On 9/22/06, Christian Neumair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roughly at the same time, Travis Watkins wanted to have a feature-rich
> menu menu editor [5], totally not modelled after Calum's proposal. It
> was called smeg (and later renamed to alacarte), but more and more
> converged to Calum's ideas
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:37 -0400, Christian Neumair wrote:
>
> Dear developer community.
>
> I'm a bit disappointed by how the GNOME menu editing journey went.
Thanks Christian for sharing. This is indeed the kind of resource
wastage that we really should avoid.
--
behdad
http://behdad.org
Dear developer community.
I'm a bit disappointed by how the GNOME menu editing journey went.
In the very beginning, a menu editing API on top of the XDG menu spec
was developed for GNOME, by Mark and Frederic, which was and still is a
very clean and good API.
I stepped up and implemented a C men
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:01 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/22/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Don't get me wrong, it is of course great to have the latest bugfixes and
> > > get
> > > dbus release candidates widely t
I think this question hits at the very heart of the issue with designing
a whole new concept of "desktop." Not only do we have the whole mouse
vs. keyboard issue, but as software, we are limited by what hardware our
users have access to. We can design a system that takes advantage of pen
computing,
Thanks Jeff for the quick and right answer :)
--
Verso l'Alto !
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Hello,
> Pretty neat looking. At first blush, there seems to be a lot of
> dependency on the mouse. I'm curious what your plans are for
> keyboard-only access?
Right. We completely ignore a11y. I think that's a mistake. When i
thought about such Topaz design, i tried to forget existing desktop
Hello,
Why should Gnome 3 look and behave like Gnome 2 ? Isn't Gnome 3 the
opportunity to make deep changes ?
Something really cool in Gnome 2 is that since the beginning, it has a
lot evolved but still inside a defined vision of the way to use a
desktop. Gnome 3.0 shouldn't just break the API. I
On 9/22/06, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, it is of course great to have the latest bugfixes and
> > get
> > dbus release candidates widely tested, but if the focus is on answering the
> > question: "can Gn
On 9/22/06, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As to your suggestion on how to proceed... We do think alike [:-)].
> Since there has been such a fuss raised over who should or should not
> build libvolume_id, I have revisited automating the extraction of the
> libvolume_id bits fro
Pretty neat looking. At first blush, there seems to be a lot of
dependency on the mouse. I'm curious what your plans are for
keyboard-only access?
Will
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:49 +0300, brian muhumuza wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I've posted some mockups of a ToPaZ desktop which i made in
> coll
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 04:19 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Whatever crazy ideas people come up with, you can never guarantee that
> > they are going to be universally better than what we currently have. As
> > such, with something as completely, drastically different, I see no
> > benefit in ca
On 9/22/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mattias,
> >
> > I believe that you are correct [for the moment]. I took a quick look
> > through apps in GARNOME-2.16.x dependent up dbus. I found that
> > dbus-0.70, required
On 9/22/06, Kjartan Maraas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Available enforcement mechanism:
> > If a module depends on either a new external dependency not listed
> > here or a newer version of an external dependency than one listed
> > here, we may revert to an older version of that m
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 19:01 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
> Hey, Brian!
>
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but from what I can see, you might
> as well not even call this GNOME!
having seen the mock-ups, I'd say that Brian took the Gimmie UI and
pumped it up on steroids; not that I say it's not
> Whatever crazy ideas people come up with, you can never guarantee that
> they are going to be universally better than what we currently have. As
> such, with something as completely, drastically different, I see no
> benefit in calling this GNOME 3.0.
The reason we came up with "Topaz" was so
On 9/22/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Rob Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > > On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general co
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 14:05 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Alex Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey, Brian!
> >
> > Please don't take this the wrong way, but from what I can see, you might
> > as well not even call this GNOME!
>
> Not having seen the mockups at all, but... so? I belie
On 9/22/06, Alex Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, Brian!
>
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but from what I can see, you might
> as well not even call this GNOME!
Not having seen the mockups at all, but... so? I believe we call that
'thinking outside the box'.
Luis
> On Fri, 2006-0
Hey, Brian!
Please don't take this the wrong way, but from what I can see, you might
as well not even call this GNOME!
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:49 +0300, brian muhumuza wrote:
> http://live.gnome.org/BrianMuhumuza/ToPaZ
--
Alex Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 05:49 -0400, Richard Hughes wrote:
> So I propose, tell maintainers to link against linguniqueapp (as it's
> more sane that what we have already[1]) and then depreciate it in a
> couple of years time when we've decided where it belongs. This means
> maintainers like me get sin
David,
You are welcome. The open source movement is all about "we", not "I".
I will update GARNOME CVS-HEAD this weekend to give our users the
opportunity to exercise HAL-0.5.8.1.
Be well,
-Joseph
===
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 11:36 -04
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 09:38 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
> A GAR makefile to accomplish this is shown
> below. David, as well as others within the community, should be
> pleased.
Awesome. Thanks for doing this!
David
___
desktop-devel-li
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 02:12 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
>
> *shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
> Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
> each
On 9/22/06, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mattias,
>
> I believe that you are correct [for the moment]. I took a quick look
> through apps in GARNOME-2.16.x dependent up dbus. I found that
> dbus-0.70, required by gnome-power-manager-2.17.1, appears to be good
> enough for now
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:09 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
> GARNOME does not roll or maintain source tarballs for developers.
But it's not so uncommon for GARNOME to patch its tarballs. Isn't that a
possible solution to this awkwardness, even if it's just for GARNOME?
> I do not know of an
Mattias,
I believe that you are correct [for the moment]. I took a quick look
through apps in GARNOME-2.16.x dependent up dbus. I found that
dbus-0.70, required by gnome-power-manager-2.17.1, appears to be good
enough for now.
-Joseph
oops... middle-aged eyesight... [blush..]
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:43 +0200, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> fre, 22,.09.2006 kl. 10.34 -0400, skrev Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D.:
> > I believe that liboil-0.3.9 has a number of bug fixes. It appears to
> > have been released a day after 0.3.8 was released:
> >
On 9/22/06, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that liboil-0.3.9 has a number of bug fixes. It appears to
> have been released a day after 0.3.8 was released:
>
> [ ] liboil-0.3.7.tar.gz 02-Feb-2006 23:06 804K
> [ ] liboil-0.3.8.tar.gz 21-Mar-2006 18:22 815K
>
fre, 22,.09.2006 kl. 10.34 -0400, skrev Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D.:
> I believe that liboil-0.3.9 has a number of bug fixes. It appears to
> have been released a day after 0.3.8 was released:
>
> [ ] liboil-0.3.7.tar.gz 02-Feb-2006 23:06 804K
> [ ] liboil-0.3.8.tar.gz 21-Mar-2006 18:22 81
tor, 21,.09.2006 kl. 16.51 -0600, skrev Elijah Newren:
> On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
> > that it is a good idea to freeze the versions of external dependencies,
> > and use tarball modules for them i
fre, 22,.09.2006 kl. 12.03 +0200, skrev Rob Bradford:
> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
> > > that it is a good idea to freeze the versions o
I believe that liboil-0.3.9 has a number of bug fixes. It appears to
have been released a day after 0.3.8 was released:
[ ] liboil-0.3.7.tar.gz 02-Feb-2006 23:06 804K
[ ] liboil-0.3.8.tar.gz 21-Mar-2006 18:22 815K
[ ] liboil-0.3.9.tar.gz 22-May-2006 21:41 814K
dbus-glib use
Richard Hughes wrote:
> No stick taken :-) For me, is the dependency issue. Can gtk+ depend on
> DBUS? If the answer is yes, then the decision is a no-brainer - put
> libguniqueapp into gtk.
>
Remember the question isn't just "can it depend" but how, cf.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnomecc-lis
Alexander Larsson wrote:
> One advantage of using X would be that it works for remote X clients
> too.
>
I think it'd be a mistake to start using X for all ipc for that reason -
you'd end up never using dbus, and X is kind of a sucky IPC.
To solve this for dbus there are two basic approaches, o
On 9/22/06, Rob Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
> > > that it is a good idea to freeze the versions of
Hello there,
I've posted some mockups of a ToPaZ desktop which i made in collaboration with Étienne Bersac. I actually added onto Étienne's original ideas.
Inspiration was derived from the work flow in a typical office work
environment where we use a number of tools to perform a single task
i.e.
Jürg,
Thank you for introducing me to yet another GNU/Linux distro. Variety
and innovation are things I truly love about the open source movement.
The issue with HAL-0.5.8.x is one of timing. David jumped the gun by
removing the source code for libvolume_id from HAL. Had he waited a few
months, o
Hi;
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:49 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > *shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
> > Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
> > each of those for their single-instance mechanism) and X (which
> > Matthias brou
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 02:12 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
>
> *shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
> Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
> each
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 12:03 +0200, Rob Bradford wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
> > > that it is a good idea to freeze the versions
On 22/09/06, David Zeuthen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:09 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
> > GARNOME does not roll or maintain source tarballs for developers.
> >
> > I do not know of any stable Linux distro that currently offers a new
> > enough version of udev that
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 20:03 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > I also think one of the reasons it was not written with gtk+ as a target
> > was the "level choice" i.e. does this stuff belong in gtk+, libgnome,
> > or some other module.
>
> It's really important we put a lid in this kind of confus
> I also think one of the reasons it was not written with gtk+ as a target
> was the "level choice" i.e. does this stuff belong in gtk+, libgnome,
> or some other module.
It's really important we put a lid in this kind of confusion quickly, so we
can breathe life back into coherent platform des
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
> > that it is a good idea to freeze the versions of external dependencies,
> > and use tarball modules for them
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 19:36 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> I agree that we don't really want another shared library, long term.
> Luckily, it should be easy to update apps when GUnique becomes part of
> some other library, as the code required to use GUnique is pretty
> small. As to how we get ther
On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
*shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
each of those for their single-instance mechanism) and X (which
Matthias
> Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
Because clearly you would be hit by a bus if you considered such outrageous
notions.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
"Whatcha wanna be when you grow up?"
"Eig
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 19:36 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/21/06, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Before recommending that everyone use GUnique, could we define a
> > migration path for it to enter the platform? We really don't need yet
> > another
> > shared library, and yet another
49 matches
Mail list logo
