On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> Apple started from scratch for the iPhone, and given the above
> there clearly was good reason. I wonder if they can bring
> themselves to now start over with MacOS X too...
They could steal a few UI ideas from RISC OS.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.fin
On 2009-12-24, at 20:36, david.mackint...@xdroop.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 04:20:02PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
If you don't like it, there's an API to
plug in your own.
Ah, and there it is -- the wonderful attitude that has been the
genesis of the steaming mountain of "software"
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 04:20:02PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
> If you don't like it, there's an API to
> plug in your own.
Ah, and there it is -- the wonderful attitude that has been the
genesis of the steaming mountain of "software" with which we deal
every day:
If you don't like it, write
On 2009-12-23, at 18:47, Joshua Juran wrote:
Free Unix distributions don't depend on applications. Whereas in
Mail I can browse a mailbox, view a message, compose a message,
send, receive, and review my previous recipients, in Unix these
functions could each be implemented by a different p
On Dec 23, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Chris Devers [2009-12-23 20:25]:
The problem, of course, is that Spaces fucks this up royally,
as it seems to take a drunken, blindfolded dartboard approach
to window management that is best used with grim resignation
and willingness to
* Chris Devers [2009-12-23 20:25]:
> The problem, of course, is that Spaces fucks this up royally,
> as it seems to take a drunken, blindfolded dartboard approach
> to window management that is best used with grim resignation
> and willingness to accept such mere considerations as window
> focus a
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter da Silva wrote:
> On 2009-12-22, at 21:40, Chris Devers wrote:
>>
>> Now if you want to go make up your own moon-rules definition for what
>> an "application" is and what should be expected of it, that's up to
>> you.
>
> How about this "moon rule"? If you're
On 2009-12-22, at 21:40, Chris Devers wrote:
Now if you want to go make up your own moon-rules definition for what
an "application" is and what should be expected of it, that's up to
you.
How about this "moon rule"? If you're a document-based application,
when someone closes a document window
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Joshua Rodman
wrote:
>
> As useful as this whole 'the application has focus" idea, there's
> several problems.
>
> 1 - The finder is not an application.
Stop right there, I've found the problem.
The FInder absolutely *is* an application.
It has an icon in the D
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 09:19:09PM -0800, Joshua Juran wrote:
> iChat, I hate you.
>
> It's fine for you to get my attention that someone has requested to chat
> with me. But whatever you do, DO NOT STEAL FOCUS.
>
> You may have thought you were in the clear by using translucent overlay
> window
On 2009-12-18, at 23:19, Joshua Juran wrote:
iChat, I hate you.
It's fine for you to get my attention that someone has requested to
chat with me. But whatever you do, DO NOT STEAL FOCUS.
Finder steals focus, too, when it runs folder actions. And I have a
folder action on my download folde
iChat, I hate you.
It's fine for you to get my attention that someone has requested to
chat with me. But whatever you do, DO NOT STEAL FOCUS.
You may have thought you were in the clear by using translucent
overlay windows that don't capture input. Well, you were wrong.
Because it's not
12 matches
Mail list logo
