On Monday 07 October 2002 07:34 am, Michael Schwendt scribbled in crayon on a
yellow legal pad:
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:49:42 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > with Red Hat's menu structure I must search a second menu for more
> > > tools. Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu,
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What happens with the OpenOffice.org apps?
>
> OpenOffice.org Writer isn't the best word for a Dane, and that is a
> product name so we didn't translate it.
>
Don't get me started - the trademark rules say it has to be
"OpenOffice.org" not
Jason Gilbert wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:39:40AM -0400, Sean Millichamp wrote:
For example: If I have just Mozilla installed I see
Menu
+ Internet
+ Web Browser
as it is now. If I add Galeon then the menu appears as:
Menu
+ Internet
+ Web Browser
+ Mozilla
+ Galeon
What happens with the OpenOffice.org apps?
OpenOffice.org Writer isn't the best word for a Dane, and that is a
product name so we didn't translate it.
Kenneth
> The only difference I'm aware of is "Web Browser" vs. "Mozilla Web
> Browser" which we intend to correct in future.
>
> Dumping all a
Jason Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 01:55:21AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> >
> > The completely can-not-budge requirement here is only one web browser
> > (or whatever) in the main menus for the default install. We need to
> > find the best way to achieve that
On Monday 07 October 2002 15:01, Thom Paine wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 11:05, Gerry Tool wrote:
> > > > "System settings" > "More"
> > > > "Internet" > "More"
> > > > "Graphics" > "More"
> >
> > And here's another vote for it. This scheme should satisfy _almost_
> > everyone. How about a
Havoc Pennington wrote:
In any case, note that you can revert to no Extras menu by deleting
lines in /etc/X11/desktop-menus/applications.menu. (Delete all lines
with X-Red-Hat-Base then the entire block
for Extras, should work.)
Another way that is mucheasier to revert is cpoy
/ext/gnome-vfs-
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 11:05, Gerry Tool wrote:
> > > "System settings" > "More"
> > > "Internet" > "More"
> > > "Graphics" > "More"
>
> And here's another vote for it. This scheme should satisfy _almost_ everyone.
> How about a comment, Havoc?
I'll vote too.
It seems like a good idea. I'
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 01:55:21AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> The completely can-not-budge requirement here is only one web browser
> (or whatever) in the main menus for the default install. We need to
> find the best way to achieve that but it has to happen, very much
> non-negotiable.
I
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:39:40AM -0400, Sean Millichamp wrote:
> For example: If I have just Mozilla installed I see
> Menu
> + Internet
> + Web Browser
> as it is now. If I add Galeon then the menu appears as:
> Menu
> + Internet
> + Web Browser
>+ Mozilla
>+ Galeon
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 01:51:46PM -0400, John Yanosko wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 09:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> >
> > "System settings" > "More"
> > "Internet" > "More"
> > "Graphics" > "More"
> >
> > Much better IMO.
> Yes, but it still forces an extra step for users of non-defa
On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:49:42 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > with Red Hat's menu structure I must search a second menu for more
> > tools. Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu, where to
> > move all "Extras" entries.
> >
> > "System settings" > "More"
> > "Internet" > "Mor
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 07:35, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 06:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > tools. Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu, where to
> > move all "Extras" entries.
> >
> > "System settings" > "More"
> > "Internet" > "More"
> > "Graphics" > "More"
>
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 06:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> tools. Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu, where to
> move all "Extras" entries.
>
> "System settings" > "More"
> "Internet" > "More"
> "Graphics" > "More"
Yuck. I hate that in Windows XP, and so do most new users who've s
On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 11:58, Bernd Kunze wrote:
>
> 1. Allow the user to decide about the look of kde/gnome.
You can. Both KDE and GNOME still have their themes... Red Hat's just
provided similar defaults.
> 3. I'd like to vertically maximize my windows.
>
> 4. I'd like to choose between metac
On Sunday 06 October 2002 21:03, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > Now my suggestion on the menu structure and the Extras menu. I like
> > having all the programs available but only one on the primary menu so the
> > only problem is chosing which one is primary. Other people though have
> > different opin
On Monday 07 October 2002 01:51, John Yanosko wrote:
> A gui designed by and for newbies is not the same thing as one that is
> efficient for the majority of users. I'm reminded of the story of the
> college president who had a quad planted with grass, and the following
> year had sidewalks built
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 20:42:51 -0500 A.D.,
Steven Usdansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> carved the following runes
about
"RH: Some user feedback":
> On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 09:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > tools. Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu,
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 09:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> tools. Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu, where to
> move all "Extras" entries.
>
> "System settings" > "More"
> "Internet" > "More"
> "Graphics" > "More"
>
> Much better IMO.
Add another vote in favor
Steve
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 09:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> "System settings" > "More"
> "Internet" > "More"
> "Graphics" > "More"
>
> Much better IMO.
Yes, but it still forces an extra step for users of non-default apps.
I still think there should be a single "preferred programs" or
"favo
Michael Schwendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "System settings" > "More"
> "Internet" > "More"
> "Graphics" > "More"
>
> Much better IMO.
>
Yeah, certainly a popular suggestion. I don't have better ideas at the
moment. ;-)
It's easy enough to try this out, in applications.menu just take
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, cfraz wrote:
> > > > Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu, where to
> > > > move all "Extras" entries.
> > > >
> > > > "System settings" > "More"
> > > > "Internet" > "More"
> > > > "Graphics" > "More"
> >
> > And here's another vote for it. This scheme shoul
> > > Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu, where to
> > > move all "Extras" entries.
> > >
> > > "System settings" > "More"
> > > "Internet" > "More"
> > > "Graphics" > "More"
>
> And here's another vote for it. This scheme should satisfy _almost_ everyone.
Read and agreed
+1
On Sunday 06 October 2002 08:54 am, Craig White wrote:
> > the menu structure to escape from having to search the menus again
> > and again. For instance, when I look into the "System Settings"
> > menu, I prefer to find _every_ application/utility there. Instead,
> > with Red Hat's menu structure
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 06:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > I don't like it either. It forces the user to do heavy editing of
> > the menu structure to escape from having to search the menus again
> > and again. For instance, when I look into the "System Settings"
> > menu, I prefer to find _every_
On 6 Oct 2002, Sean Millichamp wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 09:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > tools. Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu, where to
> > move all "Extras" entries.
> >
> > "System settings" > "More"
> > "Internet" > "More"
> > "Graphics" > "More"
> >
> > Muc
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 06:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> I don't like it either. It forces the user to do heavy editing of
> the menu structure to escape from having to search the menus again
> and again. For instance, when I look into the "System Settings"
> menu, I prefer to find _every_ applica
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 09:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> tools. Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu, where to
> move all "Extras" entries.
>
> "System settings" > "More"
> "Internet" > "More"
> "Graphics" > "More"
>
> Much better IMO.
I really like this idea. It keeps everythin
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> with Red Hat's menu structure I must search a second menu for more
> tools. Somebody has earlier proposed a "More" sub-menu, where to
> move all "Extras" entries.
>
> "System settings" > "More"
> "Internet" > "More"
> "Graphics" > "More"
>
> Muc
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:07:36 -0500, Gerry Tool wrote:
> On Saturday 05 October 2002 01:58 pm, Bernd Kunze wrote:
> > 2. The menu structure is driving me nuts. Some are in System
> > Settings, others in Extras-System Settings.
>
> I strongly feel that the Extras menu has to go and the items that ar
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: RH: Some user feedback
> Now my suggestion on the menu structure and the Extras menu. I like
> having all the programs available but only one on t
I think a lot of people are at least understanding what RH is trying to do
in this release which is something they need to do - make the desktop more
available to new users. Just rememeber though that this is just the first
step in that direction and I am sure RH is going to listen to comment a
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 01:55, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> You realize the implication of that is that we have to be brutally
> ruthless about what's in the default install (i.e. anything in Extras
> in the default install can no longer be in the default install, and
> this may require some weird pa
On Sunday 06 October 2002 13:55, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> i.e. anything in Extras
> in the default install can no longer be in the default install, and
> this may require some weird package splitting, something like
> gnome-utils-base, gnome-utils-extra).
Why?
You can have a tiny install as you
On Sunday 06 October 2002 10:07, Gerry Tool wrote:
> On Saturday 05 October 2002 01:58 pm, Bernd Kunze wrote:
> > 2. The menu structure is driving me nuts. Some are in System Settings,
> > others in Extras-System Settings.
>
> I strongly feel that the Extras menu has to go and the items that are in
Havoc,
on the web browser thing: Wouldn't it be sufficient to have the default
web browser
represented in the panel and the choice of alternate browsers in the menu?
It appears that RH is targeting new linux users with the current UI
design and
choice of RPMs in the distro, these folks will pro
Gerry Tool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 05 October 2002 01:58 pm, Bernd Kunze wrote:
> > 2. The menu structure is driving me nuts. Some are in System Settings,
> > others in Extras-System Settings.
>
> I strongly feel that the Extras menu has to go and the items that are in it
> need
On Saturday 05 October 2002 01:58 pm, Bernd Kunze wrote:
> 2. The menu structure is driving me nuts. Some are in System Settings,
> others in Extras-System Settings.
I strongly feel that the Extras menu has to go and the items that are in it
need to be integrated into a single menu structure. I
Warren Togami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Havoc, is there any documentation of the syntax structure of these
> .desktop files and how they are supposed to layout within the Red Hat
> menu structure?
Somewhere in xdg-list list archives, I guess.
> Is there beta source code existing today of the
On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 08:58, Bernd Kunze wrote:
>
> 2. The menu structure is driving me nuts. Some are in System Settings,
> others in Extras-System Settings.
I am in agreement here. To make matters worse the distro is lacking a
menu editing tool, so you're forced to edit things by hand. This
Hi,
without bragging, I bought every single version from 3.03 up to 8.0.
There were up's and down's but
no version before 8.0 left mixed emotions on my end. If I would be
allowed to voice a wishlist I'd go for:
1. Allow the user to decide about the look of kde/gnome. While I
congratulate RedHat
41 matches
Mail list logo
