On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 23:10 Asia/Jerusalem, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
OS-X does not have virtual desktops.
When you have virtual desktops you don't urgently need all of those
workarounds just to clear some space.
Let's see. My Mac right now has 12 virtual desktops (via a free add-on)
and my
Why would anyone need to click just to bring a window into focus? I
never do that. Whenever I bring the mouse cursos into a window it will
come into focus.
Yeah, and you know how many times I brought into focus windows which I
didn't intend to?
Why do you minimize windows at all?
I never need
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 13:10 Asia/Jerusalem, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
Actually I'm not sure that MACs nobody needs more than one button on
mouse
Actually, they said that no beginner needs a two button mouse. And if
you ever gave tech support to beginners (or not-so-beginners) you will
On Saturday 30 August 2003 23:50, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
and that means nice looking, _responsive_,
stable GUIs.
_stable_ :-)
Well, that was my underline, you can go and underline your own sentences ;-)
seriously, I think X is stable enough - IIRC last time X crashed on me for no
obvious
On Saturday 30 August 2003 19:41, Nadav Har'El wrote:
I have Voodoo3 card on my Duron (700MHz,256MB) which is a very good 3D
card (for its age) and also has some 2D acceleration. moving any kind of
window - even simple single color boxes results in visible artifact
trails. redraw under
There was quite a discussion about that on XFree86 mailing list last
month.
As far as I understood from the discussion there are several
contributors to XFree86 behavior compared to Windows/OSX (in random
order):
* Kernel process switching
* Toolkit implementation (which is my opinion is the most
Quoth nadav mavor on Sat, Aug 30, 2003:
áâãåì àðé ðéîðò îìøãú ìøîä äæàú àáì äôòí àðé àçøåâ îîðäâé
Right...
à äúéòåï ëé éù ëàìä ùìà éëåìéí ìäú÷éï ì÷åç ãåàø ùúåîê áàéáøéú äåà îâåçê
åçñø éñåã
Except some of us use tty-based mailers (for various reasons),
and UNIX does not support Unicode
SF Actually, they said that no beginner needs a two button mouse.
SF And if you ever gave tech support to beginners (or
SF not-so-beginners) you will appreciate that. The OS supports out
Come on. I gave support to five year child (the real one, not proverbial)
and she was perfectly able to know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 31 August 2003 14:54, Aviram Jenik wrote:
Hi,
We are currently debating oEnterprisenfrastructure to use for one of our
products, and the main downside of qt seems to be its constraining license.
Can anyone shed more light on this
At 17:54 31.08.2003 +0300, Aviram Jenik wrote:
Hi,
We are currently debating on what GUI infrastructure to use for one of our
products, and the main downside of qt seems to be its constraining license.
Can anyone shed more light on this subject? How much does the qt license cost
to develop a
I think the Herouth is right.
Apple has done a lot of research regarding the user interface.
Unfortunately most Linux desktops follow the path microsoft took.
Microsoft is known for not listenning to there users, so why follow them?
I myself do not use the mac and thus more acustomed to having
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Aviram Jenik wrote:
Hi,
We are currently debating on what GUI infrastructure to use for one of our
products, and the main downside of qt seems to be its constraining license.
Can anyone shed more light on this subject? How much does the qt license cost
to develop a
Hi,
We are currently debating on what GUI infrastructure to use for one of our
products, and the main downside of qt seems to be its constraining license.
Can anyone shed more light on this subject? How much does the qt license cost
to develop a non-GPL product that uses qt library?
Does it
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 12:43, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Saturday 30 August 2003 10:02, John Rabkin wrote:
Aaaah yes. The age old argument. I cannot understand for the life of me why
some people are on a crusade to bog Linux down with eye-candy. A flashy
interface is a sure sign of a weak
On Sunday 31 August 2003 14:31, Ori Idan wrote:
I myself do not use the mac and thus more acustomed to having the menu on
each window but I think it would be easy to get used to having the menu on
top of the screen and I also think is is more logical to have the menu at a
fixed place, this
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 06:52:11AM -0400, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
Quoth Tzafrir Cohen on Sun, Aug 31, 2003:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:34:35AM -0400, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
Except some of us use tty-based mailers (for various reasons),
and UNIX does not support Unicode natively yet. And
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 14:41, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:13:03AM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Monday 25 August 2003 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The things I think are the most useful in the OS-X interface are:
1. The ability to sort of zoom out where all the
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003, Ori Idan wrote about Re: OS-X rules, X sucks (Was: Forthcoming
Blitz of Announcements):
I myself do not use the mac and thus more acustomed to having the menu on each
window but I think it would be easy to get used to having the menu on top of
the screen and I also
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:05:12PM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Sunday 31 August 2003 08:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why try and go in the same direction? Why the comparison?
Because I found the features I mentioned as useful (contrary to
transparent menus,
for instance, which I don't
Title: Message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoth Tzafrir Cohen on Sun, Aug 31, 2003:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:34:35AM -0400, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
Except some of us use tty-based mailers (for various reasons),
and UNIX does not support Unicode natively yet. And support for
Hebrew in UNIX is much less advanced than support for
DF(*760a9w8en, 0f9sudy n, asdfa98s jk98s7f
ak0sd9fu1394uf u;aoweijf sd8jf 09a8sdfj 09a8sdfj098
asdf,asd fa0s9d8kf asd! 098kdf0-a9
8s7d09f87ya07(*%h(A856h 98760JD6 F*)(zsDJ7F-0.
just my 2 agorot!
Christoph
=
To unsubscribe,
On Sunday 31 August 2003 08:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why try and go in the same direction? Why the comparison?
Because I found the features I mentioned as useful (contrary to
transparent menus,
for instance, which I don't quite understand what's the big glick about
them).
They are
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:59:01AM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Saturday 30 August 2003 23:50, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
and that means nice looking, _responsive_,
stable GUIs.
_stable_ :-)
Well, that was my underline, you can go and underline your own sentences ;-)
seriously, I think X
On Friday 29 August 2003 13:33, Alexander Maryanovsky wrote:
they map each window as a texture map over
a rectangular 3D object using the graphic's hardware 3D acceleration
mode.
I have a (perhaps offtopic, but I changed the topic :-)) question -
why is it that hardware acceleration for 3D
On Sunday 31 August 2003 17:54, Aviram Jenik wrote:
Hi,
We are currently debating on what GUI infrastructure to use for one
of our products, and the main downside of qt seems to be its
constraining license. Can anyone shed more light on this subject? How
much does the qt license cost to
On Sunday 31 August 2003 10:24, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
e.g.: X has some infrastructure for 3d-graphgics. But not yet any
extention to make the client, window-manager and server agree on such
accelerated zooming. Not to mention that many servers lack hardware
acceleration ATM.
The problems Oded
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Aviram Jenik wrote:
We are currently debating on what GUI infrastructure to use for one of our
products, and the main downside of qt seems to be its constraining license.
Can anyone shed more light on this subject? How much does the qt license cost
to develop a non-GPL
29 matches
Mail list logo
