Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 16:21 +0200, Krzysztof Klimonda wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 15:03 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Hi, The idea was never really dropped but it's not likely it will be an official focus for the team, contributions to help getting it working better are welcome though Hey, .. I'm planning on working on those issues in Oneiric almost exclusively, but I can't tell how much time am I going to have right now. Is anyone aware of https://launchpad.net/ubuntugnome ? It might seem that they are not aware of It's OK for contributors to fix this in Ubuntu itself. Maybe someone could ask them to work on getting the Stracciatella session prepped. Should help the project as a whole. rather than having several groups trying to do the same thing. -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Default Browser
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 17:27 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Please note, I was suggesting not having Firefox or Chromium as the default, but a webkit based browser with a normal release cycle like Epiphany (which uses webkitgtk :)). If I'v understood that right, what you are suggesting is we use Epiphany(or similar) as the default and give an option to install FF or Chromium? IMO, not a great choice, that is adding an extra step in the install process. If their rapid release is the problem, we could probably look into just releasing at our own possible pace. We should look at setting what our release schedule could be and if we are short of testers we should try to increase that. Firefox and Chrome(not Chromium) have a lot of popularity, and if we are going to replace with a practically-no-name browser we loose one of our Ubuntu marketing points. Being able to tell new users that they have Firefox readily available is a huge plus. If we use Chromium it is a little bit of a hassle. Explaining Chromium is like convincing that a Radoo watch looks as good as the Rado one(yea, a bit unfair comparison). For this reason Firefox still trumps Chromium as a default choice, and FF4 is pretty good. ;-) -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] GTK3/GNOME3
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:32 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 09:59 +0200, Martin Pitt a écrit : kind of obvious topic, but next cycle we'll need to move to GTK3 and GNOME3. Aside from the obvious update the package versions, I see the following particular challenges: Hello, (You stole my topic! ;-) Joke aside we should do the GNOME3 and GTK3 transition next cycle to be ready for the lts and it's likely to be quite some work. Is Getting GNOME3 really worth it? GTK3 maybe for the parts which are required for Unity.. Several caplets have been removed, not just hiding options. (I'm sure you guys remember the GDM theming removal issue :p ) In GNOME3 even fonts cannot be changed easily. If we removing easy ways to change a details, Launchpad would be a *very* noisy for us. I dont think we might even get it in time for our LTS schedule.. (couldnt find any info regarding that.) If we compare the previous 10.04 LTS and what could be 12.04 LTS with GNOME3(3.0?/3.2?), there could be a lot of feature parity. Maybe it is better we wait for Gnome3 to mature a bit more before we jump into it.. -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: New GNOME Icon's In Natty?
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 17:16 -0700, Jono Bacon wrote: Hi all, Some of you may have seen http://jimmac.musichall.cz/log/?p=1145 - some fantastic work on the icon theme going into the next GNOME release. I wanted to see if there is any possibility of bringing those icons into Natty? Hi Jono, Some of those icons were available since GNOME 2.30, and they have been in development for a very very long time (I know because I've done a few of the other hi-res ones ;-) ). Some of those icons displayed in that blog entry are _not_ from gnome-icon-theme, they are included in the apps themselves as part of the app's own branding for GNOME 3.0. Like the icon for Empathy, Deja-dup, Transmission,etc,. This 'push' for hi-res icons is a recent drive(more on that below). We've had the gnome-icon-theme package with 256px icons uploaded in maverick. But we dropped a few folders of the large icons since the package was huge and increased the CD iso size. The 256x256 icons are rendered png files and they do not compress as well as the previous scalable svg files. We discussed this during maverick cycle in #ubuntu-desktop and I had suggested a few safe-to-drop-icon-folders since they are least likely to be used as of now and the desktop team dropped only those folders. /256x256/emblems /256x256/emotes /256x256/status Other 256px icons are included. They are in : /usr/share/icons/gnome/256x256/ I know we have hit UI Freeze, but I just think those icons will add a lot of sheen to Natty. Actually no, We dont use those icons anywhere in Ubuntu Natty. The 256x256 icons are used only in places which require atleast 64px icon size or higher. Last time i checked, the max size we use is the 48px icon in Unity dash and everywhere else, and these 48px sizes will not use the hi-res icons. So, we dont use these 256px icons anywhere in Unity, including them would not be useful to us, apart from that most of them are in the application's own packages meant for GNOME 3.0. There was no concrete plan for those 256px icons until recently. Even Shell dint need these 256px icons until a couple of months ago. Earlier, the Shell Overview was crowded and used only 48px icons , so I had suggested that we can make use of the hi-res icons and use them atleast at 64px size, jimmac liked the idea and decided to use the icons at 256 px itself. Hence the recent drive for hi-res application icons. And, even if we make Shell available for Oneiric or any future release, the 3 folders I had suggested earlier would still be safe-to-drop without affecting GNOME Shell too. -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Beautiful stupidity?
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 10:30 +0100, Kenneth Wimer wrote: On Tuesday 09 March 2010 07:04:53 am Vishnoo wrote: Now that it was fixed[in Humanity] for Lucid , the design team _again_ has a new icon far worse than what was earlier. Again not an Ubuntu decision? Now where is the decision being done? Are we late for Lucid too? ;) Let's get this fixed for Lucid atleast , without pointing fingers :) https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-mono/+bug/532364 As you can easily see in the bug, we are on top of this and it will be fixed asap (that is why I set it to Highly important and assigned myself to the bug). Yes , I'm aware you are gonna fix it soonish. :) I was just responding to the comment that the earlier icon was not under control of the design team, which is misleading to others. :( -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Beautiful stupidity?
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:54 +, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote on 06/03/10 16:14: ... In my opinion, this is the worst design change since the decision to hide incoming IMs and phone calls from the user, and instead just subtly changing the color of a small icon. ... I know this is a tangent, but: That wasn't an Ubuntu decision, it was a series of unfortunate individual decisions. The Ubuntu position was, and is, that a notification area item is not enough to advertise an incoming IM or phone call, and that clients should open chat windows in the background (and phone call windows in the foreground). The Empathy developers disagreed, and continued relying on the notification area item. Moving Empathy into the messaging menu just made things slightly worse. And then the Human icon theme changes that arrived late in Karmic made things slightly worse again. It was different people doing each of these things. There is no point in trying to shunt the blame to the icon theme , when the icon changes were infact directed by the design team ;) There is also a comment[by design team] on a bug report mentioning the new-mail icon is good as-is and it is meant to be un-intrusive . Several icons were changed since the design team wanted minor improvements , why wasnt this mentioned? Now that it was fixed[in Humanity] for Lucid , the design team _again_ has a new icon far worse than what was earlier. Again not an Ubuntu decision? Now where is the decision being done? Are we late for Lucid too? ;) Let's get this fixed for Lucid atleast , without pointing fingers :) https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-mono/+bug/532364 -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Lucid changes to Firefox default search provider
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 00:21 -0600, Richard JOHNSON wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 01:45:53AM -0500, Alain-Olivier Breysse wrote: Bonjour, The motivation of your decision is already being talked about around the net in many different languages, and because it is the net, will continue to do so. Good, more publicity, seeing as 95% of the places I have read, the people commenting were all level headed, understood the deal, and realize they still have that wonderful thing called a choice. If you are so anti-Microsoft, then switch it to Google or whoever. I don't mean to be an ass, but beating a dead horse isn't going to scare Canonical into changing their decision. I been having a nagging worry regarding this recent change. I'v noticed several users in #ubuntu+1 complaining about the change and mentioning that they have changed their search engines back to google. Similar comments in various blogs mentioning the change. Since unfortunately Yahoo isnt really as good as google, I suspect even more are switching quietly . I'v tried to stick with yahoo for my searches and support the change , but the results were not really as good/relevant/sufficient as google's. If more folks are going to switch back , Will it eventually turn out to be more profitable? [not to doubt the deal-makers] I really hope the Yahoo deal is *very* good to cover all the loss we have from the user's switching and in turn more profitable for Ubuntu/Canonical. Or is Canonical also entitled to revenue from Ubuntu google searches? [which would make me feel less guilty for switching ;) ] -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Lucid changes to Firefox default search provider
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 12:03 -0800, Rick Spencer wrote: All - Why? I am pursuing this change because Canonical has negotiated a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo! and this revenue will help Canonical to provide developers and resources to continue the open development of Ubuntu and the Ubuntu Platform. This change will help provide these resources as well as continuing to respect our user's default search across Firefox. Cheers, Rick Good that we bring more revenue to Ubuntu and its development. Now that we are partnering/negotiated with Yahoo! , we should ask them to remove the warning of Unsupported OS for users trying to connect to Yahoo!Mail. Users are redirected to http://in.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/dc/system_requirements?os=unsupported This happens *every* time one tries to login.[attaching screenshot] If we are considering moving Ubuntu to Yahoo! search as default. Atleast their sites could be tested in Ubuntu OS. Or are we still an OS that isnt supported by Yahoo! ;) Is an awkward moment when we introduce new users to Ubuntu and we get such warnings. BTW ,the Yahoo!Mail does work well if the user selects Continue anyway. :) -- Cheers, Vish attachment: Screenshot-Yahoo! Mail - Mozilla Firefox.png-- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
