On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 February 2012 19:12:58 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> On Tuesday 14 February 2012, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 13, 2012 17:51:23 Shaun Reich wrote:
>> > > hate to chime in as well, but i think replacing the Win
On Tuesday 14 February 2012 19:12:58 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 February 2012, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2012 17:51:23 Shaun Reich wrote:
> > > hate to chime in as well, but i think replacing the Windows shell
> > > should definitely be something that's looked
On Tuesday 14 February 2012, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2012 17:51:23 Shaun Reich wrote:
> > hate to chime in as well, but i think replacing the Windows shell
> > should definitely be something that's looked at. imho it makes a lot
> > of sense. face it, the Windows shell sucks
On Monday, February 13, 2012 17:51:23 Shaun Reich wrote:
> hate to chime in as well, but i think replacing the Windows shell
> should definitely be something that's looked at. imho it makes a lot
> of sense. face it, the Windows shell sucks.
how many windows users realistically change the shell, e
2012/2/13 Ingo Klöcker
> Are there more important reasons than "it scares Windows users"? Windows
> does already run so many services on its own. Why do a few more
> processes matter? Why do the users care anyway? IMNSHO, they should stop
> looking at their task manager or process explorer and s
hate to chime in as well, but i think replacing the Windows shell
should definitely be something that's looked at. imho it makes a lot
of sense. face it, the Windows shell sucks.
why are we replacing their apps and adding our own (dolphin kicking
explorer's butt)?
because the default ones are ter
On Monday 13 February 2012 22:57:56 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2012 20:00:01 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > It is cool to be able to replace the Windows shell... but does it
> > make sense
>
> fwiw, it's always been my opinion that it does not make sense to do
> this.
>
> it
On Saturday 11 February 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> KDE is based on Qt, and Qt is very cross platform.
> While there are Windows and also OSX builds of KDE4, they are not
> really successful.
> I mean, it's not like everybody is running amarok today under
> Windows, or kate, or kdeve
On Saturday, February 11, 2012 20:00:01 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> It is cool to be able to replace the Windows shell... but does it make sense
fwiw, it's always been my opinion that it does not make sense to do this.
it doesn't solve a real problem on the windows platform, and as such does not
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Andre Heinecke wrote:
> The perception that dbus is a problem on Windows is outdated. Dbus was a
> huge
> problem on windows but currently the situation is pretty good, we reall
> have
> no known issues with it. We can run multiple instances with different
> appli
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>
> Pau had the idea to write a fake libdbus for Windows, which internally
> doesn't
> talk to a dbus daemon, but which uses the Windows messaging service.
> On Linux DBUS is no problem. On Mac ? I don't know. Probably better than
> under
On Saturday 11 February 2012 20:00:01 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> kded... for what things is this needed when running only a single
> application ?
The main reason currently is "so that it watches desktop files and keeps
ksycoca up-to-date".
The other uses of KDED are on-demand (kssl, timezones
Hi,
Am Samstag, 11. Februar 2012, 20:00:01 schrieb Alexander Neundorf:
> Hi,
> While there are Windows and also OSX builds of KDE4, they are not really
> successful.
> I mean, it's not like everybody is running amarok today under Windows, or
> kate, or kdevelop, or digikam, kmail, etc.
> Some appli
13 matches
Mail list logo
