Re: Restarting gnome-shell
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 11:27 +0530, Jaimon Jose wrote: > Is there a way I can restart or send a signal to restart gnome-shell > from a terminal?. I noticed that my gnome-shell freezes or crashes at > times (tried to debug a little bit attaching gdb to gnome-shell. But, > that didn't reveal much) and I don't have a way to restart gome-shell > without restarting my Xsession. (Ctrl+Alt+Bkspc). Alt+F2+r doesn't work > as gnome-shell itself is unresponsive. It will be convenient if I can > switch to a console (Ctrl+Alt+F1) and restart or send a signal to > gnome-shell to restart. Just kill the gnome-shell process: 'killall gnome-shell' is an easy way. It will auto-respawn. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Window List Extension
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 12:57 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > You want notification if the system is behaving out of spec > really. > > > A system under heavy load is out of spec? > > Out of spec of what is normal for you. So if you're doing heavy cpu > things then maybe 90% cpu utilization is okay, but 100% utilization of > two of your cpus might raise your eyebrows. What would be out of spec > for you in your workflow? I think he has a point, here. I suspect trying to heuristically differentiate between 'normal' high CPU use and 'out of spec' high CPU use would be almost impossible. How would you go about doing it? I can't think of an approach, even. It's something the user of the system can figure out almost without thinking - any reasonably smart user *knows* which of the things running on their system should be using 100% CPU for five minutes, and which shouldn't - but I think it's extremely difficult to figure out heuristically. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: GNOME and ANDROID
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 17:50 +0200, Daniele Guerrieri wrote: > >> I'm trying to say that it is not customizable; i know there are > >> extensions, but i have > >> no time to learn to write also extensions > > > > Numerous extensions are already available; I can pull at least a dozen > > via the openSUSE repos. You probably don't need to write one. This is > > *no different* than customization on GNOME 2 - someone else implemented > > the customization option and the user just utilized it. A bunch of crap > > was *bundled* with GNOME2, which is the only difference [and > > distributions can still choose to do that]. > ok, but what if i want to put a link on my desktop? > why should i download gnome-tweak-tool? Well, that's different from where we came in. Having icons on the desktop or not has nothing to do with 'tablet' vs 'desktop', it's just whether you like that design. 'Freedom for the user' is another red herring: no desktop can offer the user complete freedom. If GNOME 3 is fundamentally designed in such a way that icons on the desktop don't fit in with its flow at all, it makes no sense to just whack in icons on the desktop as an option in case someone decides they want it. The design has to be consistent. GNOME 3.0 is missing a few planned features which are intended to allow you to do the things you might have done previously by using icons on the desktop; these should show up in 3.2 or 3.4. If you look for 'finding and reminding' on the GNOME wiki you should find some information about this. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: GNOME and ANDROID
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 22:52 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > Um. I'm not sure how you're getting there from here. How does > Android - > 2.3 or 3.0 - resemble GNOME 3? The major feature of GNOME 3 is > the > Overview; Android does not have anything like this. It has an > app > > Actually, they do have an overview although it is an overview of > workspaces. So if you tap the home button twice it zooms out showing > all the virtual workspaces you have out and what widgets are on them > etc. In that particular way it's somewhat like android although the > comparison is more like an eagle vs a flying squirrel. Yeah, they > both fly in the air but they do just about everything else > differently. er, it does? I've got a Droid sitting here and it doesn't seem to do that. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: GNOME and ANDROID
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 07:20 +0200, Daniele Guerrieri wrote: > Hi, > > yesterday, for the first time of life, i saw two Android devices: > samsung galaxy-s and asus eee pad transformer. > > Immediately, i noticed many similarities between Android's interface > and Gnome 3. > > Actually, the new Gnome3 interface resembles very closely an android > smartphone/tablet. > > So, the answer to all criticisms made to the new Gnome, could not be: > "Ok, we'll let the user choose if he wants or a not a tablet-like > interface or if he wants a fully functional Gnome2-like interface? Um. I'm not sure how you're getting there from here. How does Android - 2.3 or 3.0 - resemble GNOME 3? The major feature of GNOME 3 is the Overview; Android does not have anything like this. It has an app browser, but this has no concept of switching between windows; Android isn't a window-based interface. It has no windows at all, which is another obvious difference. It doesn't have a user menu. It doesn't even really have 'system applets' like GNOME 3's network and Bluetooth menus; it uses a rather different system for managing network connections. Their notification systems are very different. I'm struggling in fact to think of any way in which the two are particularly similar besides the fact that it's possible to bring up a grid of application icons in both, in some fashion. That's a pretty small similarity. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Gnome shell suggestions after a bit of usage
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 12:25 +0200, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > Let's consider the music use case, and let's consider our favorite > player, Rhythmbox (version from git master, as the one in fedora has a > bug and fails to recognize gnome-shell) Ah, that would explain why it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot here... > . In place of the GNOME 2.32 > status icon, it has a resident notification with current album/track, > play/pause, previous, next. Do you need anything else? > If you want to pick a specific track, you most likely prefer to see the > whole application. If you want to adjust volume, you can use the global > status indicator. I might not be the best person to ask as I don't use the 'tray applet' function of music players - I always found it distracting and disabled it when possible. But, passing that, it just feels to me like if this becomes the canonical design for 'background tasks', we've changed virtually nothing from GNOME 2 / Windows 98: you still have a rainbow tray of status icons at the bottom right of the screen, except it's auto-hidden until you mouse over it. (And half of the things that used to be there have been designated 'system functions' and moved to the top right instead.) I was kinda hoping GNOME 3 would have some kind of smart solution for this. But I can't really complain if I can't think of anything better, I suppose. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Gnome shell suggestions after a bit of usage
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 00:43 +0200, Florian Müllner wrote: > 2011/7/9 Tassilo Horn > Well, not that bad. But still it needs three actions to pause > the music > player: (1) open overview, (2) activate/unhide player, (3) > press pause > in it. With the usual system tray (aka notification area with > icon > abuse), it's usually just right-click > pause. > > It is not meant as a way to give quick access to applications - that > should be provided by notifications (e.g. like Rhythmbox does it). I think the specific case we're discussing in this thread - music - is an interesting one that could merit some specific discussion. Controlling music playback as a 'system' function - via a notification area icon, usually - seems to be a pretty popular method, and this doesn't really work as well in GNOME 3 as it did in GNOME 2, I think most would agree. So you could say we should just add it as a system function, but then, there are plenty of people who don't play music at all, and this would be one more annoyance for them alongside the equally-often-useless accessibility and bluetooth icons. So...I don't have a solution, I'm just pointing this up; there seems to be a gap (that could be defined as 'quick, outside-current-task interactions with subsets of the functionality of running applications') between the 'system area' and the notification system which GNOME 3 just isn't covering very well at present. Is there a strategy for this? Do we want people to figure it out with extensions? Do we really want to use (some would say abuse) permanent notifications for this? Does someone have a smart solution that hasn't previously been suggested? Do we just throw up our hands and say 'that's not what GNOME 3 is for'? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Gnome shell suggestions after a bit of usage
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 18:24 +0200, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > > > I do like the notification part in gnome-shell (beside the integrated > > > chat stealing focus, but all it needs is tweaking), I was talking > > > about the "interact with background application" part: I thought > > > gnome-shell also had an API for this as the indicators proposed by > > > canonical have been rejected. From a user point of view, the system > > > area in gnome-shell is very similar. What I do not know is wether it > > > is it limited to the shell and extensions, or if any application can > > > add something as well. > > > > It's limited to the Shell (and extensions), by design. The Shell > > developers want the Shell interface to be consistent, not vary between > > users, distros and apps. > > This is not true. The message tray is a central interaction point for a > well defined set of applications (chat, music, email, etc). You're confused. We're talking about the 'system area in gnome-shell' (i.e. the top right, where the user menu, NM menu, Bluetooth menu, sound menu and accessibility menu live), not the 'message tray', at this point. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Gnome shell suggestions after a bit of usage
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 15:19 +0200, Aurélien Naldi wrote: > As far as I know, libnotify supports only notifications (and does it > well). They can vanish after a while or require acknowledgement, but > they can not be truly persistent. The notification area was used both > for such notifications and to provide a way to interact with > "background" applications. The reason for this, historically, is that it's an XDG standard while panel applets never have been, FWIW. > I do like the notification part in gnome-shell (beside the integrated > chat stealing focus, but all it needs is tweaking), I was talking > about the "interact with background application" part: I thought > gnome-shell also had an API for this as the indicators proposed by > canonical have been rejected. From a user point of view, the system > area in gnome-shell is very similar. What I do not know is wether it > is it limited to the shell and extensions, or if any application can > add something as well. It's limited to the Shell (and extensions), by design. The Shell developers want the Shell interface to be consistent, not vary between users, distros and apps. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Remember window states
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 17:29 -0300, Tomas Sironi wrote: > Hi people. Is there a way to make gnome-shell remember the last window > state? For example, if I open the terminal, maximize it and then close > it, i would want that application to be maximized the next time i open > it. Instead, the terminal opens unmaximized again. Yeah, it seems to have regressed quite badly from GNOME 2 in this, actually. GNOME 2 would remember most of my window sizes / positions across two displays - it only got Firefox wrong (it'd usually be on the wrong display). Shell gets just about everything wrong. I usually have full-screen Evolution and gedit windows on the left hand screen, full-screen Firefox on the right, and a full-width but only 80 lines high terminal on the right. Shell remembers which windows are maximized but not which head they were on, and opens the terminal at 80x24, in the wrong place. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Configure date/time display
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 20:00 +0200, Florian Müllner wrote: > On vie, 2011-07-01 at 18:56 +0100, Calum Benson wrote: > > Rather inclined to agree. Personally I always like the reassurance of > > seeing the seconds tick over on all my desktops as well, but not even > > gnome-tweak-tool can do that right now :/ > > File a bug then - the setting exists, gnome-tweak-tool just isn't I filed a bug to propose including the date - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=653845 . -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Configure date/time display
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 18:59 +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > the Tweak Tool is not for "advanced" settings: it's for tweaking the UI, > > to avoid adding all possible settings to the control center UI and make > > it a mess of knobs and controls. > > Tweak tool has both types of settings. And tweak tool is not part of > gnome3 desktop, if I remember correctly (or has it been proposed to > 3.2?). I think the two options are commonly used enough to be in > g-c-c. Clean and beautiful design is one thing, but functionalities > should not be sacrificed in the name of beauty. I think the default should simply be changed, frankly. I can't see any kind of drawback whatsoever to having the date there. Possibly on something with a ridiculously tiny screen it wouldn't fit, but in that case it could just automatically switch to time-only display. I can't really think of any argument in favor of defaulting to time-only. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: My opinions on Gnome Shell
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 19:27 -0300, Job wrote: > > Very easy. why I never know this so simple and intuitive interface. > (Shitf-Ctrl-Alt-Down) > Very easy for who have liabilities. Or how need to use use one hand > while hold mobile. You can do it with one hand, I just tested. It's not terribly easy, but you can...=) (ring finger hits alt, middle finger hits shift and ctrl, forefinger hits down. Using the alt, shift and ctrl keys on the right hand side of the keyboard, obviously.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: My opinions on Gnome Shell
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 13:21 -0400, Jesse Hutton wrote: > My main point of contention with that rational is that not all windows > are part of any particular task for a user. Would a music player be > part of a specific task? What about an instant messenger or IRC > client? Even for email, I can easily think of use cases where you > would want to associate the application with a given task in one > instance (maybe you're communicating with somebody about a particular > project), and then a different one in another. In other words, the use > cases for email span a larger scope than a single task. Yeah, this is certainly my biggest problem with the Shell design. It's probably taken to an extreme, for me, because I can't separate tasks *at all*: any task I do, related to work or personal use or anything else, uses the same few windows - mail client, browser, chat client, text editor, terminal. Sometimes I have a music player too, and as you say, this clearly spans all tasks. I have yet to find any way I can possibly split these into multiple workspaces that makes any sense, so I simply can't use workspaces the way Shell intends. I could try and split different web pages between different 'types' in different Firefox windows, I guess, but it feels like it'd be more work than it would be worth. I don't really find it a problem and I just keep everything in one workspace, but I certainly feel like this aspect of the Shell design doesn't do anything for me. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Searching for files
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 18:36 -0400, Jeff Sumner wrote: > After looking at > https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/UsabilityTesting/PhaseI it > is my impression that I should be able to search for documents- but > whenever I press the "Windows" key to bring up the Activities page and > then enter a file that I know exists in my home folder hierarchy, I do > not get an opportunity to open the file- the search field quickly goes > through applications, and then... blank. > > Should I see an icon that would represent the file? Have incorrectly > configured things? I have the file manager open and can, of course, > search from there- and if that's the way it should be done, so be it > but I'm missing something here about the functionality if I should be > able to search from Gnome Shell. Accidentally pressing enter after > trying to search opens up Firefox to a Wikipedia search page . > > Where is the global recent document list, please? Is it gone? > > > I'm running Fedora 15. if there's anything specific to the > implementation of which anyone's aware? On F15 it works fine for me for recently used files. I don't believe a more comprehensive file search is implemented yet - it's simply not been written, though it's planned. But if I type part of the file name of a text file I recently edited in gedit, it shows up. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: My opinions on Gnome Shell
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 17:12 +0100, Dimitris M. wrote: > >> 1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have > >> cursed you for this, so far...). > > > > Minimizing is pretty much an obsolete notion. > Software exist to serve the users' needs. I need minimizing. > I believe the number of people that need minimizing vastly outnumber those > who don't. The GNOME developers believe otherwise, and unless someone presents some hard data, it's just two groups of people shouting at each other. Regardless: http://www.khattam.info/howto-add-minimize-maximizerestore-buttons-in-gnome-3-2011-05-26.html > >> 2. Switching between widows is PAINFUL. The options I have is: move > >> mouse to top-left or press the window key. > > > > Alt-tab / Alt-tick > > Window management should not require keyboard. It doesn't require it. You already discovered how to do it without the keyboard, but you complained it was too slow and disruptive. Someone recommended a method that was faster and less disruptive, and instead of saying 'hey, thanks', all you can do is come up with some new reason why it doesn't qualify? That's not cool. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Cheap PCI graphic cards for GNOME Shell
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:57 -0400, Jeff Fortin wrote: > > These days it may be cheaper to find a used > > machine that can do PCI/E or AGP, than to find a straight PCI video > > card that is fast enough. > > Except that it hurts my environmentally-conscious self to "throw away" > those desktop machines that are in working order, just lacking a good > video card. > > eBay listings for PCI video cards are generally littered with > - ATI Radeon 9200/9250 (which are R200 if I recall correctly) > - nVIDIA MX4000 (of the NV10 family; too old?) > - nVIDIA FX5200/FX5500 (of the NV30 family) > > Usually priced at 30$ or so. Perhaps the NV30 cards (such as the geforce > FX 5200 and 5500) would be the only viable option? (if the hardware is > fast enough) Of those three, yes, I'd say the FX5xxx would be the best bet. Looking at my usual reseller - http://ncix.com/products/index.php?minorcatid=108&subminorcatid=50 - I see a GeForce 6200 is the #1 result, which is certainly new enough to be Shell-capable (though I can't testify to whether that specific card does in fact work or if there's any kind of nouveau bug with it). I even see that some crazy company made a PCI GeForce 8400GS; that's a pretty recent generation. The Radeons listed there other than the 9250 should also work. Looking at NewEgg - http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=17709% 2067853&IsNodeId=1&name=PCI - I see a similar story; quite a lot of cards that should work fine. The 6200s, 8400, X1550, 9400 GT (I have a PCI-E version of that chip which works fine), HD 4350, FX 5200s, X1300, HD 5450 would all look like reasonable bets. I didn't bother looking at page 2 or 3. As has been noted earlier on this list, any Intel 915 or later (though you can't get these as discrete cards, so it's irrelevant to you), any NVIDIA from GeForce onwards (though I'd probably look at GeForce 4 as a baseline, just to be safe, I'm not sure anyone's really tested the older ones...and GeForce 4 may be a slightly unsafe bet too) and any Radeon from R300 onwards (so Radeon 9500 and later) should work. It doesn't look like it should be too difficult to source a compatible PCI adapter. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Changing how I work in Gnome 3
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 20:26 -0400, Andrew Pitonyak wrote: > Many things seem to be missing, for example, if I install a development > build of OOo and I ant to add a short cut so that I can easily run it. I > don't suppose that I can do that without directly editing a file in a text > editor (which is the only method I have seen). alacarte can do this, I believe. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Custom launchers in Gnome 3
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 16:13 +0300, Pasha R wrote: > Is it possible to create a customized launcher in Gnome 3 - for > launching application with specific command line parameters or > launching a URL in default browser? > Like something I could do by dragging a launcher to panel > or desktop and editing it with right click, or by dragging a URL from > browser to panel. Aside from the replies you already got, I believe some people have found alacarte can do this too. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Sensors Extension.
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 05:55 +0100, Artur Wroblewski wrote: > well, your blog entry sounds like gnome applets never existed > > http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-applets/ > > but they did exist and were part of gnome core. Well, I didn't want to make things too complicated. I may be recalling the history wrong, but I believe all or most of the things in gnome-applets still started out the way I describe: they weren't there in GNOME 2.0, they were created later, as add-ons. I believe at first most of them were external, and gnome-applets came about as a way to roll up and 'bless' the most commonly used and officially 'accepted' applets so they'd be maintained and released along with the rest of GNOME. Perhaps the same will happen with GNOME 3 and there'll be a gnome-extensions later. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Sensors Extension.
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 03:21 +0100, Another Sillyname wrote: > Thanks for the explanation Adam, I feel a bit like the girl who asked > for a kiss and in response you started to take your pants off.. That's me, forever taking my pants off at the least provocation ;) > I understand that the panel apps are usually third party, what I think > would be helpful is if somewhere someone wrote a blog entry that fully > explained that G3S is a framework, extensions supporting all the > previous panel apps could appear in time. Well, I hope I did that. Of course, I'm not on p.g.o, since I'm not really part of GNOME, I just throw things from the sidelines. > I've read threads where it's come across as multitasking/multi > application environments will just not be supported and development > thereof will be actively discouraged. It's more about lack of distractions. But again, that's the vision of the GNOME design team, and there's no law saying extensions have to follow that vision... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Sensors Extension.
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 17:41 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:14 +0100, Another Sillyname wrote: > > > There's plenty of space on the top bar to allow them, so what's the logic? > Sorry if that was long, but I wanted to make it as clear as possible. I > hope it helps. So I wrote up this essay of mine, in a different form, as a blog post: http://www.happyassassin.net/2011/05/31/gnome-shell-panel-applets-and-eating-your-cake/ hope it's useful to someone. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Sensors Extension.
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:14 +0100, Another Sillyname wrote: > There's plenty of space on the top bar to allow them, so what's the logic? 1) be clear about what's been removed. The sensors applet was never core GNOME code; it's an add-on, an extra. What is removed in GNOME 3 is the panel applet interface for add-ons to use. This is sometimes described as 'removing applets', which in a way it is, but there's kind of a key difference. The reason it was removed is that it was considered to be bad code, and it was felt that in the GNOME 3 interface, there are better ways than panel applets to add on functionality. 2) Reason the right way around. It's not the core GNOME development team's job to write things like system monitor add-ons. How did gnome-sensors-applet come about in the first place? As an add-on to GNOME. Some people took a look at GNOME 2 and thought 'hmm, we should add some way to do at-a-glance hardware monitoring'. 3) Follow the logic. So, in GNOME 3 - a complete rewrite of the GNOME desktop - the core development team decided there was a better way of allowing third parties to extend GNOME functionality than the panel applet interface, and removed the panel applet interface. Since it's not practical to wait for every third-party GNOME add-on ever to be re-implemented in the new GNOME 3 ways, that means that the functionality of some third-party GNOME add-ons will be unavailable in GNOME 3...but _only_ until that re-implementation is done. 4) Reach the conclusion! It's not the core GNOME team's responsibility to write add-ons (or...we could call them...extensions!) to GNOME. They instead provide handy interfaces that others can use to write these extensions. In GNOME 2, the panel applet interface was one of these. In GNOME 3, it isn't; there is the much more powerful concept of Shell extensions. You can write something as a GNOME Shell extension that works exactly like a GNOME 2 panel applet; it just doesn't use libpanel-applet any more. But it still walks, looks and quacks like a panel applet. Some people have done this already. The GNOME design team might think that's a bad way to design add-ons, generally speaking, but hey, they don't get a vote on your third-party add-on. Or, you can take advantage of the much greater power you have with Shell extensions to come up with a neater way of implementing the functionality. The sky's really the limit. 'GNOME 3 doesn't let you make panel applets' is the pessimistic way of looking at it. 'GNOME 3 doesn't _only_ let you make panel applets - it lets you extend it in far more ways!' is the optimistic way of looking at it. All that needs to happen is for the same (types of) people who wrote extensions for GNOME 2 as panel applets to write similar (but probably better!) extensions for GNOME 3, as extensions. Sorry if that was long, but I wanted to make it as clear as possible. I hope it helps. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Gnome 3 vs scientists (ie., external monitor problem)
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 11:01 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > Would be a dream come true to have a site where you copied the string > from lspci output, enter your software version(s), and check a few boxes > as to what does work / doesn't work / you-haven't-tried. And make it > searchable. > > The true problem is the above would only be useful if a large number of > people used it [entered their data]. Creating a centralized repository > of anything is something Open Source has demonstrated it cannot > accomplish. There have actually been a few efforts along these lines in the past. The biggest problem with them is that they go stale very quickly: people make entries then don't update them. So the HCL will say that card X doesn't work, when in fact the driver was fixed six months ago and it works fine. Or it'll say that card Y does work, but actually there was a regression and now it doesn't. I've never seen any such list manage to keep properly up to date and accurate, it may well simply not be possible. Entering the 'software version' works around this to some extent, but a) if all the entries are for releases that are now a year out of date then you're not learning anything useful, and b) few users are actually qualified to identify these accurately; how many of you know all the components that are actually key to video card functionality and can accurately give the appropriate versions for all of them on your system, bearing in mind distribution backports? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Hiding minimized windows from Overview?
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 10:33 +0200, Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote: > Le dimanche 29 mai 2011 à 17:27 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit : > > Well, preserving the preference is a statement of sorts. If the devs > > really just wanted to make it flat impossible to minimize windows it > > would be easy enough to make it no longer possible to do it even via > > gsettings. > Be careful, they may well do it in the end, if you keep reminding them > of this inconsistency... ;-) I don't mind, I haven't minimized a window in anger for years =) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Hiding minimized windows from Overview?
On Sat, 2011-05-28 at 12:04 +0200, Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote: > > Yes, there is. Right-click on the window title, and click minimize. > > There is also a dconf setting which can re-enable the minimize button, > > and gnome-tweak-tool provides an interface to this. > It's still present, but the menu is merely a leftover, there was even a > discussion about removing it. And let's not speak about tweaking > GSettings, that's of course possible, but clearly not the standard Shell > behavior. Well, preserving the preference is a statement of sorts. If the devs really just wanted to make it flat impossible to minimize windows it would be easy enough to make it no longer possible to do it even via gsettings. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Hiding minimized windows from Overview?
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 22:20 -0400, Cyril Arnaud wrote: > There is no minimize per say in Gnome Shell (there not even a button > for this). Yes, there is. Right-click on the window title, and click minimize. There is also a dconf setting which can re-enable the minimize button, and gnome-tweak-tool provides an interface to this. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: The good, the bad, the insane
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 21:38 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > (This is actually one area where the kernel folks and distros - like us! > > - seriously need to pull their finger out and either fix up the current > > hibernate code, or swallow their pride and merge in either tuxonice or > > uswsusp, like now; there's no reason hibernate should suck anywhere near > > as badly as it currently does. I suspect what the Shell designers would > > really like to do by default is hybrid suspend, like on Macs, but this > > is rather impractical given that you can't actually _do_ hybrid suspend > > on Linux, yet, with a stock setup.) > > > > I completely agree with you that we should hybrid suspend instead of > normal suspend. Infact, if I remember correctly, both tuxonice and > uswsusp already support hybrid suspend. My reading of the situation is that uswsusp has quite limited support for hybrid suspend; tuxonice's is better, but tuxonice relies on non-upstreamed kernel changes. They seem to be getting upstreamed, but very slowly. My understanding of uswsusp may be out of date, though - it doesn't help that it doesn't seem to be packaged in Fedora, for no reason I can discern. I should really get around to building it and testing it out. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: The good, the bad, the insane
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 17:57 -0400, Jesse Hutton wrote: > Agreed that you have to weigh the differences. I judge that it weighs > if favor of giving people the option to power off their pc's. Btw, you > really terminate your IRC sessions, etc in all those situations you > sited? I use an IRC proxy (and an IM-to-IRC gateway in combination with it). So should everyone. ;) http://www.bitlbee.org/img/comic_3.0.png -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: The good, the bad, the insane
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 16:43 -0400, Jesse Hutton wrote: > The question is, why? Why did the designers want to mirror the typical > power mode of a smart phone? Isn't there a vast difference in the > utility and power consumption between the two? Yes, it seems > small--and I can still shutdown my computer in numerous ways including > the command line, etc--but this strikes me as one of the more arrogant > design decisions I've witnessed. And it potentially has real > implications in the world, ie. users' power usage. Sigh, and again people run off with the phone reference; it was a sidebar, not the main point. The thought is not 'ooh, let's do what phones do'; the thought is 'suspend/resume is probably what most people really want to happen when they stop using the computer and then start using it again'. In general what you want is for the system to 'turn on' really fast and give you exactly the working environment you had before you 'turned it off', yes? Well, that's what suspend/resume do. "Isn't there a vast difference in the utility and power consumption between the two?" On most hardware, at the moment? Yes (well, not vast, but noticeable). But hey, maybe if it becomes more normal to suspend rather than shut down, this will be something that gets addressed. "And it potentially has real implications in the world, ie. users' power usage." Again, you have to weigh the slight increase in power usage in suspension versus complete power down against the big difference in power usage between suspension and full power up. It's not just about overnight; if you get in the habit of using suspend/resume all the time, and you can truly rely on it to work, you'll do it a hell of a lot more than you would a full power cycle. I suspend my system when I go to the washroom for two minutes, because it's really easy to do it - two clicks or one press of the system power button - and I know it'll come back up working in a couple of seconds when I come back. I'd never do a full power cycle in the same situation. Ditto getting up to feed the cat, do some laundry, take out the trash, go to the store for half an hour... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: The good, the bad, the insane
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 22:23 +0200, Rovanion Luckey wrote: > Hibernate and not Suspend should had been the only option shown in the > menu when thinking of the computer as a computer and not a phone. It > quickly takes the user back to the state which the computer was when > it was hibernated and does not consume a lot of unnecessary energy. > But even so, neither suspend nor hibernate works on all computers. There's two problems with hibernate: it almost never works, and it's really slow. (This is actually one area where the kernel folks and distros - like us! - seriously need to pull their finger out and either fix up the current hibernate code, or swallow their pride and merge in either tuxonice or uswsusp, like now; there's no reason hibernate should suck anywhere near as badly as it currently does. I suspect what the Shell designers would really like to do by default is hybrid suspend, like on Macs, but this is rather impractical given that you can't actually _do_ hybrid suspend on Linux, yet, with a stock setup.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: The good, the bad, the insane
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 20:24 +0100, Martin Häsler wrote: > > So for me, your math is wrong. Why? Because before I could actually > > suspend my desktop and had a convenient interface for doing it, I didn't > > power it off: I just left it running, so when I stumbled to my desk in > > the morning it'd be up and running and in the state I left it > > immediately.Now, I can suspend it at night and resume it in the morning > > and achieve the same result. For me, working and conveniently-accessed > > suspend mode results in me saving power, not using more. > I guess energy prices in the US are still way too low, I'm not in the US. > but leaving aside > your > energy wasting habits, I never argued against a suspend option. > I just don't want it to be the only option in the user menu. > Also you act like you couldn't suspend under the old design, which is of > course not true. Well, step back and look at the bigger picture. Why does Shell have a Suspend option and no Power Off option by default (and originally, before the Alt hack, had no Power Off option *at all*)? The idea was to influence people in the direction of seeing suspend/resume as the normal "I'm done for now / Now I'm starting working again" mechanism, much as it is on phones, which most people rarely turn off. If you expose a Power Off option with equal weight to the Suspend option, this influence is lost, and the inertia of current habits will mean people continue to see Power Off as the 'normal' way to stop using the system, particularly on desktops...which may mean they don't do it at all, and don't think to suspend instead. Providing only a Suspend option adjusts the balance of the decision. I'm 'educated' enough to understand what all the options are and the implications of each and make a decision - in practice, the trigger for me switching from 'leave it on' to 'suspend' was a fix for a bug which made suspending impractical, not the GNOME 3 re-design - but that's not true of many users. > Here in Germany people power off their desktops and then switch off the > power extension, > because electricity is not cheap and we value our environment. (That > used to be mandatory > at my old job) Generalizations don't really help anything. You're sure you speak for all Germans? And I represent all evil Americans, even though I'm not one? :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: using gsettings / gconf in extensions
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 17:50 +0200, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > Why not installing system-wide? It's just a matter of "pkcon install What if you have other users on the system who don't want that extension? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: The good, the bad, the insane
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 16:43 +0100, Martin Häsler wrote: > Please let me explain why I care. > Having only Suspend in the user menu encourages people to waste energy > and that bothers me greatly. > And not everyone owns a modern laptop which uses only 1 Watt per hour in > standby. > More common would be laptops using about 10-13 Watt and desktop PC's > even more, > especially considering the external monitor. Let's say you use your PC > 50 hours a week. > That means 118 hours a week in standby mode. And roughly 6200 hours a year. > That equals 62 kw/h wasted for nothing. > I care about the environment and I don't see how this is hard to understand. It's incomplete and partly incorrect, for a start. Partly incorrect: what does the monitor have to do with anything? On a desktop, the power state of the monitor is entirely divorced from that of the computer. You can suspend the machine and turn the monitor off, and on the other hand, you can power down the machine and leave the monitor on. Incomplete: you fail to account for changes in behaviour. Suspending is a lot more convenient to the user than powering off; suspending and resuming are both hugely quicker than shutting down and booting up. It takes my system about three seconds to get to a usable state when I resume, and that 'usable state' means 'exactly the state it was in when I "powered off"'. With power off / power on, it takes over a minute, and the 'usable state' is not exactly the state I was in before powering off. So for me, your math is wrong. Why? Because before I could actually suspend my desktop and had a convenient interface for doing it, I didn't power it off: I just left it running, so when I stumbled to my desk in the morning it'd be up and running and in the state I left it immediately. Now, I can suspend it at night and resume it in the morning and achieve the same result. For me, working and conveniently-accessed suspend mode results in me saving power, not using more. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: New system monitor extension
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 14:17 +0200, Florian Mounier wrote: > Hi ! > I wrote a gnome shell extension displaying memory / swap / cpu usage > in status bar. > My code is far from perfect but I thought it might interest some of > you. > Code is available > here: http://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet > Any feedback is welcome. > Best regards Just thinking out loud, but it'd be nice to see alternative approaches to showing these things - system info, weather - than just re-creating applets. Has anyone thought of writing an extension that adds these somewhere else, like to the overview somehow? Or for weather, to the clock? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Paper prototypes for Finding and Reminding
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 20:57 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > I finally got off my ass and finished the paper prototypes for Finding > and Reminder. This is the journal and reminders that I posted about the > other day in the "Narrative for Finding and Reminding" thread. > > Since posting pictures to this list is awkward, I've put the narrative > and prototypes here: > > http://people.gnome.org/~federico/news-2011-05.html#narrative > > The post also links to an XCF with the various pieces of the paper > prototype, for if you want to play with them, print them, etc. > > I hope to be able to test the prototype on my wife; I'm sure a second > pair of eyes will bring up basic problems in the design. I guess one thing that worries me slightly about this is the addition of another 'tab' on the Shell. This is starting to feel like panel applets, to me - an invention of convenience that's going to get overloaded. Every time we add some major feature to the Shell, is it going to wind up being another overview tab? Is that what we really want? If it is then great, I just wanted to make sure it was really designed that way :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: We want task bar back. Pretty please.
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 21:19 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 11:07 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 18:51 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > > > Explaining: > > > Now I need to move it upwards, then downwards. > > > > > > If I want to start four apps in a row, which I do every day in the > > > morning, I can't go up and click-click-click-click, I need to > > > go up, go down and click, > > > go up, go down and click, > > > go up, go down and click, > > > go up, go down and click. > > > > You really want to be using the keyboard shortcut to access overview. > > It's much nicer than using the mouse, on a typical desktop/laptop. > > Trying. > Alt-F1, click -> Expose closes, app #1 launches. > Need to open Expose again, so: > Alt-F1, click -> Expose closes, app #2 launches. > Alt-F1, click -> Expose closes, app #3 launches. > Alt-F1, click -> Expose closes, app #4 launches. > > This is still much slower than click-click-click-click in Gnome 2. ..and you cut out the bit where I recommended the actually-sane solution - if you know you're always going to launch the same four apps, just set them to launch automatically on login. Since this is possible, it's understandable that 'launch a known set of multiple apps in quick succession' is not a key design target for Shell's launching behaviour, since if you're going to do that all the time there are better ways to do it anyway. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: We want task bar back. Pretty please.
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 18:51 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > Explaining: > Now I need to move it upwards, then downwards. > > If I want to start four apps in a row, which I do every day in the > morning, I can't go up and click-click-click-click, I need to > go up, go down and click, > go up, go down and click, > go up, go down and click, > go up, go down and click. You really want to be using the keyboard shortcut to access overview. It's much nicer than using the mouse, on a typical desktop/laptop. If you run the same four apps every time you boot, why not just set them to auto-start? That's what I do. gnome-session-properties can do that for you. > > As I said, hit the windows key > > My Windows key switches Latin/Cyrillic keyboard layout for last 10 > years. I prefer to not have to unlearn/relearn that too, so I'll keep it > bound the old way. So, use alt-f1, or bind some other key for the overview. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: We want task bar back. Pretty please.
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 19:22 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > I've seen the lack of a menu come up so many times > > What does it tell to a developer when he sees the same complaint > coming up again and again? That negative reaction to change is common. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: We want task bar back. Pretty please.
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 13:26 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 19:17 +0200, Florian Müllner wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 13:05 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > > > Assigning a hot key for the activity view helps [I mapped Windows+Space, > > > like GNOME-Do used to use] then if I need to I can pop in an out of that > > > view without using the odd [I still find it odd] gesture/position > > > scheme. > > Just out of curiosity - why do you change the default hot key from > > "Super" to "Super+Space"? Muscle memory? > > Hmmm. There was no hot-key assigned when I went into the keybindings; > it was "Disabled". I wasn't aware there was a default. > > I looked about and couldn't find documentation of the 'official' default > key bindings. By default, super and alt-f1 should both trigger the overview. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Instant Message notifications
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 07:40 +0200, Koppányi Tamás wrote: > i am also really hoping that developers wouldfix this. also it would > be great if there was better integration for empathy. right now the > notification bar icon of empathy is barely cliackable (only the icon, > not the text), and while the chat windows stay on the notification > bar, but they have no sign that there might be new messages. last time > i complained about this i got a reply that after being away from the > computer for some time, the notification bar comes up to show you if > there was something happening. while this is good, but since empathy > windows look all the same if there was something happening or if not, > i have to look through each icon manually (click them one by one, > since mouseover also doesn't show anything). now this is even a bigger > distraction, since because i'm affraid i'll miss some essages, i keep > checking the messaging windows constantly, instead of focusing on my > work. Right - we've been through this before, but this is a good way of looking at it. Like the others, I find that the current notification system does not work well for synchronous chat systems (IRC in my case) that are really important: obviously a lot of Fedora work goes through IRC so when someone pings me on IRC it really matters, but it's easy to miss a transient notification. I've developed a workflow workaround - every few minutes I either manually open the notification tray and look for the xchat bubble, or alt-tab to the xchat window - but as Koppanyi neatly points out, our having to do this is completely destroying the concept behind the transient notifications, and we're actually _more_ distracted than we were before. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Designing "Finding and Reminding"
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 21:10 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > (Another idea is to have a ~/Private from which things never get logged. > Again, see more ideas in that mail.) It'd be kind of ironic for the design of the workflow-to-replace-that-broken-files-and-folders-metaphor to rely on a special folder for privacy =) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: on suspend
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 19:05 -0400, Jesse Hutton wrote: > And why discourage shutting down to begin with? It saves power and > booting is getting faster all the time anyway... A cynic might note that it means not having to make session saving _really work_, which is something that's notoriously difficult =) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: RFC: compat list
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 12:48 +0200, Robin Stocker wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > NVIDIA - GeForce and higher (I may be a bit out here; it may be > > GeForce > > 2 and higher). > > Except that newer cards aren't supported, like the GTS450: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679538 Ah, right - that should read 'All GeForce cards up to GeForce 300 series', I guess. I forgot about the issues with 400 and 500. There's a legal issue relating to firmware for those. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Feedback
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 10:28 +0800, Allan E. Registos wrote: > >If I'm powering off it's because I'm unplugging the computer. If I'm > rebooting it's to update to the new kernel. The, what I that was a > lack, of >other options was annoying. > > This is one of the reasons why the GNOME Shell was being accused of > being "designed by software developers for software developers." End > users should have options available. That really doesn't make any sense unless you believe that software developers never update kernels, which is pretty clearly not the case. The design discussions specifically highlighted cases where powering off does make sense; the case where an update requires a reboot is intended to be handled through the package update system, which makes sense. The case where you are rebooting to a different operating system was also considered and acknowledged as something that should be handled, AIUI, but an acceptable design hasn't yet been implemented. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Feedback
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 20:49 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Allan E. Registos > wrote: > On Saturday, 30 April, 2011 09:40 PM, Jasper St. Pierre > wrote: > > == Suspend instead of Shutdown == > > > > Surely this has been discussed extensively, I just > > want to mention that suspend simply does not work > > for me (tested on two computers, both do not wake up > > correctly). > I guess they do not want to listen as I recall. > > Well, I wouldn't say that.. I'm sure there at least in Fedora that the > distros will be trying to get suspend working. Suspend has to work. > It needs to be exactly like the Mac. My wife for instances, always > closes, she never shuts down her laptop. The same can be said of both > desktop and laptop. > > > It is a matter of getting distros to fix it. Personally, gnome 3 is > about pushing distros to start fixing as much of this stuff as > possible. It's easy to say this, but doing it is a different matter. It's an old saw, but it's true: Apple has control of the hardware. I suspect if you go out and look at people who use Hackintoshes (that's non-Apple hardware with OS X installed on it) and ask for how many suspend works perfectly, you might get a different story. Distros can certainly try to improve suspend support, but it's inherently a very tricky area and there are not, currently, many engineers who work on it. If GNOME is really going to stick to this so hard, GNOME might want to take a more active role in the diplomacy required to get distro backers and other entities with a stake in kernel development to focus on improving suspend support. *Especially* for desktops; suspend is more problematic on desktops because it's been considered pretty unimportant by almost everyone up till now, while everyone agrees at least in principle that we ought to have suspend working on all laptops. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Feedback
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 09:40 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > It should only be a default if we detect you computer can support it. > > Can you give us some hardware details, and try: > > pm-utils --suspend && echo "Supported" || echo "Not supported" > > in a terminal? I hope you realize this is an extremely inaccurate test; there are many many motherboards out there whose BIOSes claim suspend support, but for which suspend in Linux simply does not work. Testing for support reported (or not) by the BIOS is never going to get close to catching all potential failure cases. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: RFC: compat list
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 14:31 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to consolidate all HW+GL-related information
> > (requirements) on a single page on live.gnome.org? Minimal list of
> > extensions, hints ("do not use this driver, do not use those chips,
> > etc")
>
> I think we really do need a high level description of the current
> state somewhere, yes.
>
> My understanding is roughly at least for Intel "any card ≥ i915/945",
> though i915 is about the very minimum. We do need to get recent data
> about ATI and NVIDIA; can anyone help fill in?
From the relevant Fedora developers, who are also upstream X developers,
my current understanding so far as the free drivers goes is:
Intel - i9xx and higher. i8xx is known to sort-of-work but have major
issues, these issues will not be fixed and the intent is that i8xx
adapters should be detected and fallback mode should be used.
Radeon - r300 and higher, that's Radeon 9500 and higher. r200 and r100
are the same story as i8xx: they should be blacklisted by the
session-is-accelerated check.
NVIDIA - GeForce and higher (I may be a bit out here; it may be GeForce
2 and higher).
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
gnome-shell-list mailing list
gnome-shell-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
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 expected to be buggy). Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Can you turn off idle in chat?
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:53 -0400, G. Michael Carter wrote: > I have three computers in my office. So depending where the IM is > running it could say I'm idle for hours when I'm sitting right here. >Is there any way of turning it off like in pidgin? > > > Reason I ask, I used to have a boss who would judge if I was working > or not based on my idle times I was fixing a critical issue on > another computer, actually worked 15 hours that day but the boss > said I didn't work at all because my idle time said 20 hours so I > turned it off... now it looks like I work 24-7 > > > Needless to say I want to keep that practice. Your boss is clearly buggy; I'd report them to _their_ boss. ;) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
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 Shell', in my chart. > > What is "best"? For one person, this may be "consistent look across all > systems." For another "maximum number of animations per minute of use." > I'm leaning towards the former. :-) > > Seriously for a second, if Apple managed to have a decent looking and > behaving desktop on an eMac (and I said before, I'm no big fan of OS X), > with no hardware acceleration whatsoever and so many years ago, things > can be done so that the fallback _resembles_ the new mode. It doesn't > have to be exactly the same, but at least similar. 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 quite as much as you think. > And this is another problem with the overview. 3D is probably required > to all all those animations all the time, even when user really wants to > do something else. I don't really have the same perception you do here. Shell certainly doesn't look like an attempt to use as many animations as possible, to me; it uses them quite sparingly, really. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
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 you are looking for a particular lost window (which is > mostly the case - nobody says: "oh, let's see which thing would be nice > to do next among all the lost windows" - they already know what they'd > like to do, they just can't find the window to do it), then this is > actually better. Because you don't have to see all the other lost > windows, just the one of the app you're looking for. Why wouldn't you just use alt-tab? (Mind you, I use alt-tab for just about everything.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
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 undisputed fact: overview does workspaces, > applications, windows and expose, simultaneously. > > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/everything_but_the_kitchen_sink 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. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell?
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:42 -0400, G. Michael Carter wrote: > In this case it doesn't. I get the option "LOGOFF" and that's it. > (With an unhappy computer icon in the centre)Bottom line I > couldn't see the fallback get the attention that a non-3d session > would so would be better to upgrade the hardware or switch to > something like KDE, XFCE, or LXDE. > > > I just needed that confirmation so I could layout my parents options. My 'should' was a request to the developers :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell?
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 13:50 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:10 -0400, G. Michael Carter wrote: > > Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell? > > > > "gnome-shell isn't expected to work on r100 (or r200) you need >= r300 for > > radeon cards for it to work." > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679264 > > Confirmed. > > (It's not really a question of features, but these cards just don't have > enough power to give a decent experience with GNOME Shell, so > we don't want to spend the considerable amount of time necessary to > debug the drivers and get them working with GNOME Shell.) In this case, the fallback detection should detect such chips and run the fallback mode on them; trying to run Shell and giving a poor experience is not a good idea. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
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 each window. So, that's visually different. > > Yep. These representations (which I had totally forgotten, by the way) > are still tinier than Overview windows though, and they're still > placed regardless of the original window's location. My point stands. 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. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
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 the Shell', in my chart. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
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 they are pretty much dead set on them. This is flamebait. Decisions and designs can be and have been changed all the way through the process. Lately a lot of times the discussion has been punted to 3.2 because 3.0 is frozen, which isn't the same thing at all: it's a release process thing (and an entirely sane one), nothing to do with being convinced the decision is irreversibly perfect. You don't make major changes after code freeze. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
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 and a remote VNC session have to switch back > and forth between two different modes of operation (i.e. no consistency) > while using the same computer (really, really weird); Gnome 3 should > look and work the same anywhere, just like Windows or OS X do; 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). Apple owns the ecosystem, which makes it easier, as always. The options here are 'completely screw over anyone who can't run Shell', 'severely limit the Shell', or 'wait years for absolutely every non-Shell-capable-case to be rendered Shell-capable', none of which seems attractive. > - 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 > - exposé behaviour in overview is compounding the previous mistake (i.e. > the separate overview problem); it changes position and size of windows, > forcing the user to visually search for windows yet again > > - windows/applications switch in overview is yet another mistake; in > windows view, one can't actually see their windows the way they are, > because they have been shuffled by exposé (workspaces are mostly hidden > on the right, so that doesn't really count); applications menu should be > accessible directly from the normal view (users don't need to suffer a > visual change and forget what their current workspace looks like in > order to start a new app) I kinda see what you're saying here, but none of these things seems to bug me in practice at all, so I don't really know where to go with it. > - dock (favourites) is in the wrong place, because most desktop screens > (and Gnome 3 is primarily a desktop system) have a lot less pixels > vertically then horizontally; in contrast, OS X dock is in the correct > place (and I'm no fan of OS X at all) I think the 'dock' is placed on the side precisely because most displays are wider than they are tall; it uses up space that's often going to waste anyway. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
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 cannot > say the same thing. :-( This mail could perhaps do with more details. :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: My first impression of GNOME 3
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 10:23 +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > The only thing that *no one* has dared to address in their reply so far, > is how to get rid of unwanted indicator icons (the accessibility > settings icon in my original example). Finding out how to get rid of it > and actually doing so was a process that still has some > ... errr. improvement potential :-). On the other hand, it gave me an > amazing first glimpse under the hood of gnome shell theming. Well, I didn't reply to that because you already hit on the best method of doing it (gnome-tweak-tool) and to me it just isn't an issue. I can't use that space for anything else, and the icon isn't hurting me by being there. I just ignore it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: My first impression of GNOME 3
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 10:10 +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > > > On theming: I believe the GNOME team felt that supporting theming comes > > with more drawbacks than benefits. The drawbacks are that it introduces > > far more complexity - i.e. things that can possibly go wrong, that then > > get blamed on GNOME - and it detracts from the ability to present a > > carefully considered appearance. Neither Windows nor OS X (nor any > > smartphone OS I'm aware of) provides an official UI and support for > > theming, and there's no great outcry that it should be available on > > those; > > Oh last I checked my WinXP, it had an appearance setting dialog which let > me both select the look of windows and buttons as well as a color > scheme. So I am not sure that no one else provides no themeing support. yeah, it's been pointed out to me later in the thread that I was wrong on that one. d'oh =) now waiting for someone with a clue to chip in. > > I'd suggest just auto-starting them; if you're going to run them anyway, > > why do it manually? gnome-session-properties lets you do this, though > > it's somewhat deprecated; I believe the intended design is that you > > simply leave the apps you want running, and suspend the system when > > you're done, so you never have to re-launch them because you're not > > restarting. > > Actually, this is what I mostly manually did after booting, I clicked > all the 5 icons to start the apps and left them open most of the time. I > did not know about gnome-session-properties (I know that in gnome2 you > could configure the autostarted apps quite easily in the preferences in > the Session & autostart (?) section, but I couldn't find anything like > that in the new properties. gnome-session-properties *is* the app from GNOME 2. You may need to install some package to get it available, though. Don't know what that would be on Ubuntu. > Is there a way, to have apps be autostarted somehow and be stoved in > some specific "workspace"? That would solve my needs. g-s-p will let you set anything to be autostarted. Making it appear in a specific workspace, I'm not sure if that's possible. (I'd like it to remember I always want Firefox on the right-hand screen, but alas, this seems impossible...) > > > Next, some empathy messages popped up there: my contact 'lwn.net' > > > announced (displayed with a picture of my coworker who I am sure has > > > never heard of LWN) that Fedora 15beta has been released. That picture > > > of my coworker talking about Fedora had me nearly freak out. > > > > Not sure what you're reporting here; the wrong buddy icon is an obvious > > bug (file it) but other than that, empathy messages showing up in the > > notification area is a feature. > > Yes, I was reporting the icon buddy bug, which I will file. But again, > all emptathy messages popping up here, leads to many dissruptions in my > workflow. Everytime, my identi.ca contact finds something interesting, > I have to interrupt my work with emacs now. I am not sure what the > solution to this really would be. I could think of several ways to deal > with this: > > a) be able to configure emphathy which contact messages should lead to > notifications and which not. this seems reasonable to me, or perhaps empathy should default to not treating twitter-type service messages as notification-worthy, since they're not really conversations. But I can't really speak much to this as I don't use empathy or anything like twitter and my workflow for this stuff is somewhat 'different' - I pipe absolutely everything through bitlbee (see http://www.bitlbee.org/img/comic_3.0.png :>) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Messaging Balance with Empathy
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 09:41 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: > I doubt somebody would want to duplicate xchat-gnome but it seems that > it can be integrated, take a look at marina's screenshot: > http://blogs.gnome.org/marina/2011/04/06/everyone-is-talking-about-gnome-3/ Yeah, I saw that and it mightily confused me. I think she's actually using vanilla xchat, not xchat-gnome, which suggests xchat has better GNOME 3 integration than xchat-gnome, which seems...odd :) Notice her reference to 'Settings->Preferences->Chatting->Alerts' in a comment - this doesn't map to xchat-gnome at all. I guess I could switch back to vanilla xchat, if push comes to shove. Some people do seem to be working on a 'GNOME 3' branch of xchat-gnome (check git), but I don't see anything towards messaging integration, yet. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: My first impression of GNOME 3
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 08:07 +0800, Allan E. Registos wrote: > On Wednesday, 20 April, 2011 06:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Neither Windows nor OS X (nor any > > smartphone OS I'm aware of) provides an official UI and support for > > theming, and there's no great outcry that it should be available on > > those; it's the norm for the appearance of the desktop to be defined by > > the provider. > I don't use OS X but what about XP's >Display Properties > Themes > stands for? Not for theming? This User Interface is official from > Microsoft. As for smartphone, I understand, but with a 2005-era Sony > Erickson Walkman, you can change the appearance of the phone with a > third party theme and with an official User Interface from Sony > Erickson. As for WinXP they defined theme as: > A theme is a set of background plus a set of sounds, icons, > and other elements to help you personalized your computer with > one click. > > The keywords are: "elements" and "one click" no, no config files to > touch. Anyway, I know GNOME Shell was designed differently from the > ground up, but themes is a standard feature on any D.E. AFAIK or else > we are living in caves. > And Windows 7 offers a very improved way to change the > appearance(theming) of the desktop. > > Please clarify me on your points above. you know, you're right, and I'd forgotten that. I guess what's interesting is how little used it seems to be; I rarely see a Windows system with non-default icons or widgets. Changing the background seems to be common, but not anything else. I wonder if anyone's looked into that. (The old Sony Ericsson phones, BTW, in my experience make a good argument for theming being a bad idea; I had one too, and of all the themes I tried on it, a good half would result in some kind of bug.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Messaging Balance with Empathy
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:53 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: > Hi! > > Am Dienstag, den 19.04.2011, 21:42 +0100 schrieb Chris Baines: > > I love the new chat features in Gnome Shell, but sometimes I want to > > contact someone, or set my status to off-line, it seams I cant do this > > from the shell. What is the purpose of empathy and what is the purpose > > of the shell when talking about communication? > > Not completly sorted out yet. There is a (growing) thread on > desktop-devel-list to resolve this for 3.2. This involves things likes > "People" tab in the overview, etc. As a little wish, it'd be nice if the use cases of 'old skool' communicators could be considered here - i.e. those of us who use IRC heavily. Empathy isn't very good as an IRC client for my uses - it's clearly just shoehorning IRC into the old MSN/AIM 'chatrooms in an IM system' paradigm and it really doesn't fit in. xchat-gnome doesn't seem to have been hooked into the whole notification-area-messaging setup at all...it'd be nice if that could happen. Or, of course, someone could improve Empathy's IRC-fu vastly, or write something new and better than xchat-gnome, or whatever...it'd just be nice to have a shiny new generation GNOME Shell IRC-based messaging experience! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: My first impression of GNOME 3
prefer some other keyboard shortcut. The 'keyboard' settings applet has a 'Shortcuts' tab which looks like you can set all these up however you like. > One thing that is absolutely horrible, is that I am an avid emacs user. That's okay, self-loathing will get you nowhere ;) > Emacs most important area is the "minibuffer", the lowest line in the > window. However, that happens to be exactly the space where > "notifications" are now shown. Notifications are not translucent > enough to actually see what happens beneath them (say, if I want to > type the path of a filename I want to open). They also don't go away > by themselves without me clicking on them, well, they don't go away, but the notification area doesn't (shouldn't) be visible all the time - only when you move your mouse to the very lower-right corner. Is that still inconvenient? > "You are now offline" followed by "Battery discharging" followed by > the hilarious 'Application problem: "Application problem" is > ready' (which made me laugh loudly). That sounds like an Ubuntu thing, haven't seen it on F15. > Next, some empathy messages popped up there: my contact 'lwn.net' > announced (displayed with a picture of my coworker who I am sure has > never heard of LWN) that Fedora 15beta has been released. That picture > of my coworker talking about Fedora had me nearly freak out. Not sure what you're reporting here; the wrong buddy icon is an obvious bug (file it) but other than that, empathy messages showing up in the notification area is a feature. > One widget that I am not very fond of, is the ON/OFF slider. It has > been copied from Apple's UI, I believe and it makes sense on > capacitive touch screens, but on a desktop that I operate with a > mouse, I find it awkward to have a widget that I have to click-grab > move around and release again. Also when it is in one position and is > only labeled "Off", does it mean that is it Off right now, or that I > have to drag it to the off direction to actually turn it off? This was > not always clear to me. I would have preferred a checkbox, which is > essentially what this is. On a non-touchscreen, it just doesn't make > sense to me. There's already been some discussion of this on the Planet, IIRC. > Last but not least, whenever the "Authentication needed" dialog pops > up, the password entry dialog is not focused initially, it requires a > mouse click to do so. I believe this was different previously, and I > actually preferred it that way. Sounds like an Ubuntu bug, that's not the case on F15 (indeed, the window steals focus exclusively, you can't do anything else until you provide it something to eat). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Food for thought - Unity usability test report
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 09:51 +, Aleksandra Bookwar wrote: > G. Michael Carter writes: > > > Is there a usability report for Gnome 3? > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.desktop/7102 > > I think the first part could count as a usability report: It's not. There's a difference between a usability test and an anecdotal personal account. If you read the original link - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-April/032988.html - this might be clearer. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: using Gnome-Shell with 90% of all applications is absolute garbage.
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 18:16 -0400, jordan wrote: > Hey Adam, > > > The proprietary driver is almost certainly the problem here. If you try > > a recent Fedora live image you could see if it runs better with nouveau, > > it almost certainly will. (I have a 9400 GT in this system, and Shell > > performance is very good). > > nouveau is not capable of running many of my applications very well, > if at all. that is a complete no-go. > nouveau is not an option, at all. The NVIDIA proprietary driver is not yet capable of running the Shell very well. See how that argument works? :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: using Gnome-Shell with 90% of all applications is absolute garbage.
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 16:13 -0400, jordan wrote: > B) PA is only the default on distro's like Ubuntu. If i install > Gnome in Fedora, PA is an option (if i want to install it like that), > same with Arch. PA is default in Fedora, also OpenSUSE and Mandriva. > The main point here is that Gnome should be supporting both a 2d and > 3d environment. The current "fallback" mode > should be a focus in gnome. While, yes it is supported and there. > fallback mode doesn't provide the kind of environment that Gnome2 > does It's not supposed to. It's supposed to behave similarly to GNOME Shell, including the design philosophy changes that happened between GNOME 2.0 and now. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: using Gnome-Shell with 90% of all applications is absolute garbage.
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 16:13 -0400, jordan wrote: > > By "cairo's", do you mean http://cairo-compmgr.tuxfamily.org/ ? > > yes, indeedy. > > > Ssome simple hardware information would help: if you are using a proprietary > > driver like nvidia's, performance is slow, as was compiz was at first. > > nvidia eventually fixed their driver for compiz, and now it's blazing fast. > > Similarly, I've heard that the latest beta version of nvidia's proprietary > > driver supports gnome-shell much better. > > Nvidia 9400GT (using Latest driver 270.41) > Nvidia 9800GT (using 270.41) The proprietary driver is almost certainly the problem here. If you try a recent Fedora live image you could see if it runs better with nouveau, it almost certainly will. (I have a 9400 GT in this system, and Shell performance is very good). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: using Gnome-Shell with 90% of all applications is absolute garbage.
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 16:39 -0400, jordan wrote: > > Erm, I have no idea what you mean by this, but I have an ICE1724 in this > > system with GNOME 3 and PA and it works perfectly. Well, it doesn't work > > across a suspend/resume cycle, but then it never has, with or without > > PA. > > I know when i tested it with Natty (not all that long ago), it was a no-go. I'm on F15, it got broken briefly by some random 2.6.37 kernel change and was fixed quickly after a bug was filed. > Obviously that has now been fixed. - I don't use suspend or resume, i > wasn't aware of that. > how about the card itself??? if it does work with suspend and resume, > than that just proves my point. > that is undesirable and i consider that to be broken software. It has nothing at all to do with GNOME 3 or PulseAudio, it's just that the support for suspend/resume is missing in the kernel (ALSA) driver for most ICE chipset cards (one or two have it implemented, but most don't). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Autohide Top Bar?
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 15:46 -0400, Mystilleef wrote: > The panel appears if the focused window is not maximized. That's the > whole point of intellihide. If you've played with avant window > navigator, or any worthwhile dock system, you'll get a better idea of > how this works. I still want it there when I'm reading mail or a web site, which is most of the time. Plus I tend to switch back and forth between maximized and non-maximized apps a lot, and I don't think I'd like the panel ping-ponging around as I did so. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Autohide Top Bar?
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 14:30 -0400, Mystilleef wrote: > I want to add that there are design compromises that can be made to > please most people. For example, the top bar can be hidden when > applications are maximized. The assumptions here is that when a user > maximized their application they really only want to focus on their > work and nothing else. Not a good assumption in my case. I have *three* apps maximized *all the time* - Evo on my left head, Firefox on my right head, and gedit behind Evo which I alt-tab to when appropriate. I also have a ton of other apps open which aren't maximised and live in front of Firefox and Evo when I want to use them, and I don't want the panel to never appear. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Autohide Top Bar?
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 13:25 -0400, Mystilleef wrote: > I opened a bug report for this. > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643662 > > I don't think there's any interest in it. > > It's my biggest disappointment with GNOME Shell. Panels should not > statically consume space. That's bad UI design. If you have to design > a panel or bar that is part of the Shell, make it floatable, or > provide hiding options. Plus bars are so 1980s. > > When I have time I'll try to see if I can write a patch, or extension, > to hide it. I'm with Maciej, if we're doing Highly Unreliable Voting: I *hate* autohide with a passion. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: UI Changes
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 06:49 -0400, V. Joshi wrote: > > 1) Activities: Earlier betas had nice Activities pane with 12 > applications, places/devices and recent items nicely available with > "find" box right at the mouse tip as soon as you went to Activities. > Now to copy Ubuntu Unity, we have left edge bar with only applications > and worst "Search" in right hand corner was a bad change. The search box is highlighted as soon as you open the overview. You can just open the overview and start typing. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: using Gnome-Shell with 90% of all applications is absolute garbage.
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 03:52 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > Why isn't it important to Gnome to also keep a stable 2d > environment??? (no-compositing) - even Ubuntu plans to > maintain a 2d > version of Unity. > > The biggest resource related to that I can find is the evas-based > version of their Netbook Desktop Environment, which is a different > beast entirely. He's referring to unity-qt, which is pretty much the equivalent of 'fallback mode' for GNOME 3; an attempt to replicate Unity as much as possible without compositing. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: using Gnome-Shell with 90% of all applications is absolute garbage.
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 03:15 -0400, jordan wrote: > This wouldn't > be the case if gnome-developers had plans of maintaining and putting > energy into the Gnome3 "fallback" mode, but this doesn't seem to be > case. I don't know where you get that idea; the fallback mode is being maintained actively and saw significant changes over the last few weeks leading up to release. I've seen no indication that there are any plans to drop it or leave it to rot in 3.2 either. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: using Gnome-Shell with 90% of all applications is absolute garbage.
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 03:15 -0400, jordan wrote: > PA these > dayz doesn't actually work with some audio interfaces supported in the > linux kernel, as is the case with the ICE chipsets - you used to be > able to hack it Erm, I have no idea what you mean by this, but I have an ICE1724 in this system with GNOME 3 and PA and it works perfectly. Well, it doesn't work across a suspend/resume cycle, but then it never has, with or without PA. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Terminology (was: Re: Some small ideas for the Shell Panel and Overview)
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 16:28 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > In An Ideal World it could maybe replace menu bars in apps entirely, a > > bit like the 'Office' button in recent MS Office releases, but I don't > > see that happening any time this millennium. > > Since implementing this is a top priority for 3.2, that'll make the > next release 989 years early! > > Note the design goal isn't to replace the menu bar in *all* > applications; rather, some of them. Let's not take this thread off-track, but I'm not sure it's a great idea to have mixed interfaces like that. But I guess I'll wait and see how it turns out :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Terminology (was: Re: Some small ideas for the Shell Panel and Overview)
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 14:17 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 07:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 14:45 +0300, John Stowers wrote: > > > > > In my use of the shell thus far I have *never* used the application > > > menu. Has anyone? > > > > once, when I wanted to test gnome-games and couldn't remember the name > > of anything in it. Otherwise, no, I just search. > > By "application menu", I think John meant the item beside the Activities > button: the name of the focused app, which when clicked, brings up a > menu with a single "Quit $application" item. > > There's a lot of terminology in gnome-shell these days, which can get > confusing. I've started a page to document this, with pointers to the > relevant source code: > > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Terminology Looking at context, I think you're right - thanks for the catch. My answer is almost the same, though - I never use that at all, and I agree with you and John that it seems completely useless. It's always felt to me like something that was put in because no-one could think of anything much better to go there. =) In An Ideal World it could maybe replace menu bars in apps entirely, a bit like the 'Office' button in recent MS Office releases, but I don't see that happening any time this millennium. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Some small ideas for the Shell Panel and Overview
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 14:45 +0300, John Stowers wrote: > In my use of the shell thus far I have *never* used the application > menu. Has anyone? once, when I wanted to test gnome-games and couldn't remember the name of anything in it. Otherwise, no, I just search. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: NetworkManager dependency on Gnome-Shell
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:30 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > Yes, that is an interesting use case. Giovanni I think noted in > another mail of yours that empathy looks at network manager status to > know if it is connected or not. If I read correctly, network manager > is now the central place to managing network connections for the > entire desktop. So I reckon that even shell is monitoring the online > status somehow. When it's in use, it is, yes. But AFAIK, the intended behaviour is that nothing should dumbly rely on NM; anything that can use it should check whether the system is actually using NM, and behave sanely if it finds that it isn't. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Ubuntu PPA
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 00:01 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote: > > 2.32+Unity. Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like > > to me, and why it's difficult/impossible to have both at once on Natty. > Why cannot PPA install all required packages into /opt/gnome3 or smth, > with minimal dependencies on system-wide things like NetworkManager > etc? > > Sorry if that question is stupid or was already discussed I guess it could, and maybe it does - I haven't looked. But it still makes it a lot more work and more complicated, especially with things that need to work in both. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Ubuntu PPA
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 23:39 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: > Hi! > > > just a question... will there be a PPA which allows to install Gnome 3 / > > Gnome Shell in Ubuntu 11.04 without breaking things? > > > > Currently the PPA says that it is experimental and as far as I read it > > is known to break the Unity environment. I think when Ubuntu 11.04 is > > out, there will be *many* people who will want to test how Gnome 3 > > compares to Unity - but those people will surely not want to break their > > system. > > Ubuntu people promised to fix the ppa once Natty is out. I'm only looking in from outside, but from what I can see, I think a lot of the problem here is that Natty's GNOME is not actually 3.0: it's 2.32. So the GNOME 'Shell' PPA also has to upgrade the entire GNOME environment to 3.0, and AFAIK Ubuntu are not testing at all to make sure the Unity in Natty can run on GNOME 3.0; their supported environment is 2.32+Unity. Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me, and why it's difficult/impossible to have both at once on Natty. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: New Multi Monitor Behavior is Odd
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:28 -0400, Mystilleef wrote: > > You can change the behavior using gconf-editor and going to /apps/mutter/ > > and setting workspace_only_on_primary to false I believe. You might have to > > change the actual schema.. > Thank you. I'll see if I can adjust to the new behavior. If I can't > I'll revert back. BTW, one funny thing I've noticed with this behaviour is that the top-left hand corner of the secondary monitor is still 'sticky' - it grabs my cursor - even though it doesn't trigger the overview any more with this new behaviour, obviously... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: New Multi Monitor Behavior is Odd
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 20:59 -0400, Mystilleef wrote: > Hello, > > Congratulations on the release of GNOME 3. > > GNOME Shell behaves odd on my multi monitor setup. When I switch > workspaces the screen on the external > monitor remains the same. I expect the external monitor to share the > same virtual workspace as the primary > monitor. Is this behavior intentional? Or is this a bug? Or did I > screw up my xrandr settings? It's intentional. Only the primary head gets workspaces, the secondary head just has the same stuff on it all the time. You do get an 'overview' for the secondary head, if you put more than one window on it you'll see this more clearly. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: GNOME 3 from Fedora user's perpective - request for changes
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 20:36 +1200, John Stowers wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 07:40 +0200, Aniruddha wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > Anything I launch a lot > > > gets made a favorite, anything I launch infrequently I just search for > > > (which is no clicks: 'start' key, type.) > > > -- > > > > You mean press the windows key and type the program name? I've tried > > this, I can't remember every program name, > > It searches by description too. File a bug with the application in > question if you think the desktop file does not adequately describe the > function of the application. I was about to point that out, then did a few tests which reminded me the descriptions are usually pretty fracking useless... 'rip' does not get you Sound Juicer 'burn' does not get you Brasero 'sound' does not get you Audacity (but somehow, it *does* get you Brasero?) 'audio' gets you Audacity, but not Rhythmbox (you have to hit 'music' for that) 'video' does not get you Totem so, yeah, it's not great =) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: GNOME 3 from Fedora user's perpective - request for changes
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 22:18 +0200, Aniruddha wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:59 PM, JB wrote: > >> Solutions: > >> > >> 1) Replace the Activities in the top left corner with a regular Gnome > >> menu. > >> 2) Show running programs in the panel > >> > > > > Well, well ... > > And I thought I would have to become a lonely wolf :-) > > Thanks. > > :-) I really hope these 2 points will be implemented again, without > these features I find Gnome 3 less efficient (1 vs 2 clicks) and more > distracting (I have to stop everything I am doing each time I use an > activity such as watch running programs or start a new application). I > like the new application menu though. Why is use of the Applications menu such a big deal to you two, btw? Why do you use it so much? I almost never touch it. Anything I launch a lot gets made a favorite, anything I launch infrequently I just search for (which is no clicks: 'start' key, type.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: GNOME 3 from Fedora user's perpective - request for changes
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 19:00 +, JB wrote: > Adam Williamson writes: > > > > > > > > As has been noted, this is very familiar to anyone who uses a smartphone > > > > interface; they do much the same thing. > > > > > > Here we go. > > > Finally you let the blood and admitted who is your master. > > > > Erm...what? > > That is just another way of saying "you showed your true colors" :-) If I entirely understood what implication you were aiming for, I'm sure I'd resent it. I don't really have a dog in this fight, I don't work on GNOME Shell. I'm just trying to help you understand its design, since you clearly don't, and you don't seem to want to go and read the design docs as I already suggested you do. > > Can you please stop ending your mails with lines like this? It comes > > across as condescending and overbearing. Your point of view is not the > > only one; you can't expect to just state it and have everyone else 'get > > it' and fall into line, kowtowing. > > Nothing personal, Adam. Sorry, but telling someone to 'get it' is personal, whether you intended it that way or not. I'm happy to accept that you didn't, but I'd still suggest not doing it in future. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: GNOME 3 from Fedora user's perpective - request for changes
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 18:20 +, JB wrote: > Adam Williamson writes: > > > ... > > What exactly is it that you _mean_ when you say 'artificial'? > > I mean it does not belong there, it is not a product of a natural need as > a result of using menu system in GNOME. This still doesn't actually make any sense. It's not a 'natural need' of a Windows 95-style taskbar+nested menu system, no, but GNOME 3 does not _use_ a Windows 95-style taskbar+nested menu system. This is because the designers felt that the overview, which GNOME 3 uses, is a better design. I still just don't understand exactly what it is you're arguing. > We have been doing it for 20-30 years with a menu that functionally started > with Applications and Systems as a top menu. > GNOME not only introduced something unneeded on top of that, they also > redefined standard terms like Applications and System. What do you mean, 'redefined'? The 'Applications' button brings up...the applications menu system. Just like it did in GNOME 2. It's just a different interface. How is this a redefinition? Redefined 'System'? The word 'System' doesn't even appear in the GNOME Shell as far as I can tell. > I already described it in my original post. > Adam, go there, read it, and get it. I read it; it still does not make much sense. > > As has been noted, this is very familiar to anyone who uses a smartphone > > interface; they do much the same thing. > > Here we go. > Finally you let the blood and admitted who is your master. Erm...what? > This is what A.C. already described on Fedora users list as a niche GNOME > wants to subscribe to. > At least he suspects so now, and predicts marginalization of GNOME. It's quite hard for GNOME to be more marginalized than it is right now, when probably less than 1% of people with computers use it. I mean, it's worth remembering here that GNOME 2 is not a 'success' by any reasonable definition of the term. Doing the same thing for a lot longer doesn't seem like a great approach. > Smart phones are not the same as Fedora and RH enterprise servers, > workstations, PCs, notebooks. I don't believe I suggested they were. That doesn't mean that a well-considered interface concept which happens to have arrived first on smartphones can't also be good for other types of system. > They have different kind of hardware, software, and graphical desktop > environments. > Get it, "smart things" aficionado :-) Can you please stop ending your mails with lines like this? It comes across as condescending and overbearing. Your point of view is not the only one; you can't expect to just state it and have everyone else 'get it' and fall into line, kowtowing. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: GNOME 3 from Fedora user's perpective - request for changes
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 15:52 +, JB wrote: > go to my original post and re-read my description of what I found wrong as > a user. > Their new menu system is the old GNOME 2 menu system, hidden below artificial > and unneeded Activities plus Windows and Applications menu items. 'Artificial' is a meaningless description. Any computer program by definition is entirely artificial. Please try and say precisely what you mean, rather than shoehorning as many vaguely negative-sounding adjectives as you can into each mail. What exactly is it that you _mean_ when you say 'artificial'? It would probably help to read the GNOME Shell design document to understand the concept before you condemn it. You don't seem to really get the concept of the overview, in your messages. > It did not contribute anything useful, only introduced difficulty with > managing windows and getting access to those hidden menus underneath them. The idea is that while you're working, you're working; you focus on the task at hands. You then access a separate interface for 'management' tasks - launching apps, moving them around, dealing with workspaces and so on. This is the overview. The two activities are kept clearly separate rather than being smooshed together. As has been noted, this is very familiar to anyone who uses a smartphone interface; they do much the same thing. > If we techies bark at something dysfunctional like that, what can we expect > from non technical business end users, who just want to do their task easily > and the way they used to do it ? Your complaints are hard to take seriously because you seem to assume that the design is some kind of evil plot to make things harder to do (you've referred to it as a joke or trick or something similar several times); this is clearly ridiculous and has the effect of making your arguments less compelling, because it makes it obvious that you have not understood, or even tried to understand, *why* GNOME Shell is designed the way it is. You will come across as more convincing if it's clear that you actually understand the design, but think it's incorrect (and have good reasons why) or can be improved (and have good suggestions how). Right now you're basically saying 'OF COURSE the old way of doing it was the Right Way and OF COURSE any change to that is just an evil plot to make things more difficult', which isn't likely to convince anyone they need to change things. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: GNOME 3 from Fedora user's perpective - request for changes
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 17:18 +0200, Florian Kuhnt wrote: > Maybe Fedora could put it in two different session types selectable > from login manager. Or a "Welcome to Gnome 3! Do you want the new not > that common GnomeShell or the good old GnomePanel?" This is not going to happen. The fallback mode is a *fallback mode*, not an alternative interface for refuseniks; it exists to handle the case where Shell just doesn't work. Neither GNOME nor Fedora wants to present it as just being 'another choice' of equal value with the Shell. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Command completer in runDialog
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 23:55 -0400, Alexandre Kaspar wrote: > Le mercredi 16 mars 2011 à 22:15 +, > gnome-shell-list-requ...@gnome.org a écrit : > > I bet the response is "if Alt+F2 becomes a part of your daily > > workflow, we've done something wrong" > > I bet not. > I've been used to gnome-do up to the day I figured out that gnome > already had that (ALT+F2), even though the gnome-do version has other > features... but it happened I didn't really need them. > > I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who do not really like using > a mouse. Having keyboard shortcuts is a need. Sure, but they don't have to be alt-f2. alt-f1 works pretty well too. ;) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: No minimise/maximise (again)
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 09:46 -0500, William Jon McCann wrote: > Hey, > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Florian Müllner wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 14:00 +, kaddy...@gmail.com wrote: > >> 2) Don't you guys surf the net for porn C'mo. Do you know > >> how hard it is now to hide a webpage quickly when somebody walks into > >> the room Don't deny it. You guys watch porn too ;) > >> now you ruined everything. haha :) > > > > Uhm - so basically you post to a public mailing list that you'd like to > > keep your porn-browsing habits private? > > Well at least he or she didn't describe the type of porn. > > Sounds like a good case for a porn workspace. When someone walks up > behind you at work, zip it up and switch workspaces. Another option > is to use the keyboard shortcuts if that's where your hands are > (doubtful). You may even want to configure a special keybinding if > getting caught in the act is a common part of your workflow. > Otherwise you can use the overview to switch away. Your porn-space > is mostly hidden off the right side of the screen in the overview. > > But let's try to use work-safe examples here in the future please. Can't resist continuing this one. As we're talking about hiding porn 'webpages' we are apparently in a web browser. If you're trying to keep your porn browsing private you probably want to be doing it in Private Browsing Mode, which - in Firefox, anyway - has a keyboard shortcut: shift-ctrl-P. It's even, very conveniently, a shortcut you can manage with one hand, if you use the right-hand side ctrl and shift keys. That makes it nice and easy to get rid of your porn session with no minimizing required - just whack the keyboard shortcut to quit private browsing mode and you're right back in your convincingly work-related browser session. I'M JUST SAYIN, IS ALL (of course, if you're on a work network, you can rely on the fact that your friendly office BOFH has your outgoing HTTP requests logged. Please refer to said BOFH for the fee schedule for keeping said logs private...) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Two proposals for Gnome-shell
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 11:40 +0800, Allan E. Registos wrote: > > On Tuesday, 08 March, 2011 08:52 AM, Allan E. Registos wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:05 PM, David Prieto > > wrote: > >> > Just for reference, I was thinking of showing the same thumbnails > >> that now > >> > appear when you press down during the Alt+tab switcher. > > Well, on the latest demo from gnome3.org (0.0.6), alt+tab shows large > > application icons, with small names, similar to the OSX style, and I > > quite like it that way. > No, please no more icons when you are switching windows. > > I humbly suggest that thumbnail + label is the way to go for several > reasons. actually, having used the plugin someone kindly supplied that gives thumbnail+label on my laptop but the stock setup on my desktop for the last month or so (yay quasi-empirical data!), I kinda prefer the stock (icon + label) setup. I think the reason is that the previews render so small in the Shell switcher that they're hard to see; I like the thumbnail setup in Compiz but I think it renders the thumbnails a lot bigger... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Window controls for GNOME 3
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 12:57 +0100, Jürgen Mangler wrote: > I agree. As for progress: a message tray icon that subsumes longrunning > 'progress' (file) operations (copy, move, delete, download; maybe > update, install, for packages/applications; ...) with ability to cancel, > pause, restart? Wasn't this planned anyway? KDE 4 has something like this, I believe. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Gnome-Shell Progress
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 21:45 +0100, Juergen Mangler wrote: > Things i did not like: > * intel performance (GMA945, mac mini series 2) is still a disaster for > high resolutions (1920×1200). This has little to do with GNOME Shell, so it would be more useful to know what kernel and X you're using. We didn't get many complaints about performance at the recent Fedora Test Day for Intel, FWIW, and it runs very nicely on my laptop at 1600x900. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Window controls for GNOME 3
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 00:55 +0530, Vishnoo wrote: > You are reading/understanding things too literally. > Let me rephrase that more clearly, When I said "In an ideal world there > should be no need for maximize/restore" , it just meant we should not > _have_ to do window resize often. > I'm *not* suggesting the removal of the ability to resize and that > everything be done only automatically. Well, you didn't say I was supposed to understand them metaphorically. =) But if all you're saying is that GNOME should try to be smarter about initial sizes (and, possibly, dynamic resizing/tiling) so that manual resizing becomes less necessary, sure, I can get all the way behind that. I was just worried about the idea of taking it to its 'logical extension' - your 'ideal world' scenario where manual maximizing / resizing become unnecessary. If we're not going there, then no problem, go ahead. > But, IMO, this outcry for removal of the maximize button seems a very > disproportionate to the actual need and does not focus on the cause of > the problem which requires user to resize often. > If we were to restore the maximize button, it would not be the right > solution, it would only be a workaround. I'm not hugely bothered either way about the maximize button, personally. You only have to learn 'double-click on the window bar' once and it's just as easy as clicking a maximize button. As a general principle, the removal of features with _no easy alternative_ bothers me much more than the removal of one of many different ways to do something, as long as one of the other ways is not inherently more difficult. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Window controls for GNOME 3
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 19:49 +0100, Gendre Sebastien wrote: > Le mercredi 02 mars 2011 à 10:15 -0800, Adam Williamson a écrit : > > Oh god, no. > > > > How does a text editor 'know' how big a window 'needs' to be to > > display > > a 500 page document (or a 10,000 line source code file)? It can't fit > > on > > one screen. I like to have it in a full-screen window at 1680x1050. I > > know people who think I'm insane and think you should never display > > text > > more than 80 characters wide as it's 'unreadable'. Am I right? Are > > they > > right? Which of us would you like this new intelligent window manager > > to > > piss off? > > > > That's just the first case that springs to mind. Terminals, as Thomas > > points out, are another good one. Browsers; again, it comes down to > > text > > flow. I like a full-screen browser window, lots of people think this > > makes lines of text way too wide. Neither of us is correct or > > incorrect. > > (sorry if I feed the troll...) > > If the window size can be adapted to its content, it should be smart. If > the window adapted is > than the available size on the display, it will > adapt itself to the available size. But that only makes me happy. It doesn't make the people who think a full-screen window is too big to read text on happy. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Window controls for GNOME 3
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 16:44 +0530, Vishnoo wrote: > IMO, the maximize/resize 'feature' is a workaround for a window > management that never got fully implemented. > > It would be very interesting to know why user is forced to resize the > windows manually and try to fix those problems. > > In an ideal world there should be no need for maximize/restore. > App should be able to know the size that displayed-content requires to > display, notifies the window manager and the window resizes accordingly. Oh god, no. How does a text editor 'know' how big a window 'needs' to be to display a 500 page document (or a 10,000 line source code file)? It can't fit on one screen. I like to have it in a full-screen window at 1680x1050. I know people who think I'm insane and think you should never display text more than 80 characters wide as it's 'unreadable'. Am I right? Are they right? Which of us would you like this new intelligent window manager to piss off? That's just the first case that springs to mind. Terminals, as Thomas points out, are another good one. Browsers; again, it comes down to text flow. I like a full-screen browser window, lots of people think this makes lines of text way too wide. Neither of us is correct or incorrect. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
