen this is like being able to place some pencils (or a pencil-box) on the right or the left of my old desk. Or to place the desk lamp on the right or the left of the desk. You cannot control everything in the user's behaviour. Give them, the users, at least some freedom. If somebody says that the decision to make the Launcher movable is solely based on his wish to make it more compatible with his behaviours as a native speaker of a right to left language this is not in any way different from my wish to keep my own workflow. I can only speak for me: this is my reason, I have a workflow which I have acquired in 22 years of using a computer and I am alway open for change. But I dislike the idea that essential parts of my behaviour will/should be changed by a design decision which deviated from every computer (desktop) interface that we have seen for the last 15 years. Btw: I now use Unity since the beta 1 and while I do like the Launcher (and Unity) in general, I honestly detest the fixed position of the launcher. I use docky as an addition to my desktop, though it should not be necessary to do so. I can place docky wherever I want. I have more features in docky. And: with docky I can launch several instances of one application if I like to do so (especially I can launch several instances of Nautilus which certainly is a very odd behaviour: who the heck wants to use more than one nautilus winow at once??? Yeah, I must be a real moron!). To become serious again: I cannot undestand what is so strange about the idea to make the launcher movable? To have a launcher at the bottom is MY design decision. And possibly that of many other people. To have the launcher at the right is the design decision of many other people. And to have the launcher at the left side is also the design decision of many other people. Heavens! This is my desktop. My desktop is quasi my virtual home. How can anybody be so rude to command me how to design my own home? I like Ubuntu, I like unity, I like the dash, I like the indicators. But actually: if I wanted the indicators to be at the bottom left, the launcher at the right side and the Dash in the middle of the screen, this might indeed sound unreasonable. But the only thing that I and many other people want is to see ONE thing changed. I do not want to change to Fedora or SuSE, really I have been working with Ubuntu for such a long time and only seen wonderful, good changes. But now - because of the perpetually encountered answer it is a design decision I am, asking myself if this is the right direction at which Ubuntu is heading. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 659364] Re: Library contains duplicates of songs imported from CD
@Chow Loong Jin Ok, seems this solves the issued. Is there any plan for a bug fix, concerning the problem with the Library Watcher? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/659364 Title: Library contains duplicates of songs imported from CD -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 761821] [NEW] Installing Natty Beta 2 on Dell Precision M4500 (Nvidia Quadro FX 880M)
Public bug reported: I have been trying to install Natty on a Dell Precision M4500 notebook with a Nvidia Quadro FX 880M graphic card for quite some time now. I always get the same result: when I start a session from the live CD, the CD/USB-Stick boots and after a few seconds the screen goes blank (black) and nothing more happens. The only thing I can do is to reset the computer. Booting with grub option nomodeset helped originally, but with the new Beta2 I now get the error BusyBox aufs mounf failed when using the nomodeset option. I added the output of hwinfo to this bug report, thus maybe it helps. ** Affects: linux (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/761821 Title: Installing Natty Beta 2 on Dell Precision M4500 (Nvidia Quadro FX 880M) -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 761821] Re: Installing Natty Beta 2 on Dell Precision M4500 (Nvidia Quadro FX 880M)
** Attachment added: hwinfo_output.txt https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/761821/+attachment/2041342/+files/hwinfo_output.txt -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/761821 Title: Installing Natty Beta 2 on Dell Precision M4500 (Nvidia Quadro FX 880M) -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 659364] Re: Library contains duplicates of songs imported from CD
Hi, I am sorry to say this but I still get duplicates when importing from CD. I am using the latest Banshee version (2.0) updated today from PPA but no change at all concerning the behaviour of the software. Sebastian -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/659364 Title: Library contains duplicates of songs imported from CD -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 709707] Re: Middle click on application icon should open a new window
Is it possible to restart the discussion about the open new window quicklists entry? While I like the idea to use the middle click to open a new window, I can imagine that some users will have a problem with this implementation. Is it thus possible to keep both solutions? A quicklists entry to open the new window AND the middle click as the primary option to open a new window? Especially the emulation of the middle click leads to some problems. I myself am that ham-handed that using the middle click emulation leads occasionally to a situation where I have to try twice or even thrice. I asked a couple of friends and colleagues of mine (all of them use Ubuntu as their primary system or at least in a dual boot environment). So out of these six people I questioned four feel uncomfortable with the middle click because they feel somewhat irritated by the mouse wheel, which is factually their middle click (sounds funny, I know). Furthermore all of them (six out of six) do not like the middle click emulation (as it seems they are as clumsy as I am ;) ). All of them said it should at least be an option to have a secondary possibility to open a new window (i.e. a quicklists entry). So is it possible to reintroduce the quicklists entry? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/709707 Title: Middle click on application icon should open a new window -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 709707] Re: Middle click on application icon should open a new window
Hi, ok sorry for starting the fuzz then. I just saw that the open new window option disappeared and, therefore, thought that the entry was dropped from the quicklists. Anyway, thanks for the fast reply. Sebastian -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/709707 Title: Middle click on application icon should open a new window -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 438868]
Hi, you should lock your screen and then wait for a couple of seconds. I tried this myself. I you unlock the screen immediately after locking it, nothing happens and the autocompletion works quite fine. But if your are running Compiz on your machine, lock the screen and then wait for a couple of seconds (just count to ten) and after that unlock your screen you will notice that the autocompletion is not working at all. You have to switch to another virtual desktop (and then back to the firefox window) to have it work again. Interesting is that the screensaver is not of any importance here. If the screensaver is triggered it does not affect the autocompletion. Only if activating the screensaver also locks your desktop, then autocompletion is not working. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/438868 Title: Numerous applications have focus issues after emerging from a screensaver or suspend -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 440784] Re: after screensaver auto-complete entries NOT shown
Same problem on a Dell Latitude E6500 with an Intel graphic card (Intel Corporation Mobile 4 Series Integrated Controller), and on a Dell XPS M1710 with Nvidia graphic card (GeForce Go 7950 GTX). Here, also, the problem appears after visual effects are turned on. -- after screensaver auto-complete entries NOT shown https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/440784 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
