Le lundi 14 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 00:08 +0100, Alexander Fieroch a Ãcrit :
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Hello,
>
>is it possible (to implement the option if not done yet) to switch
>between workspaces with mouse wheel on the desktop or on the workspace
>switcher as with other windowm
> I very rarely use the "Run Application..." dialogue. I don't particularly
> like having it around. I hope we have a model in the future that makes it
> wholly irrelevant. But I can't rationalise removing it, because I can't
> see any direct benefit to users by doing so, or that it is inflicting
> I belive you may be referring to my email. I regretted sending it not too
> long after it was gone. You are right that it was really lame. I wish I
> could sugar coat it somehow, but the best I can do is chalk it up to a bad
> day and apologize to both you and Murray. Sorry.
Not really, mo
we should be looking at leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no
matching it. :-)
Fully agreed. That's how we should be thinking at all times. :)
BTW, about the theme thing, I had a suggestion a few months ago:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-September/msg00172.html
(wh
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 14:30 +0900, Ryan McDougall wrote:
> Yeah, but I would like to hear about or participate in formulating plans
> for actively involving the right segments of the community.
This is where the plans start:
http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
It is only ten minutes worth of b
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:54:46 +1100, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > And just to take the flames point head on, no flames do not generally mean
> > that what was done was the wrong thing, they generally mean that very
> > vocal people are upset that things changed. People obviously
> Particularly with GTK+ 2.8 on the horizon, we should be looking at
> leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no matching it. :-)
> [2] That has got to be OS X.
Also, a theme so good that it would unify vendor appearance of GNOME. So
good that vendors would be pathalogically stupid or so foc
> > > Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push
> > > for a wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on
> > > art.gnome.org, gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and
> > > fortune for the winner could be interesting.
> >
> > Donations welcome.
>
On Mon, 2005-14-02 at 16:14 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push for a
> > wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on art.gnome.org,
> > gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and fortune for the
> > winner cou
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> Ryan McDougall wrote:
> > While the default theme *is* butt-ugly, I also recall there being some
> > concerns that its was more accessible or had less usability bugs or
> > something, and replacing it meant trying to fix a whole new slough
> Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push for a
> wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on art.gnome.org,
> gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and fortune for the
> winner could be interesting.
Donations welcome.
> However it all means no
On Mon, 2005-14-02 at 15:57 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> > > If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> > > about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> > > get it in right at the
mÃn 2005-02-14 klockan 15:57 +1100 skrev Jeff Waugh:
>
>
> > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> > > If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> > > about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> > > get it in right at the
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> > If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> > about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> > get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new
> > accessibili
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new
> accessibility issues
Ryan McDougall wrote:
While the default theme *is* butt-ugly, I also recall there being some
concerns that its was more accessible or had less usability bugs or
something, and replacing it meant trying to fix a whole new slough of
bugs (can anyone correct me on this?).
If there was anything close t
> And just to take the flames point head on, no flames do not generally mean
> that what was done was the wrong thing, they generally mean that very
> vocal people are upset that things changed. People obviously fear change,
> if we get rid of Run Applications the desktop won't come crashing to
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 15:55 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
>Le dimanche 13 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 15:40 +0100, Samuel Abels a Ãcrit :
>>On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 15:18 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
>>> Le dimanche 13 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 08:44 -0500, Havoc Pennington a Ãcrit :
>>> >And the rest of the thread didn't address
On Mon, 2005-14-02 at 13:31 +1300, Callum McKenzie wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 10:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME does
> > not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. They
> > are not sho
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:44 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Agree (and we should ensure that the rules suggest the almost exclusive
> > use engine themes). I'll hack up a draft for this on the wiki. Who
> > should judge? I definitely think we should rope jimmac and tigert into
> > it. :-)
>
> So
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:44 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Agree (and we should ensure that the rules suggest the almost exclusive use
> engine themes). I'll hack up a draft for this on the wiki. Who should judge?
> I definitely think we should rope jimmac and tigert into it. :-)
Some people with a goo
For example the k3b setup dialog doesn't fit into the screen with
resolutions of 1024x768 or smaller.
That's a K3B bug. I have said time and again that 800x600 is still used by
24% of the whole internet userbase. It just happens that developers are
usually geeks, and geeks like toys. And so they
> It strikes me that the single biggest difference between the screen shots
> is the theme (widget, icon, background and window manager). KDE is shinier
> and more eye-catching. It also has more buttons and so looks more detailed
> and interesting (in a screenshot), but I think this is a very sec
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 10:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME does
> not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. They
> are not show-off screenshots, just normal, everyday things:
>
> http://www.fir
> Bah, this was predictable. Because it's a trivial UI fix instead of any
> other kind of trivial fix, it becomes a huge thread and gets shot down for
> bad reasons ranging from the nitpicky to the melodramatic. Bryan, just put
> the patch in our SRPM.
Is this a UI fix, or is this just us being
Hey,
Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME does
not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. They
are not show-off screenshots, just normal, everyday things:
http://www.fireflybsd.com/screenshots/
Thanks,
- Jeff
--
GUADEC 2005: Stuttga
Hi,
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:47:21 +0100, Alexander Fieroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> is there any possibility to move application windows above the top
> panel? I can move windows below the bottom panel but not above the top
> one and so I feel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
is it possible (to implement the option if not done yet) to switch
between workspaces with mouse wheel on the desktop or on the workspace
switcher as with other windowmanagers?
Thanks in advance,
Alexander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: G
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
is there any possibility to move application windows above the top
panel? I can move windows below the bottom panel but not above the top
one and so I feel captured!
Also it is necessary for application windows which are larger in size as
~ the s
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 13:28 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> Let Red Hat do whatever they want on their packages, but please don't remove
> this from the core Gnome.
Which leads us to another solution, which would be, make it a gconf
key ;).
-Samuel
--
---
Anyone want to preemptively call EndOfThread now? ;)
Only if the Run menu won't get removed for 2.12 either. As Mike and others
said, it is the wrong thing to do: yes, having a Run menu shows a poor
dekstop architecture and maybe Red Hat engineers want to hide this fact.
However, the reality for
Le dimanche 13 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 15:40 +0100, Samuel Abels a Ãcrit :
>On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 15:18 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> Le dimanche 13 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 08:44 -0500, Havoc Pennington a Ãcrit :
>> >And the rest of the thread didn't address these release team questions.
>> >A simple "no, we can't t
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:23:31 -0600, Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 08:08 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Bah, this was predictable. Because it's a trivial UI fix instead of any
> > other kind of trivial fix, it becomes a huge thread and gets shot down
> > for ba
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 15:18 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le dimanche 13 février 2005 à 08:44 -0500, Havoc Pennington a écrit :
> >And the rest of the thread didn't address these release team questions.
> >A simple "no, we can't take this now due to already-written docs but it
> >will go in 2.12" is
Le dimanche 13 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 08:44 -0500, Havoc Pennington a Ãcrit :
>And the rest of the thread didn't address these release team questions.
>A simple "no, we can't take this now due to already-written docs but it
>will go in 2.12" is fine.
I suppose that I should mention here I'll commit the pa
On Sun, 2005-13-02 at 13:22 +, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:46:30 -0500, Bryan Clark wrote:
> > So what if we are flamed for removing this? If it's the right thing to
> > do, isn't that worth getting flamed for? ;-)
>
> Um, generally if you get flamed for a change that means lot
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 07:23 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
>
> It was predictable that a very user-visible UI change was rejected three
> weeks (three weeks!) after the UI freeze? I should hope so.
>
> It was predictable that I don't want to scrap my notes and outlines for
> the User Guide work, es
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 08:08 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Bah, this was predictable. Because it's a trivial UI fix instead of any
> other kind of trivial fix, it becomes a huge thread and gets shot down
> for bad reasons ranging from the nitpicky to the melodramatic. Bryan,
> just put the patch
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:46:30 -0500, Bryan Clark wrote:
> So what if we are flamed for removing this? If it's the right thing to
> do, isn't that worth getting flamed for? ;-)
Um, generally if you get flamed for a change that means lots of people
think it's *not* the right thing to do.
By all me
Bah, this was predictable. Because it's a trivial UI fix instead of any
other kind of trivial fix, it becomes a huge thread and gets shot down
for bad reasons ranging from the nitpicky to the melodramatic. Bryan,
just put the patch in our SRPM.
Havoc
Speaking as a daily gnome user, I would not want this option to be removed
from the menus, not now or in the next version of gnome. Reasons:
1. it gives me a way to load apps that are not on the menu. I install a lot
of apps -- gnome and kde alike-- and 80% of them are not installing a
.desktop
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 19:19 -0500, Bryan Clark wrote:
> Hey ~
>
> I'm requesting a break in the 2.10 freeze for bug 167090 [*] to go
> through. I put some detailed reasons in the first comment of that bug.
> Plus there is also some fascinating commentary by me in comment 13 of
> bug 161613 [**] r
I started getting a lot of user complaints about gnome-applets crashing.
I poked around, and found something really bizarre. All of the paths in
config.h were preceded by a '$'. For example:
#define GNOME_PIXMAPSDIR "$/usr/X11R6/share/gnome/pixmaps"
This is caused by the following code in confi
Le samedi 12 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 18:43 -0700, Elijah Newren a Ãcrit :
>However, I am kind of worried about having it removed from the menu
>system altogether (even Bryan suggested putting it elsewhere in the
>menu in one of the comments he referenced), especially when we have no
>decent way to customize
44 matches
Mail list logo
