Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Sameer Verma wrote: > Two things that came to mind were: The missing "Switch to Sugar" icon > on the Desktop (as in GNOME 2). Even when saving files to Desktop, > these don't show up in GNOME 3 Desktop. Yep, that's what this request is about. > The other is the drab default > wallpaper. This, IMO, is a low hanging fruit that can be addressed by > getting an attractive olpc+sugar branded wallpaper. It's in my TODO list to fix that one. Missed the boat back in 12.1.0 but we'll nail it this time. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Martin Langhoff > wrote: >> Yes, that's what I am proposing, and yes, I think we want it. > > Ok, please write a bit of justification/reasoning on the ticket and > I'll go ahead and make the change. Thanks! #12120 m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > Last week, we heard feedback on 12.1.0 from a deployment, asking "why > did you lock down GNOME so much? it's unusable!". Two things that came to mind were: The missing "Switch to Sugar" icon on the Desktop (as in GNOME 2). Even when saving files to Desktop, these don't show up in GNOME 3 Desktop. The other is the drab default wallpaper. This, IMO, is a low hanging fruit that can be addressed by getting an attractive olpc+sugar branded wallpaper. Sameer > > Today, I see this bug report, essentially pointing out 'regressions' > in our GNOME desktop - http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/12118 > > I am planning to install gnome-tweak-tool, see what it does (I assume > some gconf settings), and mimic it in OOB. > > Objections? > > > > m > -- > martin.langh...@gmail.com > mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC > - ask interesting questions > - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first > - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > Yes, that's what I am proposing, and yes, I think we want it. Ok, please write a bit of justification/reasoning on the ticket and I'll go ahead and make the change. Thanks Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: > > Its not really clear what they want on that ticket. If they just want > > the nautilus-driven desktop back, its easily doable. > > I believe that that's what they want. Others have definitely > complained about the regressions (or "lockdown") of our GNOME desktop. > > I also observe that "how do I return to Sugar?" used to be visibly > obvious, and now it is fairly hidden. > > > But its not clear to me if we want to do that by default (is that what > > you are suggesting?). > > Yes, that's what I am proposing, and yes, I think we want it. > > I agree on this part. > We will also need to tweak the height of top and bottom bar (and of > the buttons therein) to make them useful in a Touch UI. > > IMHO making Gnome really usable in Touch mode will be a huge task, and in a code base in the practice abandoned, as the fall back mode. I don't know if is doable in the timeframe we have. Gonzalo > > > > m > -- > martin.langh...@gmail.com > mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC > - ask interesting questions > - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first > - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
On Sep 21, 2012 10:11 PM, "Martin Langhoff" wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: > > Its not really clear what they want on that ticket. If they just want > > the nautilus-driven desktop back, its easily doable. > > I believe that that's what they want. Others have definitely > complained about the regressions (or "lockdown") of our GNOME desktop. > > I also observe that "how do I return to Sugar?" used to be visibly > obvious, and now it is fairly hidden. > > > But its not clear to me if we want to do that by default (is that what > > you are suggesting?). > > Yes, that's what I am proposing, and yes, I think we want it. > > We will also need to tweak the height of top and bottom bar (and of > the buttons therein) to make them useful in a Touch UI. > Does it make sense to use some of the tweaks that Ubuntu used for their old netbook ui? Having "touchable" panels top and bottom is really goin to use up valuable screen space. Probably a top panel with buttons for each open app would make better use of screen real estate. Jon ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: > Its not really clear what they want on that ticket. If they just want > the nautilus-driven desktop back, its easily doable. I believe that that's what they want. Others have definitely complained about the regressions (or "lockdown") of our GNOME desktop. I also observe that "how do I return to Sugar?" used to be visibly obvious, and now it is fairly hidden. > But its not clear to me if we want to do that by default (is that what > you are suggesting?). Yes, that's what I am proposing, and yes, I think we want it. We will also need to tweak the height of top and bottom bar (and of the buttons therein) to make them useful in a Touch UI. m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
I have filled #12119 "Gnome: not easy way to unmount a device" please use the gnome-desktop component to add more tasks, a clean of old deprecated ticket would be good too. Gonzalo On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > Last week, we heard feedback on 12.1.0 from a deployment, asking "why > did you lock down GNOME so much? it's unusable!". > > Today, I see this bug report, essentially pointing out 'regressions' > in our GNOME desktop - http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/12118 > > I am planning to install gnome-tweak-tool, see what it does (I assume > some gconf settings), and mimic it in OOB. > > Objections? > > > > m > -- > martin.langh...@gmail.com > mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC > - ask interesting questions > - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first > - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Martin Langhoff > wrote: >> Last week, we heard feedback on 12.1.0 from a deployment, asking "why >> did you lock down GNOME so much? it's unusable!". >> >> Today, I see this bug report, essentially pointing out 'regressions' >> in our GNOME desktop - http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/12118 Its not really clear what they want on that ticket. If they just want the nautilus-driven desktop back, its easily doable. But its not clear to me if we want to do that by default (is that what you are suggesting?). There is a good amount of support for removing one layer of complexity from the desktop environment. Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > Last week, we heard feedback on 12.1.0 from a deployment, asking "why > did you lock down GNOME so much? it's unusable!". > > Today, I see this bug report, essentially pointing out 'regressions' > in our GNOME desktop - http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/12118 > > I am planning to install gnome-tweak-tool, see what it does (I assume > some gconf settings), and mimic it in OOB. Likely gsettings as opposed to GConf. > Objections? None, not sure how much will work as it's mostly aimed at gnome-shell as opposed to fall back mode so just be aware YMMV. Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Fixing GNOME3 "regressions" in 13.1.0
Last week, we heard feedback on 12.1.0 from a deployment, asking "why did you lock down GNOME so much? it's unusable!". Today, I see this bug report, essentially pointing out 'regressions' in our GNOME desktop - http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/12118 I am planning to install gnome-tweak-tool, see what it does (I assume some gconf settings), and mimic it in OOB. Objections? m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
