On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:30:19 -0400
William Case wrote:
> The only
> successful way I have found is to drag a copy of the icon from the menu
> to the desktop and then look at the properties on the desktop icon.
I do grep -r in the /usr/share/applications directory to find the
.desktop file for the
On 19 April 2010 19:30, William Case wrote:
> Just to add another dimension to this naming discussion. The name often
> has nothing to do with the command line run command and there is no easy
> way to find what command to use on the command line if or when you want
> to run an application from th
Hi: 2ยข
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 03:00 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:36 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On the other hand, when it's referred to as the Firefox web browser,
> then I know it's *a* web browser, and *which* one. Likewise for the
> other applications I mentioned, but that (
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 23:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/19/2010 12:52 AM, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> > On the other hand, we do have control over the descriptions in the RPM
> > packages. When this issue came up last fall, I filed a bug to make sure
> > that the word "keyring" appeared in
On 04/19/2010 12:52 AM, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> On the other hand, we do have control over the descriptions in the RPM
> packages. When this issue came up last fall, I filed a bug to make sure
> that the word "keyring" appeared in the description field for seahorse,
> so that it would at least s
On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:36 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> My question is why call the new project seahorse a name which would be
> hard to associate with what the program does. Is there some reason
> that the new program could not keep the same name or at least a more
> meaningful name?
It's a fai
On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 19:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/18/2010 07:06 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> >
> > As I sometimes am, I am confused by what you say Rahul. The question is
> > not whether Red Hat has a right to replace programs by new ones created
> > by another different team of volu
On 04/18/2010 07:06 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
>
> As I sometimes am, I am confused by what you say Rahul. The question is
> not whether Red Hat has a right to replace programs by new ones created
> by another different team of volunteers. They do.
>
I wasn't answering you. It was a reply to To
On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 11:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/16/2010 07:05 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:25:27 -0500
> > Aaron Konstam wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Why would anyone change the name of gnome-key-manager (a name with some
> >> meaning) to seahorse (seemingly meaning
On 04/16/2010 07:05 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:25:27 -0500
> Aaron Konstam wrote:
>
>
>> Why would anyone change the name of gnome-key-manager (a name with some
>> meaning) to seahorse (seemingly meaningless)?
>>
> I think this falls under my theory:
>
> http://home.com
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> I kept this question inside of me but it is bursting out.
>
> Why would anyone change the name of gnome-key-manager (a name with some
> meaning) to seahorse (seemingly meaningless)?
SO you see, a trojan horse was _kinda_ like a key to the ci
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:25:27 -0500
Aaron Konstam wrote:
> Why would anyone change the name of gnome-key-manager (a name with some
> meaning) to seahorse (seemingly meaningless)?
I think this falls under my theory:
http://home.comcast.net/~tomhorsley/wisdom/braindump/darwin.html
:-).
--
users m
I kept this question inside of me but it is bursting out.
Why would anyone change the name of gnome-key-manager (a name with some
meaning) to seahorse (seemingly meaningless)?
--
===
"This is a job for BOB VIOLENCE and SCUM, the I
13 matches
Mail list logo
