El vie, 01-02-2013 a las 12:08 -0800, Joe Zeff escribió:
> On 02/01/2013 10:21 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Also you can install the following extension to determine which app gets
> > launched automatically in which specific workspace.
>
> *Shrug!* I prefer a DE where you don't have to hunt do
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:05:09 -0500 Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>
>
> > However, I've been told several times that the Gnome devs had warned
> > people that they'd make no effort to avoid breaking extensions and hadn't
> > heard otherwise.
>
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> However, I've been told several times that the Gnome devs had warned
> people that they'd make no effort to avoid breaking extensions and hadn't
> heard otherwise.
>
I think an unfortunate reality of this list, is that it has many people who
On 02/01/2013 04:33 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The evidence is to the contrary. They have supported the framework that
made these extensions possible in the first place and they certainly
made some efforts to define the API better to avoid breakages.
I sit corrected, then. However, I've been t
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> Then, people started writing extensions to allow you to change bits and
> pieces of this, but the Gnome devs were adamant that they weren't going to
> fold any of them into Gnome Shell, no matter how popular they were, and
> that they wouldn'
On 02/01/2013 03:41 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The defaults are simple but GNOME Shell UI is actually extremely
customizable. The entire UI is just scriptable widgets, With
extensions you can modify anything you want. It even has a javascript
debugger built-in. It is pretty similar to Firefox
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> If I wanted a DE with One True Way to do things and no easy way to
change it, I might as well be using Windows.
The defaults are simple but GNOME Shell UI is actually extremely
customizable. The entire UI is just scriptable widgets, With e
On 02/01/2013 12:23 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If you don't want to use GNOME 3 at all, that's fine but static
workspaces aren't the reason to stay away.
True. They're just one of the many reasons I migrated away from Gnome
even before Gnome 3 came out. The lack of built-in configuration too
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>
> *Shrug!* I prefer a DE where you don't have to hunt down and install
> third-party extensions to get back the functionality that was taken for
> granted in an earlier version. YMMV, and obviously does.
Dynamic workspaces weren't part of t
On 02/01/2013 11:10 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
there are even command-line tools suggested to replace
well known ones with completly different switches
this is not how a replacement works
You know that, I know that and most of the people on this list (if not
all) know that. Alas, there are alwa
On 02/01/2013 10:21 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Also you can install the following extension to determine which app gets
launched automatically in which specific workspace.
*Shrug!* I prefer a DE where you don't have to hunt down and install
third-party extensions to get back the functionality
Am 01.02.2013 19:34, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> On 02/01/2013 06:41 AM, Bill Oliver wrote:
>>
>> And it will approach 1 for *any* such distro. Changing distros doesn't
>> help this problem, unless you go to one of the minimal distros that are
>> still oriented towards simplified manual configuration (i
On 02/01/2013 06:41 AM, Bill Oliver wrote:
And it will approach 1 for *any* such distro. Changing distros doesn't
help this problem, unless you go to one of the minimal distros that are
still oriented towards simplified manual configuration (if there is such
a one nowadays).
AIUI, Slackware p
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 08:13 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
>
>> I cannot understand why so many people were up in arms about the Gnome
>> desktop...or the Unity one.
>>
>
> Try watching somebody with Parkinson's try to use either of them and
> you'll
Am 01.02.2013 15:41, schrieb Bill Oliver:
> Now we have all these shiny distros with bells, whistles, flashing lights,
> and automatic configuration tools that
> do all this stuff for us in an entertaining manner. We have reorganized
> things to make it easy for the
> configuration tools in a
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
[snip]
Well, based on my short experiments with Unity and my failed attempts with
Gnome 3, I don't like both. Both are similar, both are based on the same
GUI-ideas. If I only had a choice between these 2, I'd choose Unity.
Ralf
I think it's a fu
On 02/01/2013 12:59 PM, Lailah wrote:
El jue, 31-01-2013 a las 16:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius escribió:
I'd guess, it's people being dissatisfied with what they are used to,
now being on a "quest for the better".
That said, from what I've heard and read, Ubuntu is in a similar
crisis as Fedor
El jue, 31-01-2013 a las 16:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius escribió:
> On 01/31/2013 04:44 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> > On 01/27/2013 06:15 PM, Lailah wrote:
> >> El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
> >>> Joe Zeff wrote:
> >>> > On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer w
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:09:49PM -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 08:13 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> >I cannot understand why so many people were up in arms about the Gnome
> >desktop...or the Unity one.
>
> Try watching somebody with Parkinson's try to use either of them and
> you'l
On 01/31/2013 08:13 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I cannot understand why so many people were up in arms about the Gnome
desktop...or the Unity one.
Try watching somebody with Parkinson's try to use either of them and
you'll understand. Or, consider somebody like me who wants certain
prog
On 01/31/2013 04:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/31/2013 12:09 PM, Craig White wrote:
these meta discussions seem only to highlight the things one doesn't
know about the other. I use both Fedora and Ubuntu.
I use Fedora only and migrated to Xfce to avoid having to use Gnome 3.
My older sister us
On 01/31/2013 12:09 PM, Craig White wrote:
these meta discussions seem only to highlight the things one doesn't
know about the other. I use both Fedora and Ubuntu.
I use Fedora only and migrated to Xfce to avoid having to use Gnome 3.
My older sister uses Ubuntu, with me for (literally) in-hou
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 16:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 04:44 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> > On 01/27/2013 06:15 PM, Lailah wrote:
> >> El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
> >>> Joe Zeff wrote:
> >>> > On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
>
On 01/31/2013 04:44 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/27/2013 06:15 PM, Lailah wrote:
El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
>> LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In
>>
On 01/27/2013 10:42 PM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 27 January 2013, Ranjan Maitra sent:
But the rush to release will still be there, whether it is a 6- or 9-
or 12-month cycle? At the point of release, inadequately-tested new
features may still be a problem, no?
I think a more reliable a
On 01/27/2013 06:15 PM, Lailah wrote:
El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
>> LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In
>> the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Jus
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:51:43PM +1100, Roger wrote:
> On 01/28/2013 02:43 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 17:10:36 -0500,
> > "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." wrote:
> >>That would truly be a shame! I have used Fedora since
> >>13/14.and I've loved every version of it! But if
El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
> Joe Zeff wrote:
> > On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
> >> LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In
> >> the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs
> >> now to be w
On 01/27/2013 11:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/27/2013 01:44 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I like your ideas J.Z(LoL!) like I know of a few distros that have
their "long term support" versions that are stable, and the packages and
apps have all been tested and have been proven to work. The
On 27 Jan 2013, at 23:55, Philip Rhoades wrote:
> People,
>
>
>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:40 -0500
>> From: "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr."
>> To: Community support for Fedora users
>> Subject: Re: humble suggestion to Fedora developers
>&g
On 01/28/2013 02:43 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 17:10:36 -0500,
"Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." wrote:
That would truly be a shame! I have used Fedora since 13/14.and
I've loved every version of it! But if they start cranking out
something that isn't "reliable" enough for
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 20:04:30 -0500,
"Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." wrote:
Now THIS sounds feasible, and it would make for a smoother transition
from one release to the next! I wonder whom I would have to speak
to.to see if this could be done? Or is it a group
thing?.would I direct somet
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:55:24 +1100,
Philip Rhoades wrote:
Maybe we should try out, say, a nine month cycle and if it doesn't
suit - go back to six months? I am conscious though of the human
tendency to put off things when there is more time to get them done .
This was done once (int
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 17:10:36 -0500,
"Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." wrote:
That would truly be a shame! I have used Fedora since 13/14.and
I've loved every version of it! But if they start cranking out
something that isn't "reliable" enough for me to work on daily.I
might have to either
Allegedly, on or about 27 January 2013, Ranjan Maitra sent:
> But the rush to release will still be there, whether it is a 6- or 9-
> or 12-month cycle? At the point of release, inadequately-tested new
> features may still be a problem, no?
>
> I think a more reliable approach is to have a rolling
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 16:44:57 -0500,
"Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." wrote:
I like your ideas J.Z(LoL!) like I know of a few distros that
have their "long term support" versions that are stable, and the
packages and apps have all been tested and have been proven to work.
There has been at l
On 01/27/2013 08:00 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:55:24 +1100 Philip Rhoades
wrote:
People,
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:40 -0500
From: "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr."
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: humble suggestion to Fedora develo
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:55:24 +1100 Philip Rhoades
wrote:
> People,
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:40 -0500
> > From: "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr."
> > To: Community support for Fedora users
> > Subject: Re: humble suggestion to Fedora develo
People,
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:40 -0500
From: "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr."
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: humble suggestion to Fedora developers
Message-ID: <51058ba0.8020...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
O
On 01/27/2013 05:21 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/27/2013 02:10 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
P.S -Sorry about the "J.Z." thing...I was in a rush to get my response
to you...(had to reboot my machine and didn't want to wait until after
wards!!)
That's not a problem for me. Like with everybody
On 01/27/2013 02:10 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
P.S -Sorry about the "J.Z." thing...I was in a rush to get my response
to you...(had to reboot my machine and didn't want to wait until after
wards!!)
That's not a problem for me. Like with everybody, there are a few ways
I don't like bein
On 01/27/2013 05:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/27/2013 01:44 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I like your ideas J.Z(LoL!) like I know of a few distros that have
their "long term support" versions that are stable, and the packages and
apps have all been tested and have been proven to work. The
On 01/27/2013 01:44 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I like your ideas J.Z(LoL!) like I know of a few distros that have
their "long term support" versions that are stable, and the packages and
apps have all been tested and have been proven to work. Then they also
have their "ex[experimental /
On 01/27/2013 04:11 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/27/2013 12:18 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I would have to agree with you James, it might not be a bad idea for
them to stretch their release time out a bit? I would have positives
from all sides. First,the developers would be able to REALLY
On 01/27/2013 12:18 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I would have to agree with you James, it might not be a bad idea for
them to stretch their release time out a bit? I would have positives
from all sides. First,the developers would be able to REALLY put
their apps and what-not through a GRU
On 01/23/2013 03:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +, James Freer wrote:
I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in
considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release
cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6
On 01/23/2013 02:59 PM, James Freer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
because first new anaconda was approved and integration
all over the distribution started and after that damage
was done people realized "hm new anaconda is
Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
>> LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In
>> the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs
>> now to be worth using.
>
> It often seems to me that they're too concerned about making
Hi
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM, James Freer wrote:
>
> I think that's taking it to extremes a bit really. This is the plans
> for ubuntu... i don't know whetehr Fedora started 6 month release or
> followed ubuntu - but ubuntu are considering giving up.
>
Fedora release plan has existed befor
On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In
the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs
now to be worth using.
It often seems to me that they're too concerned about making their names
cute for my ta
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:19:49 +
> James Freer wrote:
>
>> but ubuntu are considering giving up.
>
> Yea, but they HAVE to change - they are almost out
> of letters in the alphabet!
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twi
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:19:49 +
James Freer wrote:
> but ubuntu are considering giving up.
Yea, but they HAVE to change - they are almost out
of letters in the alphabet!
:-).
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedo
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Ondrej Majerech wrote:
> On 24 January 2013 16:14, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tom Horsley
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > How about no schedule? When something worth releasing is done, declare
>> > it is time for a new release. Could be 6
On 24 January 2013 16:14, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tom Horsley
> wrote:
> >
> > How about no schedule? When something worth releasing is done, declare
> > it is time for a new release. Could be 6 months, could be 2 years.
>
> Now, that is something to think abou
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:54:27 -0500 Tom Horsley
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:38:19 -0600
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> > I'd rather we spent more effort on how figuring out how we can efficiently
> > develop changes that will take longer than one release to get done.
>
> How about no schedule
On 01/24/2013 03:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 15:29:23 -0500,
Matthew Miller wrote:
I'd rather we spent more effort on how figuring out how we can
efficiently develop changes that will take longer than one release to
get done.
By decoupling these works from the F
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
>
> How about no schedule? When something worth releasing is done, declare
> it is time for a new release. Could be 6 months, could be 2 years.
Now, that is something to think about!!
If the current approach isn´t working, let´s try different.
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:38:19 -0600
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I'd rather we spent more effort on how figuring out how we can efficiently
> develop changes that will take longer than one release to get done.
How about no schedule? When something worth releasing is done, declare
it is time for a new
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 15:29:23 -0500,
Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we should keep on a six-month release cycle but also have "epic"
planning for features across cycles. There was a suggestion at Fudcon to
move to using point releases, each point with a six-month cycle but with a
bigger two
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:04:55PM +, James Freer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > Having some experience with timing development cycles in agile/scrum, the
> > problem with a longer release cycle is that the amount of work bitten off
> > grows to match, a
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:07:53 -0200 Itamar Reis Peixoto
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik
> wrote:
> > Reindl Harald writes:
> >
> >> now the damage is done - F18 is a release with a highly dangerous
> >> or partly unuseable installer depending on the usecase/workload
>
Am 24.01.2013 02:00, schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
> Reindl Harald writes:
>
>> now the damage is done - F18 is a release with a highly dangerous
>> or partly unuseable installer depending on the usecase/workload
>> and nobody on this planet can change this for F18
>
> In theory, changes to fedup sh
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Reindl Harald writes:
>
>> now the damage is done - F18 is a release with a highly dangerous
>> or partly unuseable installer depending on the usecase/workload
>> and nobody on this planet can change this for F18
>
>
> In theory, changes t
Reindl Harald writes:
now the damage is done - F18 is a release with a highly dangerous
or partly unuseable installer depending on the usecase/workload
and nobody on this planet can change this for F18
In theory, changes to fedup should be fairly open-ended, it could be
rewritten completely,
On 01/24/2013 09:11 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/23/2013 11:59 AM, James Freer wrote:
Why not consider an
annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take
place?
That would probably be a Good Idea. Personally, I'd be happy if new
systems and re-writes of old ones were given cond
On 01/23/2013 11:59 AM, James Freer wrote:
Why not consider an
annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take
place?
That would probably be a Good Idea. Personally, I'd be happy if new
systems and re-writes of old ones were given conditional approval: that
is, instead of ac
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +, James Freer wrote:
>> I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in
>> considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release
>> cycle is too little time. I've used linu
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +, James Freer wrote:
> I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in
> considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release
> cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with
Having some experience with ti
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:59 PM, James Freer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >> because first new anaconda was approved and integration
> >> all over the distribution started and after that damage
> >> was done peop
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> because first new anaconda was approved and integration
>> all over the distribution started and after that damage
>> was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready"
>
>
> So what you're s
On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
because first new anaconda was approved and integration
all over the distribution started and after that damage
was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready"
So what you're saying is, it was approved before it was ready. Judging
from what
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:51:10 -0600 Bruno Wolff III
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:41:31 -0600,
>Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> >
> >Therefore, I would like to suggest that Fedora put this current
> >installer (F18) in abeyance and re-roll the release using the old
> >installer while the new one
Am 23.01.2013 15:41, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
> Therefore, I would like to suggest that Fedora put this current
> installer (F18) in abeyance and re-roll the release using the old
> installer while the new one is fixed for F19 (after responding to the
> feedback generated thus far)
this is impossi
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:41:31 -0600,
Ranjan Maitra wrote:
Therefore, I would like to suggest that Fedora put this current
installer (F18) in abeyance and re-roll the release using the old
installer while the new one is fixed for F19 (after responding to the
feedback generated thus far). I
74 matches
Mail list logo
