show an overview of current appliction's windows

Hi, Currently the activity view will show all application's windows. Is there a way to show only current application's windows? For instance, show an overview of the terminal windows only. It would be then much easier to select a window. OSX has such a differenciation. -- William http://xwl.

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:35:13 -0800, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > On a Mac, I never ever think of shutting down, I just close the lid and > then open up again. Why? Because suspend is nearly instantaneous. I use a Mac laptop also, and I *usually* suspend, but not always. E.g. if I am planning to l

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

Den 3 mar 2012 00.58 skrev "Jasper St. Pierre" : > > > Except those times we need to load a new kernel with new security patches on. > > If there's installed updates, we should swap the Suspend button with a > Restart button. That's the designed behaviour, and I believe there's > an open bug for it

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: >> Except those times we need to load a new kernel with new security patches on. > > If there's installed updates, we should swap the Suspend button with a > Restart button. That's the designed behaviour, and I believe there's > an open bug

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: [...] > On a Mac, I never ever think of shutting down, I just close the lid and then > open up again.  Why?  Because suspend is nearly instantaneous. [...] exactly! very well put - "close the lid" causes suspend. in the menu there should

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

> Except those times we need to load a new kernel with new security patches on. If there's installed updates, we should swap the Suspend button with a Restart button. That's the designed behaviour, and I believe there's an open bug for it, we just haven't implemented it yet. --   Jasper

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

> The reason is that GNOME 3 is geared towards power saving and wear and > tear.  Shutting down your laptop is not as good as suspend. Do you have any sources to back up the claim that it's less power consuming to suspend a computer then to shut it down or hibernate it? > So when people as you, i

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On 2 March 2012 22:03, Mark Blakeney wrote: > On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:43:20 -0600, Josh Leverette wrote: >> I agree it's the right way forward, but users don't see it that way >> and there's no reason to force it. > > Josh, why is it the "right way forward"? Can somebody please provide a > link to

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

> The reason is that GNOME 3 is geared towards power saving and wear and > tear.  Shutting down your laptop is not as good as suspend. Do you have any sources to back up the claim that suspending your computer saves more electricity than hibernating or shuttting it down? > So when people as you,

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Mark Blakeney < mark.blake...@bullet-systems.net> wrote: > Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 > developers about why they decided to only provide a suspend option on the > user menu (and hide the power off option with the alt mod

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

(personal opinion) it is the right way forward because your computer should be in one of two states. In use or not in use. When it isn't in use it should be conserving power, whether laptop or desktop. Shutting it down and booting it back up are processes most users don't have the patience for. Sus

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:43:20 -0600, Josh Leverette wrote: > I agree it's the right way forward, but users don't see it that way > and there's no reason to force it. Josh, why is it the "right way forward"? Can somebody please provide a link to an intelligent argument why this design choice makes s

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

2012/3/2 clemens : > Everybody that is able to install linux + gnome-shell without internet > connection should be able to press the alt button or open a terminal > and use one of the approximately 42 methods to shut down. > And if its really that important to have the button grep + vim will help >

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:06:28AM -0600, Josh Leverette wrote: > that site is not accessible in regions that do not have an internet > connection. A shut down button should not have to be downloaded. You're repeating the same discussion. Please at least do not top post while continuing the same d

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

Everybody that is able to install linux + gnome-shell without internet connection should be able to press the alt button or open a terminal and use one of the approximately 42 methods to shut down. And if its really that important to have the button grep + vim will help you. Am Freitag, den 02.0

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

again, not everyone has an internet connection and they should not have to download a shut down button. Making it an option in the settings dialog is a perfectly acceptable design decision. Sincerely, Josh On Mar 2, 2012 10:39 AM, "Diego Fernandez" wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Diego

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Diego Fernandez wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 13:01 +, Mark Blakeney wrote: >> Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 >> developers about why they decided to only pr

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

that site is not accessible in regions that do not have an internet connection. A shut down button should not have to be downloaded. Sincerely, Josh On Mar 2, 2012 9:59 AM, "Giovanni Campagna" wrote: > Il 02 marzo 2012 16:43, Josh Leverette ha scritto: > > I don't care what the reasoning behind

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

Il 02 marzo 2012 16:43, Josh Leverette ha scritto: > I don't care what the reasoning behind it is. Why can't somebody put an > option in the settings dialog? why are we forcing this down people's > throats? I agree it's the right way forward, but users don't see it that way > and there's no reason

Re: enabling a single gnome shell extension breaks the system

Il 02 marzo 2012 16:39, Pavlos Parissis ha scritto: > On 2 March 2012 13:35, Pavlos Parissis wrote: >> On 2 March 2012 13:19, Giovanni Campagna wrote: >>> (sorry for top replying, you mail is too long) >>> >>> Looking at the error, it seems a known and long fixed bug in >>> alternative-status-me

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

I don't care what the reasoning behind it is. Why can't somebody put an option in the settings dialog? why are we forcing this down people's throats? I agree it's the right way forward, but users don't see it that way and there's no reason to force it. Sincerely, Josh On Mar 2, 2012 9:26 AM, "Juan

Re: enabling a single gnome shell extension breaks the system

On 2 March 2012 13:35, Pavlos Parissis wrote: > On 2 March 2012 13:19, Giovanni Campagna wrote: >> (sorry for top replying, you mail is too long) >> >> Looking at the error, it seems a known and long fixed bug in >> alternative-status-menu. You should file a bug at your distribution to >> get the

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On Friday, March 02, 2012 13:40:19 Ross Burton wrote: > On 2 March 2012 13:19, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > >> I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to > >> apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first > >> impression. > > > > So ena

Broadway back-end tutorials?

Does anyone know where I might find tutorials about Broadway? or does anyone know what's going on with Broadway support? Sincerely, Josh ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list

Re: On the video recorder's keys conflict with keyboard language switcher (alt+shift).

That's good enough. :) 2012/3/1 António Fernandes > 2012/3/1 Reda Lazri > >> Hello, >> >> Like many people, I've set ALT+Shift to be my shortcut keys for switching >> keyboard layouts. Since this is the first thing I do, I couldn't enable the >> video recorder feature in GNOME Shell(since 3.0)

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On 2 March 2012 13:19, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: >> I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to >> apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first >> impression. > > So enable the extension that changes the behavior, then be happy. >

Re: Design choice for suspend option only

On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 13:01 +, Mark Blakeney wrote: > Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 > developers about why they decided to only provide a suspend option on the > user menu (and hide the power off option with the alt modifier)? I would > really like t

Design choice for suspend option only

Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 developers about why they decided to only provide a suspend option on the user menu (and hide the power off option with the alt modifier)? I would really like to know by what rationale they came to this astonishing decision

Re: enabling a single gnome shell extension breaks the system

On 2 March 2012 13:19, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > (sorry for top replying, you mail is too long) > > Looking at the error, it seems a known and long fixed bug in > alternative-status-menu. You should file a bug at your distribution to > get the latest upstream version or, better yet, stop using pa

Re: enabling a single gnome shell extension breaks the system

(sorry for top replying, you mail is too long) Looking at the error, it seems a known and long fixed bug in alternative-status-menu. You should file a bug at your distribution to get the latest upstream version or, better yet, stop using packages and install the extension from extension.gnome.org.

enabling a single gnome shell extension breaks the system

Hi, I will try to describe the situation I am in as simple as possible. On 29th of February the following packages were upgraded on my Ubuntu 11.10 system upgrade libxml2 2.7.8.dfsg-4ubuntu0.1 2.7.8.dfsg-4ubuntu0.2 upgrade file-roller 3.2.1-0ubuntu1 3.2.1-0ubuntu2 triggers-pending gconf2 3.2.3-0u