Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3

[Vishnoo]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 16:21 +0200, Krzysztof Klimonda wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 15:03 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The idea was never really dropped but it's not likely it will be an
> > official focus for the team, contributions to help getting it working
> > better are welcome though
> 
> Hey,
..
> 
> I'm planning on working on those issues in Oneiric almost exclusively,
> but I can't tell how much time am I going to have right now.

Is anyone aware of  ?
It might seem that they are not aware of "It's OK for contributors to
fix this in Ubuntu itself". 

Maybe someone could ask them to work on getting the Stracciatella
session prepped. Should help the project as a whole. rather than having
several groups trying to do the same thing.

-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3

[Vishnoo]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 15:10 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 17:00 +0530, Vishnoo a écrit :
> > Is Getting GNOME3 really worth it? GTK3 maybe for the parts which are
> > required for Unity.. 
> 
> Yes, we need to move away from old unmaintained and deprecated
> technology for their modern equivalent (gtk2 to gtk3, gconf to dconf,
> dbus-glib to gdbus) and the easier way to do that is to update to
> GNOME3. But as you said we need to check that we don't break on the way
> what we consider important to our users, that's what I mentioned in the
> other emails on that list, we should make a list of things that GNOME3
> is deprecating and that we think should still be available for Ubuntu
> users and find a way to bring those back either by working on upstream
> to add them back or by finding equivalents or writing new code.
> 

That looks like a call for Rick Spencer's famous Spider Diagram! ;-)

-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Default Browser

[Vishnoo]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 17:27 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote:
> 
> Please note, I was suggesting not having Firefox or Chromium as the
> default, but a webkit based browser with a normal release cycle like
> Epiphany (which uses webkitgtk :)).

If I'v understood that right, what you are suggesting is we use
Epiphany(or similar) as the default and give an option to install FF or
Chromium?

IMO, not a great choice, that is adding an extra step in the install
process. If their rapid release is the problem, we could probably look
into just releasing at our own possible pace. We should look at setting
what our release schedule could be and if we are short of testers we
should try to increase that.

Firefox and Chrome(not Chromium) have a lot of popularity, and if we are
going to replace with a practically-no-name browser we loose one of our
Ubuntu "marketing" points. 
Being able to tell new users that they have Firefox readily available is
a huge plus. If we use Chromium it is a little bit of a hassle.
Explaining Chromium is like convincing that a Radoo watch looks as good
as the Rado one(yea, a bit unfair comparison). For this reason Firefox
still trumps Chromium as a default choice, and FF4 is pretty good. ;-) 

-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3

[Vishnoo]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 09:59 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
>  * Discuss GTK3 theming with UX/design. Our current murrine based
>Humanity theme doesn't work with GTK3.

s/Humanity theme/Ambiance theme or Radiance theme. :-) 

Humanity is an icon theme.. 
Or maybe you were thinking about the older Human gtk theme. :-)


-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3

[Vishnoo]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 13:46 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> >
> they are not removed, they are moved to another place, which is
> gnome-tweak-tool, available in the GNOME3 PPA
> 

Oh! Yea, I've heard of that tweak tool but never tried it.
Maybe we should consider including the tweak-tool by default on the iso
itself. (I cant seem to find them in the iso from gnome.org)
> > 
> I know you won't believe what I say, coming from a devote GNOME
> developer/user, but GNOME 3.0 is the best GNOME release ever :-)

Nah! I believe you :-)
(however,every parent believes their baby is the most beautiful one ;p )

Kidding aside, if GNOME3 is good, it's great for all of us :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3

[Vishnoo]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:32 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 09:59 +0200, Martin Pitt a écrit :
> > kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and
> > GNOME3. Aside from the obvious "update the package versions", I see
> > the following particular challenges:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> (You stole my topic! ;-)
> 
> Joke aside we should do the GNOME3 and GTK3 transition next cycle to be
> ready for the lts and it's likely to be quite some work. 

Is Getting GNOME3 really worth it? GTK3 maybe for the parts which are
required for Unity..

Several caplets have been removed, not just hiding options. (I'm sure
you guys remember the GDM theming removal "issue" :p )
In GNOME3 even fonts cannot be changed easily. If we removing easy ways
to change a details, Launchpad would be a *very* noisy for us.
I dont think we might even get it in time for our LTS schedule..
(couldnt find any info regarding that.)

If we compare the previous 10.04 LTS and what could be 12.04 LTS with
GNOME3(3.0?/3.2?), there could be a lot of feature parity. 
Maybe it is better we wait for Gnome3 to mature a bit more before we
jump into it.. 

-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: New GNOME Icon's In Natty?

[Vishnoo]

On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 17:16 -0700, Jono Bacon wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Some of you may have seen http://jimmac.musichall.cz/log/?p=1145 - some
> fantastic work on the icon theme going into the next GNOME release.
> 
> I wanted to see if there is any possibility of bringing those icons into
> Natty?
> 
Hi Jono,

Some of those icons were available since GNOME 2.30, and they have been
in development for a very very long time (I know because I've done a few
of the other hi-res ones ;-) ).

Some of those icons displayed in that blog entry are _not_ from
gnome-icon-theme, they are included in the apps themselves as part of
the app's own branding for GNOME 3.0. Like the icon for Empathy,
Deja-dup, Transmission,etc,. This 'push' for hi-res icons is a recent
drive(more on that below).

We've had the gnome-icon-theme package with 256px icons uploaded in
maverick. But we dropped a few folders of the large icons since the
package was huge and increased the CD iso size.
The 256x256 icons are rendered png files and they do not compress as
well as the previous scalable svg files.

We discussed this during maverick cycle in #ubuntu-desktop and I had
suggested a few "safe-to-drop-icon-folders" since they are least likely
to be used as of now and the desktop team dropped only those folders. 
/256x256/emblems 
/256x256/emotes 
/256x256/status

Other 256px icons are included. They are in :
/usr/share/icons/gnome/256x256/

> I know we have hit UI Freeze, but I just think those icons will add a
> lot of sheen to Natty.

Actually no, We dont use those icons anywhere in Ubuntu Natty.

The 256x256 icons are used only in places which require atleast 64px
icon size or higher.
Last time i checked, the max size we use is the 48px icon in Unity dash
and everywhere else, and these 48px sizes will not use the hi-res icons.
So, we dont use these 256px icons anywhere in Unity, including them
would not be useful to us, apart from that most of them are in the
application's own packages meant for GNOME 3.0.

There was no concrete plan for those 256px icons until recently. 
Even Shell dint need these 256px icons until a couple of months ago.
Earlier, the Shell Overview was crowded and used only 48px icons , so I
had suggested that we can make use of the hi-res icons and use them
atleast at 64px size, jimmac liked the idea and decided to use the icons
at 256 px itself. Hence the recent drive for hi-res application icons.
And, even if we make Shell available for Oneiric or any future release,
the 3 folders I had suggested earlier would still be "safe-to-drop"
without affecting GNOME Shell too. 

-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Call for Natty Feedback!

[Vishnoo]

On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 12:16 +0100, frederik.nn...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> people who know my posts are aware that i can get lengthy at times, so
> i'll keep it relatively compact today ;)

Thanks! ;p

> Thanks to everyone who has already committed reviews to this thread, i
> enjoyed reading all of them and i learnt a great deal from seeing
> other people's reviews.

> 8 indicators need more spacing

Contrary to that, folks think current spacing is already too much:




-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: GNOME session saving dropped in natty

[Vishnoo]

On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 18:00 +0100, Didier Roche wrote:
> Hey fellow desktop lovers,
> 
> I still personally think that this feature can be really good addition
> to Ubuntu default experience if we can take time to make it very
> polished as well as working for most of - if not all - major
> applications (at least, all applications by default on the CD). If
> someone wants to jump in this hard and long task, he's more than welcome
> to discuss it either on this mailing list or in the #ubuntu-desktop
> channel on freenode.
> 
> Thanks for your attention,
> Didier Roche
> 

Hi, 
Is there a bug filed for this, which we could follow?

I know you'd be busy, but if there is no bug filed/wiki setup, this
"hope someone fixes it" mail might get lost in the mailing list archives
alone and we might have lesser chances of this getting fixed by someone.
[if there is no bug already, maybe just copy-paste your mail :-) ]

-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: RE:Unneeded items in System > Preferences

[Vishnoo]

On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 07:05 +0100, Andrew wrote:
> (This was originally posted as a bug here
> [https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/663119] but I was
> advised to discuss it here).
> 
Gnome 3 Control Center should take care of this :

IMO, we should spend more effort in getting that done for GNOME 3

More info regarding this and contacts in : 


-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Beautiful stupidity?

[Vishnoo]

On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 10:30 +0100, Kenneth Wimer wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 March 2010 07:04:53 am Vishnoo wrote:
> > Now that it was fixed[in Humanity] for Lucid , the design team _again_
> > has a new icon far worse than what was earlier.
> > Again not an Ubuntu decision? Now where is the decision being done?  Are
> > we late for Lucid too? ;)
> > 
> > Let's get this fixed for Lucid atleast , without pointing fingers :)
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-mono/+bug/532364
> > 
> 
> As you can easily see in the bug, we are on top of this and it will be fixed 
> asap (that is why I set it to Highly important and assigned myself to the 
> bug).
> 

Yes , I'm aware you are gonna fix it soonish.  :)

I was just responding to the comment that the earlier icon was not under
control of the design team, which is misleading to others. :(

-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Beautiful stupidity?

[Vishnoo]

On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:54 +, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote on 06/03/10 16:14:
> >...
> > In my opinion, this is the worst design change since the decision to
> > hide incoming IMs and phone calls from the user, and instead just
> > subtly changing the color of a small icon.
> >...
> 
> I know this is a tangent, but: That wasn't an Ubuntu decision, it was a
> series of unfortunate individual decisions. The Ubuntu position was, and
> is, that a notification area item is not enough to advertise an incoming
> IM or phone call, and that clients should open chat windows in the
> background (and phone call windows in the foreground). The Empathy
> developers disagreed, and continued relying on the notification area
> item. Moving Empathy into the messaging menu just made things slightly
> worse. And then the Human icon theme changes that arrived late in Karmic
> made things slightly worse again. It was different people doing each of
> these things.
> 

There is no point in trying to shunt the blame to the icon theme , when
the icon changes were infact directed by the design team ;)
There is also a comment[by design team] on a bug report mentioning the
new-mail icon is good as-is and it is meant to be un-intrusive .

Several icons were changed since the design team wanted minor
improvements , why wasnt this mentioned?

Now that it was fixed[in Humanity] for Lucid , the design team _again_
has a new icon far worse than what was earlier. 
Again not an Ubuntu decision? Now where is the decision being done?  Are
we late for Lucid too? ;)

Let's get this fixed for Lucid atleast , without pointing fingers :)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-mono/+bug/532364


-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Beautiful awesomeness ---stupidity?---

[Vishnoo]

On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 19:03 +0100, Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
> > On 7 March 2010 22:56, Alex Launi  wrote:
> > >  I don't think that new users will crap their pants over the window 
> > > controls
> > > being on the left, I think we've all seen OSX before.
> I'm pretty sure this whole issue is going to become a flamewar until
> Lucid is released, if not beyond - sorry for that. But I find it really
> bad that in an open project like Ubuntu such visible changes are not
> discussed and elaborated publicly, instead of being released late in the
> cycle with any explanation.
> 
> Last cycle Canonical pushed the "Ubuntu Software Store", whose name
> prompted heated debates, before changing its name to something less
> commercial. Now it seems we're going to suffer from those internal
> fights again, and I'm sure in the end Lucid will ship with something
> more sensible. Couldn't this have been discussed calmly in the desktop
> list before any choices are made? Couldn't the ubuntu-art list have been
> made part of the process, instead of letting them know when everything
> is over [1]? These times, I too often feel like volunteers are
> second-class citizens in Ubuntu.
> 
> I won't comment on the design choices themselves, because what I don't
> like in them is merely IMO a consequence of the lack of prior
> concertation. Just a sarcastic comment about the fact that with the
> upcoming switch to GNOME Shell, the left corner of windows will be just
> next to the Activities hot corner - better be aware of it, reverting the
> window buttons order for 10.10 would be quite ridiculous...

WOW! Interesting point!
I was just expecting flamewar/backlash about this change to fizzle out
like the update-notifier and anyone who is irritated would change it
back .

But keeping gnome-shell in mind, this change truly becomes difficult to
understand.

Anyways , there is a bug[1] regarding this change, i dont think anyone
has mentioned this before. I guess no one thought it through ;)

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/532633


-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Lucid changes to Firefox default search provider

[Vishnoo]

On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 00:21 -0600, Richard JOHNSON wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 01:45:53AM -0500, Alain-Olivier Breysse wrote:
> > Bonjour,
> > 
> > 
> > The motivation  of your decision is already being talked about around the
> > net in many different languages, and because it is the net, will continue to
> > do so.
> 
> Good, more publicity, seeing as 95% of the places I have read, the people
> commenting were all level headed, understood the deal, and realize they
> still have that wonderful thing called a choice. If you are so
> anti-Microsoft, then switch it to Google or whoever.
> 
> I don't mean to be an ass, but beating a dead horse isn't going to scare
> Canonical into changing their decision.
> 

I been having a nagging worry regarding this recent change. 

I'v noticed several users in #ubuntu+1 complaining about the change and
mentioning that they have changed their search engines back to google.
Similar comments in various blogs mentioning the change.

Since unfortunately Yahoo isnt really as good as google, I suspect even
more are switching quietly .  
I'v tried to stick with yahoo for my searches and support the change ,
but the results were not really as good/relevant/sufficient as google's.

If more folks are going to switch back , Will it eventually turn out to
be more profitable? [not to doubt the deal-makers]
I really hope the Yahoo deal is *very* good to cover all the loss we
have from the user's switching and in turn more profitable for
Ubuntu/Canonical. 

Or is Canonical also entitled to revenue from Ubuntu google searches?
[which would make me feel less guilty for switching ;)  ]


-- 
Cheers,
Vish


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Lucid changes to Firefox default search provider

[Vishnoo]

On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 12:03 -0800, Rick Spencer wrote:
> All -
> 

> Why?
> I am pursuing this change because Canonical has negotiated a revenue
> sharing deal with Yahoo! and this revenue will help Canonical to provide
> developers and resources to continue the open development of Ubuntu and
> the Ubuntu Platform. This change will help provide these resources as
> well as continuing to respect our user's default search across Firefox.
> 
> Cheers, Rick


Good that we bring more revenue to Ubuntu and its development.

Now that we are partnering/negotiated with Yahoo! , we should ask them
to remove the warning of Unsupported OS for users trying to connect to
Yahoo!Mail.

Users are redirected to >
http://in.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/dc/system_requirements?os=unsupported

This happens *every* time one tries to login.[attaching screenshot]

If we are considering moving Ubuntu to Yahoo! search as default.
Atleast their sites could be tested in Ubuntu OS. Or are we still an OS
that isnt supported by Yahoo! ;)

Is an awkward moment when we introduce new users to Ubuntu and we get
such warnings.

BTW ,the Yahoo!Mail does work well if the user selects Continue
anyway. :)


-- 
Cheers,
Vish
<>-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop