On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 09:25 -0430, Dokuro wrote:
> I am using it on an intel chipset, it does not look perfect
> (transparency problems) but it works really nice
Please file a bug with your distribution or with X.org if you haven't
already - as long as your chipset is i915 or newer (i8xx is expect
On Friday, 29 April, 2011 06:10 PM, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
AFAICT the Shell does not need a top notch 3D card and binary drivers.
That is good to hear, but applications will need the maximum performance
of GPUs, that is why, GNOME Shell will benefit from that, since I think
proprietary drivers
I am using it on an intel chipset, it does not look perfect
(transparency problems) but it works really nice
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> 2011/4/29 Allan E. Registos :
>> All these animations stuff are under the assumption that Nvidia and AMD will
>> going to support
2011/4/29 Allan E. Registos :
> All these animations stuff are under the assumption that Nvidia and AMD will
> going to support Linux in the ages to come, if they do, GNOME Shell is in
> good track. I have no faith in Open Source 3D capable drivers, if they do,
> they are light-years behind.
AFAIC
"
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:19:09 PM
Subject: Re: Thumbs up!
Configuration options to configure (switch off) all major animations. Then it
would be easy to experiment with a new gnome-shell fallback mode. Yes, the
animations are well thought out and support the shell experience, but
--- Original message ---
From: Jasper St. Pierre
There's
no way someone is going to rewrite the code for the volume slider used in
GTK+ or cairo so that a fallback mode can happen.
I am just going to reply to this one thing, because I don't want to repeat
other points yet again.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 23:38 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> > Gnome 3 should have applications button on the left of the panel
> > (which should be kept on top, like now, with an option to disappear
> > for folks who like that) that opens da
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 23:38 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Gnome 3 should have applications button on the left of the panel
> (which should be kept on top, like now, with an option to disappear
> for folks who like that) that opens dash ribbon and other app
> icons/menu/search below. Workspace swit
Il giorno mer, 27/04/2011 alle 09.40 +0200, David Prieto ha scritto:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XXEub2fJOg
Have you noticed that Sim Dock bar is like a slide show? In my opinion
all the existing file type XCL, odt, avi,txt, mp3 and bla bla bla seen
as slides that allow you to open the file o
Il giorno mer, 27/04/2011 alle 09.40 +0200, David Prieto ha scritto:
> Florian,
>
> It's quite hard to find one just presenting the expose
> feature. In
> this one there's quite much moving windows and using the
> workspace
> switcher (handling 4 workspaces
Il giorno mar, 26/04/2011 alle 17.37 +0200, Florian Kuhnt ha scritto:
> 2011/4/26 David Prieto :
> > Florian, could you please link a screencast? Never tried expose on KDE or
> > OSX.
>
> It's quite hard to find one just presenting the expose feature. In
> this one there's quite much moving window
Il giorno mar, 26/04/2011 alle 00.15 +, Bojan Smojver ha scritto:
> Bojan Smojver writes:
>
> > Just watched the latest screencasts of gnome-shell on YouTube. Very nice
> > work - things make sense. Looking forward to a release!
>
forse è utile per la discussione , si potrebbe aggiungere que
--- Original message ---
From: Bojan Smojver
Don't worry, I know my comments will not trigger any change, so I'm not
even expecting an answer that I like.
And by which I mean, short of me hacking the non-GnomeShell shell, it ain't
gonna happen. Talk is cheap - for real change a pat
--- Original message ---
From: Olav Vitters
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 08:32:56AM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
I keep wondering, why do I have to get a window finding tool (expose)
and its animation when I never asked for one?
No need to say the same thing various times in various ways
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 08:32:56AM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> I keep wondering, why do I have to get a window finding tool (expose)
> and its animation when I never asked for one?
No need to say the same thing various times in various ways ("kitchen
sink" / "never asked for one" / etc). I've re
Florian,
It's quite hard to find one just presenting the expose feature. In
> this one there's quite much moving windows and using the workspace
> switcher (handling 4 workspaces each with expose).
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XXEub2fJOg
>
> At 2:08 there are two windows partially overlappi
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 23:38 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Smart taskbar (similar to W7 or using some new ideas) could be next to
> that.
For instance, hovering over an item in the taskbar could display the
current workspace with windows belonging to the task highlighted. This
way, the user would
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I have precisely zero experience with Macs, but I read quite a lot of
> articles specifically bemoaning the performance of early lower-end OS
> X-running systems, particularly graphical performance, so I'm not sure
> this example is worth
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It doesn't do applications 'simultaneously'; they're a different part
> of the overview that you toggle. When you go to applications, windows
> and workspaces go away.
So, you can go to applications directly from the normal view? No. You
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 08:29 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Designing the Shell not in the way it would work best but in order to
> > work with extremely limited (by modern standards) graphics drivers
> > comes under 'severely cripple the
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Why wouldn't you just use alt-tab? (Mind you, I use alt-tab for just
> about everything.)
I actually don't have a problem with lost windows at all. My windows
rarely overlap (i.e. I actually do use workspaces).
I keep wondering, why do
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 08:20 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > And instead of one operation to see all the thumbnails (overview) you
> > have to mouse over each one, one at a time, to see each thumbnail, one
> > at a time.
>
> However, if y
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 08:16 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 16:27 +0200, David Prieto wrote:
> > The only thing I can ask from you is, please don't try to
> > disguise your opinions as facts.
>
> Of course everything we say here is IMHO or IMNSHO.
>
> However, here is one und
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Designing the Shell not in the way it would work best but in order to
> work with extremely limited (by modern standards) graphics drivers
> comes under 'severely cripple the Shell', in my chart.
What is "best"? For one person, this may b
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> And instead of one operation to see all the thumbnails (overview) you
> have to mouse over each one, one at a time, to see each thumbnail, one
> at a time.
However, if you are looking for a particular lost window (which is
mostly the cas
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 16:27 +0200, David Prieto wrote:
> The only thing I can ask from you is, please don't try to
> disguise your opinions as facts.
Of course everything we say here is IMHO or IMNSHO.
However, here is one undisputed fact: overview does workspaces,
applications, windows and expo
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:56:15AM -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
> > Design decisions don't really occur in a mailing list. There is just too
> > much noise when we do that. You need to put in a bug and discuss it
> within
> > the contex
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:56:15AM -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
> Design decisions don't really occur in a mailing list. There is just too
> much noise when we do that. You need to put in a bug and discuss it within
> the context of bugzilla. Discussing it here will unlikely get you anywhere.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Diego Fernandez
wrote:
>
> Alright I might have been a bit harsh, but I have seen many points
> argued with very solid evidence and even a proposal of how to fix
> them; however, I have not seen a single one accepted on the list.
> Maybe you have to keep up with mo
Sorry to be offtopic.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 03:56 -0400, Diego Fernandez wrote:
>> If you've kept up at all with this mailing list, you'll come to
>> realize that the developers have a reason (which they believe to be
>> absolutely right)
2011/4/26 David Prieto :
> Florian, could you please link a screencast? Never tried expose on KDE or
> OSX.
It's quite hard to find one just presenting the expose feature. In
this one there's quite much moving windows and using the workspace
switcher (handling 4 workspaces each with expose).
http
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 13:38 +0200, David Prieto wrote:
> Bojan,
>
> Somewhat.
>
> In Gnome 2, each open app is a box on a taskbar. In Windows 7,
> that box
> also has window representations once you get over it, so you
> can see
> what is in
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 18:02 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Another option may be:
>
> - design basic behaviour that is consistent
Designing the Shell not in the way it would work best but in order to
work with extremely limited (by modern standards) graphics drivers comes
under 'severely cripple
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 03:56 -0400, Diego Fernandez wrote:
> If you've kept up at all with this mailing list, you'll come to
> realize that the developers have a reason (which they believe to be
> absolutely right) for every single change. Nobody's opinion is going
> to change those decisions as th
Bojan,
Bashing? One issue? No.
>
That's definitely my perception.
> I listed quite a number of things that I genuinely believe are not helpful,
> starting with the fact that new and fallback mode behave in entirely
> different ways.
That one thing I have to give you. I haven't used fallback
Adding my 2 cents. I think the shell is good as is, because if you don't
like something it's expandable via extensions.
My only real concern is the Shell is great on systems it runs well on.
What about those running a system with problems?
ie:
1. I get about 2 frames for the animation of expos
--- Original message ---
From: David Prieto
That said, I think you're bashing it as a whole just based on that one
pet
peeve, and actively looking for stuff to hate. Need two steps to move the
window to another location in a different workspace? Please.
Bashing? One issue? No.
I l
Bojan,
Gnome Shell gives the behavior of expose when no such behaviour is requested
> or desired.
I think that your problem is not about using the Overview for picking a
window (you admit that it's better when the windows overlap, and that you
can just click them when they don't) but about it be
--- Original message ---
From: David Prieto
To: bo...@rexursive.com
Cc: awill...@redhat.com, gnome-shell-list@gnome.org
Sent: 26.4.'11, 21:38
Bojan,
Somewhat.
In Gnome 2, each open app is a box on a taskbar. In Windows 7, that box
also has window representations once you get over it
--- Original message ---
From: Florian Kuhnt
I'm wondering if Bojan is against any way of expose implementation or
just against the way it's implemented in gnome shell.
I am not "against" anything. I just find the overview kitchen sink approach
unreasonable.
If I want to start an
Florian, could you please link a screencast? Never tried expose on KDE or
OSX.
___
gnome-shell-list mailing list
gnome-shell-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
2011/4/26 David Prieto :
>> For me to go and pick a new application to run, I have to endure the
>> expose, which I don't want/need to endure.
>
>> If I get into the overview and there are no overlapping windows, I still
>> see expose view. Which, again, I have to endure.
>
>> If I want to move my
Bojan,
Somewhat.
>
> In Gnome 2, each open app is a box on a taskbar. In Windows 7, that box
> also has window representations once you get over it, so you can see
> what is in each window. So, that's visually different.
Yep. These representations (which I had totally forgotten, by the way) are
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:07 +0200, David Prieto wrote:
> Bojan,
>
> Both of which are different from Gnome 2 taskbar. I am not advocating
> > taskbar in particular (nor do I use it often). Anyway, see below.
>
>
> They are not different in that they use tiny, randomly-placed (in that they
> don
Bojan,
Both of which are different from Gnome 2 taskbar. I am not advocating
> taskbar in particular (nor do I use it often). Anyway, see below.
They are not different in that they use tiny, randomly-placed (in that they
don't reflect the window's actual placement) items to represent windows.
T
--- Original message ---
From: David Prieto
Mac OS X has dock. Windows 7 has its own version of taskbar, which is
cascading, if I remember correctly.
All these have the same common trait as the taskbar; they are tiny
representations of open apps, placed NOT according to the real wind
Hello Bojan!
2011/4/26 Bojan Smojver :
>> When I say that it "doesn't" I mean that it "doesn't shuffle the windows"
>> (which is the expression you used later on), as in "it doesn't place them
>> randomly on the screen".
>>
>> If your problem is that it doesn't keep them in the exact same place th
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 06:02:52PM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Another option may be:
>
> - design basic behaviour that is consistent
> - accelerate using 3D where possible
That is not possible with the design today. GNOME shell was designed
with certain things in mind. What you're suggesting w
Bojan,
Mac OS X has dock. Windows 7 has its own version of taskbar, which is
> cascading, if I remember correctly.
>
All these have the same common trait as the taskbar; they are tiny
representations of open apps, placed NOT according to the real window's
location. Which was precisely my point.
Configuration options to configure (switch off) all major animations.
Then it would be easy to experiment with a new gnome-shell fallback
mode. Yes, the animations are well thought out and support the shell
experience, but for some of us (old hardware, e.g. mac mini 2, high
resolution) they are
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:06 +0200, David Prieto wrote:
> What are the others? Surely not alt+tab, since Gnome-shell also has that
> one.
Mac OS X has dock. Windows 7 has its own version of taskbar, which is
cascading, if I remember correctly.
> When I say that it "doesn't" I mean that it "doesn'
Bojan,
Taskbar (i.e. Gnome 2) is not the only way to manage currently running
> windows. See Mac OS X and Windows 7.
>
What are the others? Surely not alt+tab, since Gnome-shell also has that
one.
> Animation? I already know where my windows are. Why do I need animation
> to show me where they
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 00:54 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Windows doesn't, it has its own fallback mode (it's actually even more
> complicated than that, the Windows 7 shell has several levels of
> complexity and it picks one based on how good it reckons your video
> hardware is).
The point bein
If you've kept up at all with this mailing list, you'll come to
realize that the developers have a reason (which they believe to be
absolutely right) for every single change. Nobody's opinion is going
to change those decisions as they are pretty much dead set on them.
Complaining only gets negativ
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:01 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 19:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > This mail could perhaps do with more details. :)
>
> The gist of it is:
>
> - fallback mode means two Gnome experiences, so people like myself that
> have a 3D capable desktop a
Am 26.04.2011 09:33, schrieb Bojan Smojver:
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:46 +0200, David Prieto wrote:
For me it's not. It saves me the effort of managing windows half as windows
(obviously) and half as tiny taskbar list items.
Taskbar (i.e. Gnome 2) is not the only way to manage currently running
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:46 +0200, David Prieto wrote:
> For me it's not. It saves me the effort of managing windows half as windows
> (obviously) and half as tiny taskbar list items.
Taskbar (i.e. Gnome 2) is not the only way to manage currently running
windows. See Mac OS X and Windows 7.
> It
Bojan,
- activities "overview" is a mistake; it causes unnecessary visual
> change and it forces users to manage windows half in that view and half
> in the regular view
>
For me it's not. It saves me the effort of managing windows half as windows
(obviously) and half as tiny taskbar list items.
On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 19:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> This mail could perhaps do with more details. :)
The gist of it is:
- fallback mode means two Gnome experiences, so people like myself that
have a 3D capable desktop and a remote VNC session have to switch back
and forth between two diff
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 00:15 +, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Bojan Smojver writes:
>
> > Just watched the latest screencasts of gnome-shell on YouTube. Very nice
> > work - things make sense. Looking forward to a release!
>
> Unfortunately, after actually using the shell through Fedora 15 Beta, I c
Bojan Smojver writes:
> Just watched the latest screencasts of gnome-shell on YouTube. Very nice
> work - things make sense. Looking forward to a release!
Unfortunately, after actually using the shell through Fedora 15 Beta, I cannot
say the same thing. :-(
--
Bojan
__
Just watched the latest screencasts of gnome-shell on YouTube. Very nice
work - things make sense. Looking forward to a release!
--
Bojan
___
gnome-shell-list mailing list
gnome-shell-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-li
62 matches
Mail list logo
