On Oct 28, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
I definitely agree that the non-techie will not understand the
difference between Prefs and Admin. Perhaps renaming "Preferences" to
*username* and "Administration" to "All Users"? Something like that
would be clearer, although then we might want to
it is really a good idea and I agree with you strongly
the list is really long, no logical ordering and not all users need all
this.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-deve
I definitely agree that the non-techie will not understand the
difference between Prefs and Admin. Perhaps renaming "Preferences" to
*username* and "Administration" to "All Users"? Something like that
would be clearer, although then we might want to also rename "System" to
"Preferences"?
We should
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 14:48 +0100, Milan wrote:
> What we could do is moving some items to a System Tools submenu in
> Applications if there are enough tools that can go there (I don't think
> it's true at the moment).
If I recall the System Tools menu in Applications was seen as redundant
and co
On 28/10/2007 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > When should anything go in /usr/local/{bin,lib}?
>
> E.g. when you are not wanting to upgrade the system later.
/usr/local is the standard place to put non-distribution-managed
software. Debian was the first to fully accomplish this goal by not
installing
"Fergal Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When should anything go in /usr/local/{bin,lib}?
E.g. when you are not wanting to upgrade the system later.
I think of (virtual) machines here, that are installed and configured
automatically.
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
--
Milan wrote:
> At least, there is a logic: Preferences are/should be for user settings,
> Administration for system-wide, often requiring admin rights settings.
> Still, there are issues with this classification: the Network Tools are
> not settings at all, Hardware Information is in preferences (s
At least, there is a logic: Preferences are/should be for user settings,
Administration for system-wide, often requiring admin rights settings.
Still, there are issues with this classification: the Network Tools are
not settings at all, Hardware Information is in preferences (see bug
147152)...
Th
Reinhard Tartler ha scritto:
> Vincenzo Ciancia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Similar issues might happen if one has something in /usr/local/bin, so
>> wouldn't it be wise to ask, in the upgrade program, if user wants to
>> temporarily rename /usr/local to /usr/local.upgraded during upgrade, so
Ouch, my words are a little confusing.
What i means is grouping items of the preference menu in themed submenus.
And the same thing for administration menu.
But not merging both menus!
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Nicolas
On 10/28/07, Nicolas Deschildre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I w
On 28/10/2007, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Fergal Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I'd really suggest to install your special libraries, local software
> >> etc. either to /usr/local/$PACKAGE or /srv/local/$PACKAGE or somewhere
> >> else. You can use environment variables
Hi!
I was wondering if it might be a good idea to update the policy to
group preferences/administration items (in the system menu)...
Right now, with a few additionnal programs installed, the list of
items is longer than my 900px-height screen. I have to look several
times to search and find what
"Fergal Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'd really suggest to install your special libraries, local software
>> etc. either to /usr/local/$PACKAGE or /srv/local/$PACKAGE or somewhere
>> else. You can use environment variables or rpath to make them work.
>
> So when should anything go in /usr/
13 matches
Mail list logo
