On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 11:03 +0100, Darac Marjal a écrit :
>> Isn't the whole concept of "default desktop" just a matter of "which
>> desktop is included on CD1"? Are you proposing that Debian switches to a
>> series of "CD1s" (Deb
Hi:
On 12/09/12 16:36, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
On 12/09/2012 15:53, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Claiming that ``What is on CD1 is really anecdotic, since most people use (or
should
use) the netinst'' really sounds as claim of a newbie who has never installed
Debian
on a computer. So do not be
On 12/09/2012 15:53, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> Claiming that ``What is on CD1 is really anecdotic, since most people use (or
> should
> use) the netinst'' really sounds as claim of a newbie who has never installed
> Debian
> on a computer. So do not be surprised to get newbie like responses.
> Othe
On 12/09/12 13:38, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 12:40 +0200, Jerome BENOIT a écrit :
What does it happen when no internet connection is available (no access to
internet,
no supported driver for the net card) ?
This case is certainly as anecdotic as CD1, but somehow
On Mi, 12 sep 12, 13:34:38, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 13:39 +0300, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
> > Assuming a user that has no idea what Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE or even a
> > "Desktop Environment" is, what should happen if the user makes no choice
> > at all?
>
> What w
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:34:38PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 13:39 +0300, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
> > Assuming a user that has no idea what Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE or even a
> > "Desktop Environment" is, what should happen if the user makes no choice
> > at al
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 12:40 +0200, Jerome BENOIT a écrit :
> What does it happen when no internet connection is available (no access to
> internet,
> no supported driver for the net card) ?
> This case is certainly as anecdotic as CD1, but somehow in this situation CD1
> can be very use
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 13:39 +0300, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
> Assuming a user that has no idea what Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE or even a
> "Desktop Environment" is, what should happen if the user makes no choice
> at all?
What we have now: a sensible default.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouett
On 12/09/12 12:16, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 11:03 +0100, Darac Marjal a écrit :
Isn't the whole concept of "default desktop" just a matter of "which
desktop is included on CD1"? Are you proposing that Debian switches to a
series of "CD1s" (Debian Ghome Edition, D
On Mi, 12 sep 12, 12:16:50, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> So the real question is being able to choose the desktop from the
> installer instead of having to pre-seed this choice.
Assuming a user that has no idea what Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE or even a
"Desktop Environment" is, what should happen if the
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 11:03 +0100, Darac Marjal a écrit :
> Isn't the whole concept of "default desktop" just a matter of "which
> desktop is included on CD1"? Are you proposing that Debian switches to a
> series of "CD1s" (Debian Ghome Edition, Debian KDE Edition, Debian XFCE
> Edition
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:02:28AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Wookey wrote:
>
> > I'd be happy if xfce was the default.
>
> I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a "default desktop"
> and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live
Paul Wise (12/09/2012):
> I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a "default desktop"
> and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live
> images.
[patch needed]
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2012 à 08:15 +, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
> On 2012-09-12, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a "default desktop"
> > and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live
> > images.
>
> yes please.
Seconded.
--
.'
On 2012-09-12, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Wookey wrote:
>
>> I'd be happy if xfce was the default.
>
> I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a "default desktop"
> and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live
> images.
yes please.
/Sune
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Wookey wrote:
> I'd be happy if xfce was the default.
I would be happy if we threw away the concept of a "default desktop"
and left that choice to people who do installs or downloading of live
images.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBS
Philipp Kern (12/09/2012):
> Does it support accessibility? Just because you quote that we're universal…
Last I heard (and if my memory is right, which probably isn't the case, so
please double check), a11y should work more or less, but with xfce >= 4.10.
That's what's in experimental, oops.
L
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:38:08PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Wookey wrote:
>> > I'd be happy if xfce was the default. Which is better depends if one
>> > prefers 'dull-but-works-everywhere' over
>> > 'shi
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:38:08PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Wookey wrote:
> > I'd be happy if xfce was the default. Which is better depends if one
> > prefers 'dull-but-works-everywhere' over
> > 'shiny-but-not-universaly-liked'. I can see reasonable argumen
* Ian Jackson:
> So if it works just fine without the 3D I don't understand what the
> warning is for.
It's a separate desktop environment, and not lust a lack of visual
effects. None of the Javascript parts work in fallback mode because
GNOME Shell isn't running.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Wookey (11/09/2012):
> If the message tells people to select 'gnome classic' in the logon
> menu to make it go away then that seems reasonable to me.
That's not needed; I did write “at first login”. (For those who wonder, the
fact it's been displayed is then stored in dconf, see details in [1].)
On 09/11/2012 02:22 PM, Wookey wrote:
> If the message tells people to select 'gnome classic' in the logon
> menu to make it go away then that seems reasonable to me.
Again, not really an option for our live images. Two obvious options are:
1. Modify the live image to silently fail over to gnome
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Wookey wrote:
> I'd be happy if xfce was the default. Which is better depends if one
> prefers 'dull-but-works-everywhere' over
> 'shiny-but-not-universaly-liked'. I can see reasonable arguments in
> favour of either.
Robustness is a rather important/lofty goal es
+++ Jonathan Carter [2012-09-11 12:34 -0400]:
> On 11/09/2012 11:32, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Can we move on now? I don’t even understand how a *one-time warning*
> > explaining a user that his desktop will look different from what he
> > might obtain on another Debian machine can even be a seri
On 09/11/2012 01:11 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> every time the live image is booted they will see this image unless they
> happen to be using
^
I meant to say "see this error message", not "see this image". ugh. crappy
proofing, sorry.
On 11/09/2012 11:32, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 15:58 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>> I'm not sure of my actual opinion about the warning because I'm not
>> sure of the technical background. But I think Debian should try to be
>> remain good and useable even on machine
On 09/11/2012 12:55 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: Gnome classic mode"):
>> Can we move on now? I don’t even understand how a *one-time warning*
>> explaining a user that his desktop will look different from what he
>> might obtain on anoth
Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: Gnome classic mode"):
> Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 15:58 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > I'm not sure of my actual opinion about the warning because I'm not
> > sure of the technical background. But I think Debian should try to
Le mardi 11 septembre 2012 à 15:58 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I'm not sure of my actual opinion about the warning because I'm not
> sure of the technical background. But I think Debian should try to be
> remain good and useable even on machines with poor or no 3D graphics
> support, and not b
Thomas Goirand writes ("Re: Gnome classic mode"):
> Another thing: upstream decided to display a warning. I'm not sure it is
> the role of Debian to decide they are wrong.
One of the points of having a distro is that a distro (being an entity
with a better view of the bigger
ilable right from the login manager, with the default installation.
>> Not considering gnome-panel 3.x a continuation of the existing
>> environment is purely bad faith.
>
> Speaking of which, Ubuntu (according to Jeremy) disabled the “booh, bad
> luck, gnome classic mode” warning
installation.
Not considering gnome-panel 3.x a continuation of the existing
environment is purely bad faith.
Speaking of which, Ubuntu (according to Jeremy) disabled the “booh, bad
luck, gnome classic mode” warning at first login.
Do you mean the warning about the lack of 3D support, so there'
g gnome-panel 3.x a continuation of the existing
> environment is purely bad faith.
Speaking of which, Ubuntu (according to Jeremy) disabled the “booh, bad
luck, gnome classic mode” warning at first login. Do we want to do the
same? As I said on IRC, I'm probably biased since I do quite a
33 matches
Mail list logo
