This sounds like a very good idea to me. I've been a little bit worried
that too many repetitions and more or less off-topic conversations,
might cause some of the busier people to focus less on the list. I've
seen that happen on other mailinglists and on irc.
One question, though. What exactly do
I think it's a fabulous idea, but down the line how do we prevent the same
"rot" from happening due to new users not knowing what's been discussed?
Should we document the major discussions?
And why create yet another list and not just do a reformation for this one?
Can't the use you propose for th
On 03/05/12 09:56, frederik.nn...@gmail.com wrote:
> i think this fixes level one of the problem.
> level two is that we can't really decide anymore HOW to let the
> receiving application open the object i'm dragging "into" it.
>
> this thread contains much of what i'm whining about:
> https://list
Hi folks
We've done rather well to attract a lot of comments and discussion on
the unity-design list, which is great. And there are lots of interesting
ideas and suggestions and proposals and mockups, which is even better.
There are, however, quite a lot of repetitive threads. For example,
today'
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Ryan Gauger wrote:
> But I do not see how it is a burden to developers. Why not just leave it
> as it was? I just don't understand the burden part. Someone please explain
> it to me. Thanks!!!
>
>From a developer's perspective...
Every additional line of code, e
But I do not see how it is a burden to developers. Why not just leave it as it
was? I just don't understand the burden part. Someone please explain it to me.
Thanks!!!
In Christ,
Ryan
Sent from my iPod
On May 3, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Conscious User wrote:
> Em 03-05-2012 13:46, Ryan Gauger escre
Am 04.05.2012 00:55 schrieb "Conscious User" :
>
> You have been told more than once that part of the problem is
> the burden on developers, yet you never addressed that.
>
> If you insist on ignoring this argument, you give the impression
> that you don't care how burdened the developers are, whic
Hi,
I said: make the Unity API be like the Firefox's XML DOM API.
You said: the Unity API will get better in the future.
From 11.10 to 12.04, I heard no changes.
Changing the Firefox platform source code is hard.
Changing the Ubuntu platform source code is hard.
Changing Firefox by creating ad
Em 03-05-2012 13:46, Ryan Gauger escreveu:
No, I think the vast majority of users upgrade every release, not just
Long-Term Support releases. I would rather have a simple option in
CCSM than have to get special packages from the web, then from there
unpack them... Again, I think an option would
If a large amount of user want something like dodge back, is it not the
case that using third party PPA's, hacks and patches could result in a much
more unstable system than if dodge was still there?
I think PPA's are a good idea for those who want a newer version of a
particular app but actually
Hi,
If I patch Unity to have no System Setting app icon clutter
and return System Settings for Wallpaper, Shutdown etc,
will you take a look or definitely reject?
Best regards,
Pedro Bessz
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubs
i think this fixes level one of the problem.
level two is that we can't really decide anymore HOW to let the receiving
application open the object i'm dragging "into" it.
this thread contains much of what i'm whining about:
https://lists.launchpad.net/unity-design/msg07341.html
Unity broke that p
On 05/03/2012 09:38 AM, Benjamin Tegge wrote:
That depends on what you mean by not respecting the needs of longtime
users. The vast majority is supposed to be upgrading from 10.04 to
12.04, they never had that feature. You probably mean advanced users
that have seen Unity evolve and that have
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Benjamin Tegge
wrote:
> Please consider this code path to be community supported as of now. There is
> an answered question on askubuntu.com that leads to a posting in the Ubuntu
> forums which even links to a PPA for easy installation. I currently don't
> have tha
That depends on what you mean by not respecting the needs of longtime
users. The vast majority is supposed to be upgrading from 10.04 to 12.04,
they never had that feature. You probably mean advanced users that have
seen Unity evolve and that have their own opinions about UI and UX design.
Those ar
Please consider this code path to be community supported as of now. There
is an answered question on askubuntu.com that leads to a posting in the
Ubuntu forums which even links to a PPA for easy installation. I currently
don't have that link at hand, because I'm at work. I think OMG! Ubuntu! or
Web
Em 03-05-2012 02:49, Ian Santopietro escreveu:
Because of the burden of maintaining the code that enables that. There
are a bunch of components that do that, and it's better to focus
developer time into projects that affect the vast majority of users.
Who is "the vast majority of users"? New user
I find setting to autohide is terrible with a touchpad and getting to show
is unpredictable.
So I am left with the launcher always showing.
Not so good when working on a small netbook screen, especially on 2D where
I can't even resize the launcher.
On 2 May 2012 22:33, Ian Santopietro wrote:
> "
But the much simpler option of hide on maximize has also been rejected
without any realistic reason.
Mark said it would still cause confusion but not when it is an option that
has to be chosen by a user.
On 3 May 2012 06:49, Ian Santopietro wrote:
> Because of the burden of maintaining the code
19 matches
Mail list logo
