Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 09:11 -0600, PWR PWR wrote: > Great discussion! I would encourage making things as customization > and personalized as possible, as a principle of open source software. Close enough: http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ ___

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 11:05 +, Allan Day wrote: > Bastien Nocera wrote: > ... > > I don't think that applications such as Calendar, Contacts, or > > finding > > and reminding apps should be removed from the requirements for a > > well- > > rounded, default desktop. How

Re: Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Le mar. 7 nov. 2017 à 16:11, PWR PWR a écrit : Great discussion! I would encourage making things as customization and personalized as possible, as a principle of open source software. *snip* having them hard-coded is simply going back to what large corporations are doing

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 11:15 +, Allan Day wrote: > Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > ... > > > > This does not mean that gnome-screenshot should be made > > unremovable, > > but it definitely needs some additional thought. > > > > Documentation is another factor to consider.

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Great discussion! I would encourage making things as customization and personalized as possible, as a principle of open source software. Let's not make things required and unremovable to the fullest extent possible, to avoid leading consumers down a path of what's right or wrong according to

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Allan Day wrote: 3. I guess I just find it strange that this mechanism is so decentralised. Can anyone use ? Yes. Who makes the decisions about what's included and what isn't? How is that monitored and managed? Application developers make

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > I don't think that applications such as Calendar, Contacts, or finding > and reminding apps should be removed from the requirements for a well- > rounded, default desktop. How they're installed is a technical question > that's not relevant to the

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Mario Torre wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > >> 2. The user cannot install any other screenshot tool, unless they are >> also using X11 only, given that there is no unified screenshot >>

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > 2. The user cannot install any other screenshot tool, unless they are > also using X11 only, given that there is no unified screenshot > interface for Wayland. This should be fixed though with a proper interface added

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 07:50 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Allan Day wrote: > > Bastien Nocera wrote: > > ... > > > > > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On an image-based

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Allan Day wrote: > Bastien Nocera wrote: > ... > >> > > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. >> > > >> > >> > On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that anything that's >> > not a flatpak would

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 12:16 +, Allan Day wrote: > Bastien Nocera wrote: > ... > > > > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. > > > > > > > > > > On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that anything > > that's > > > not a flatpak would be part

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > > > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. > > > > > > > On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that anything that's > > not a flatpak would be part of the image, and therefore unremovable? > > I've been looking at this

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 11:23 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Jeremy Bicha > wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:45 PM, wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Florian Müllner > org> wrote: > > >>

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 19:03 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > Hi, > > Currently about half of the GNOME core apps are unremovable in GNOME > Software. It's the set of apps that are not new additions to core > over > the past two years, but at this point that's entirely arbitrary. So > we >

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 10:51 +, Allan Day wrote: > Matthias Clasen wrote: > ... > > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. > > > > On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that anything that's > not a flatpak would be part of the image,

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On 2017-11-04 20:38, Florian Müllner wrote: > In case of the calendar, the date headings should be insensitive if > either no calendar application has been configured, or the configured > app is not available. So there is a bug here, but it's that for some > reason the code isn't working as

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On 6 November 2017 at 11:07, Bart Marien wrote: > Guys, if i may just add the following: > > We use gnome extensively in a live e-learning context(+1000 installs). > We've had some minor abuse of the screenshot feature where students would > take screenshots of the teacher

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... > > This does not mean that gnome-screenshot should be made unremovable, > but it definitely needs some additional thought. > Documentation is another factor to consider. Currently, if you look up how to take a screenshot, the docs tell you to use the

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Guys, if i may just add the following: We use gnome extensively in a live e-learning context(+1000 installs). We've had some minor abuse of the screenshot feature where students would take screenshots of the teacher (video conference) and do all kinds of stuff with it. Currently we have the

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On 6 November 2017 at 10:46, Florian Müllner wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Carlos Soriano wrote: >> I actually had no idea about the shortcuts until recently, specifically for >> screenshoting an area, so I would be slightly against this. If

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Matthias Clasen wrote: ... > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. > On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that anything that's not a flatpak would be part of the image, and therefore unremovable? I've been looking at this issue

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Carlos Soriano wrote: > I actually had no idea about the shortcuts until recently, specifically for > screenshoting an area, so I would be slightly against this. If we had the > shorcuts window in GNOME Shell and the initial setup would show it

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

I actually had no idea about the shortcuts until recently, specifically for screenshoting an area, so I would be slightly against this. If we had the shorcuts window in GNOME Shell and the initial setup would show it as it's planned then I would probably be fine with the removal. Best -- Carlos

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:45 PM, wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Florian Müllner > wrote: > >> Why is that in the list? I would expect most users to use the various >

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:03 PM, wrote: > Hi, > > Currently about half of the GNOME core apps are unremovable in GNOME > Software. It's the set of apps that are not new additions to core over the > past two years, but at this point that's entirely arbitrary. So we need to >

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:45 PM, wrote: > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Florian Müllner wrote: >> Why is that in the list? I would expect most users to use the various >> PrintScrn shortcuts for taking screenshots, which don't depend on >>

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Florian Müllner wrote: Why is that in the list? I would expect most users to use the various PrintScrn shortcuts for taking screenshots, which don't depend on gnome-screenshot (anymore). Maybe we should drop it from core, then?

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 1:03 AM, wrote: > Specifically, I propose that > GNOME > be removed from the appstream metainfo for all of our apps except the > following four: > > * gnome-screenshot Why is that in the list? I would expect most users to use the various

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Hey, On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > Could also be that the actual bug in this case is that she shell should > not show Weather, World Clocks, etc. if these apps are not installed, or > not make it a link or something along those lines. That's indeed

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On 2017-11-04 01:03, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > Hi, > > Currently about half of the GNOME core apps are unremovable in GNOME > Software. It's the set of apps that are not new additions to core over > the past two years, but at this point that's entirely arbitrary. So we > need to find a better

Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Hi, Currently about half of the GNOME core apps are unremovable in GNOME Software. It's the set of apps that are not new additions to core over the past two years, but at this point that's entirely arbitrary. So we need to find a better criterion for determining what should and should not be