Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ian Malone wrote: -snip > Just thought I'd chime in that my laptop is still happily using > iwl3945 in F16 without noticeable connection problems. (Yes, it's > faster if I connect it via ethernet, but I've always expected that.) > Thanks if you're actually working o

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 1 December 2011 13:02, Pedro Francisco wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 23:09 +, Pedro Francisco wrote: >>> Right thread though, >> >> May be (as few of us can remember the origins of this thread), but >> you've replied at the wrong point.  By

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Maciek Borzecki wrote: > At Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:09:07 +, > Pedro Francisco wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan >> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 19:25 +, Pedro Francisco wrote: >> > > Just to add that laptop has iwl394

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Tim wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 23:09 +, Pedro Francisco wrote: >> Right thread though, > > May be (as few of us can remember the origins of this thread), but > you've replied at the wrong point.  By this time the conversation has > changed, and your reply

Re: Fedora - time to blink

At Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:09:07 +, Pedro Francisco wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 19:25 +, Pedro Francisco wrote: > > > Just to add that laptop has iwl3945 wireless card; iwl3945 module has > > > had > > > > Wrong threa

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 23:09 +, Pedro Francisco wrote: > Right thread though, May be (as few of us can remember the origins of this thread), but you've replied at the wrong point. By this time the conversation has changed, and your reply has nothing to do with the message that you've replied t

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 19:25 +, Pedro Francisco wrote: > > Just to add that laptop has iwl3945 wireless card; iwl3945 module has > > had > > Wrong thread I think (not to mention the top-posting). Thanks for the top-posting tip.

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 19:25 +, Pedro Francisco wrote: > Just to add that laptop has iwl3945 wireless card; iwl3945 module has > had Wrong thread I think (not to mention the top-posting). poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: h

Re: Fedora - time to blink

Just to add that laptop has iwl3945 wireless card; iwl3945 module has had since 29 Apr hardware scanning disabled due to Microcode SW errors; software scanning turns the connection into a patience tester. That didn't help the review, certainly. All network rela

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 14:23 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: > FWIW, unstable doesn't always mean "doesn't work very well" or "tends > to crash." It can also mean "constantly getting updated" as compared > to "stays exactly the same for long periods." There's a couple of commonly used definitions of "stabl

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/28/2011 02:08 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 11/28/2011 10:58 AM, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: >> Well, I'm sure that some folks are of the opinion that the GNOME developers >> attitudes and responses to user concerns are pretty fascist. > Only those who use the term as a generic insult and haven't the

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/28/2011 01:33 PM, Hugh Caley wrote: > I think you have this bass-ackwards. Install and forget would seem to > include reasonably stable, as bug fixes will be created for the version > for some time. FWIW, unstable doesn't always mean "doesn't work very well" or "tends to crash." It can al

Re: Fedora - time to blink

RHEL/CentOS/SL are good for "install-and-forget" operation; they are not good for "stay-current-and-reasonably-stable" operation mainly due to too old kernel, but also for some users due to too old apps. I think you have this bass-ackwards. Install and forget would seem to include reasonably s

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/29/2011 12:35 AM, Matt Rose wrote: >> Sorry POC for inserting here. >> >> I just want to congratulate all the participants in this thread and >> resulting tangents. You've manged to hit at least 3 most often >> recurring themes. > I realize nothing can be done about the meta "Guidelines"

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 11:15 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 28.11.2011 09:12, schrieb les: > > On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:00 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> in business-communication top posting and TOFU is normally > >> because with TOFU you need only the last mail of a conversation > >> and wi

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/28/2011 10:58 AM, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: > Well, I'm sure that some folks are of the opinion that the GNOME developers > attitudes and responses to user concerns are pretty fascist. Only those who use the term as a generic insult and haven't the slightest idea what it means. -- users mail

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/28/2011 01:49 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 11/28/2011 05:30 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: >> The only thing missing is the confirmation of the Godwin's law. :-D > Well, the number of people hating Gnome proves that Ugol's Law still > works. Now, all we need is an example of Cole's Law Well, I'm su

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/28/2011 05:30 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > The only thing missing is the confirmation of the Godwin's law. :-D Well, the number of people hating Gnome proves that Ugol's Law still works. Now, all we need is an example of Cole's Law. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To u

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/28/2011 05:28 PM, Tim wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 09:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> I was talking about GNOME doing research. Not Fedora and developers >> can be influenced as has been shown repeatedly when such results were >> published in the past > > And the response will be; thes

Re: Top posting in a meandering thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

Just correcting the typo in the subject line -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: ht

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

> Sorry POC for inserting here. > > I just want to congratulate all the participants in this thread and > resulting tangents. You've manged to hit at least 3 most often > recurring themes. I realize nothing can be done about the meta "Guidelines" thrash, but you know, some would say that if s

Re: RHEL - Gnome? was Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On 28/11/11 02:41, Genes MailLists wrote: > > > > > Be aware that a significant number of gnome devs are @ RH ... not > > sure what the politics is but the gap between upstream and fedora is not > > as great as may appear sometimes > >

Re: RHEL - Gnome? was Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On 28/11/11 02:41, Genes MailLists wrote: > > > > > Be aware that a significant number of gnome devs are @ RH ... not > > sure what the politics is but the gap between upstream and fedora is not > > as great as may appear sometimes > >

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Monday 28 November 2011 20:03:02 Ed Greshko wrote: > Sorry POC for inserting here. > > I just want to congratulate all the participants in this thread and > resulting tangents. You've manged to hit at least 3 most often > recurring themes. > > > > A. GNOME 3 is the most hated desktop

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/28/2011 07:30 AM, Alan Cox wrote: > The other interesting data set is the rise of Linux Mint, although > personally I'm very dubious about tying that to their Gnome 3 "fixed up" > mode - which is anyway something Fedora could now equally package. Mint seems to produce very polished, well in

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

Sorry POC for inserting here. I just want to congratulate all the participants in this thread and resulting tangents. You've manged to hit at least 3 most often recurring themes. A. GNOME 3 is the most hated desktop since the introduction of KDE 4. B. Licensing in Fedora. Or: Why c

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 23:57 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > I don't want to advertize KDE too much, but there are also XFCE and > LXDE which are gaining popularity as drop-in replacements for the old > Gnome2. Why wouldn't XFCE be the default DE for the distro for a > while? Or the default DE choic

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 21:49 +1100, Roger wrote: > Also consider that with several contributors commenting on the same > post it gets boring scrolling down each one through the same > information > Roger That's why you edit. Whatever posting style you use, you need to edit. You can't keep every si

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 09:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I was talking about GNOME doing research. Not Fedora and developers > can be influenced as has been shown repeatedly when such results were > published in the past And the response will be; these aren't the results that we want to hear.

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 17:24 -0600, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > Very childish. That was the point. I am mocking the behaviour of the deniers, which has been far from satisfactory. > If you want it to change, you have to say more then "it sucks". People HAVE been doing that. But keep getting sh

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

Am 28.11.2011 12:47, schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: > 1) Business mail top-posts and quotes everything because that's the way > Outlook works and to a significant percentage of business users > "Outlook"and "Email" are synonyms. The single advantage to doing it this > way is that you can shovel over

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 21:49 +1100, Roger wrote: > Also consider that with several contributors commenting on the same > post > it gets boring scrolling down each one through the same information It gets even more boring when posters can't be bothered to trim the stuff they're quoting. If quotes w

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

Also consider that with several contributors commenting on the same post it gets boring scrolling down each one through the same information Roger in business-communication top posting and TOFU is normally because with TOFU you need only the last mail of a conversation and with the top-posting y

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

Am 28.11.2011 09:12, schrieb les: > On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:00 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >> in business-communication top posting and TOFU is normally >> because with TOFU you need only the last mail of a conversation >> and with the top-posting you need not to scroll and see the whole >> answ

Re: Fedora - time to blink

Tim yahoo.com.au> writes: > > On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > User interface research is what I suggested. Not surveys. I don't > > really think this list is a reasonable sample. Mailing list tends to > > attract a specific type of audience. You have to be knowle

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 2011-11-28 11:10, users-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 01:09:49 +0100 > From: suvayu ali > Subject: Re: Fedora - time to blink > To: Community support for Fedora users > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

RHEL - Gnome? was Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 28/11/11 02:41, Genes MailLists wrote: > > Be aware that a significant number of gnome devs are @ RH ... not > sure what the politics is but the gap between upstream and fedora is not > as great as may appear sometimes How would enterprise users find Gnome? Will sales of screen-cleaner so

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:12:14 -0800 les wrote: I love this mlist more and more! all started with Fedora - time to blink and now we are behind this "querelle" that is older than internet ;) you are amazing, guys :) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 27 November 2011 23:24, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/27/2011 05:13 PM, Tim wrote: >> >> And then there's the point of view that it's a community >> project, and this is the forum for that community, and >> *significant* numbers of this c

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:00 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 27.11.2011 19:32, schrieb Maurizio Marini: > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:13:53 + > > Frank Murphy wrote: > > > >> That's what top-posting brings. (Not JZ) > >> Let's see the rant's now. > > > > A. Because people read from top to bo

Re: Fedora - time to blink

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/2011 04:43 AM, Tim wrote: > On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> User interface research is what I suggested. Not surveys. I >> don't really think this list is a reasonable sample. Mailing >> list tends to attract a

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/28/2011 01:11 AM, Antonio Olivares wrote: > > You have to be kidding! "research"? On a 6-month release early release > often desktop? If you do research, then what influence will the research > have? Developers have already made up their minds and released their new > innovations, and

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 07:09 PM, suvayu ali wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 00:57, Marko Vojinovic wrote: >> Or the default DE >> choice could "rotate" for each release --- XFCE for F17, LXDE for F18, KDE >> for >> F19, Gnome3 for F20, and over again, in turns. That way each DE would have >> equal amount

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

> |  But side posting is more fun = It > |  and by far a more interesting = certainly > |  challenge, isn't it? = is > |= more > |  {O,o}   Ack! = challenging > > -- = with

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/27/2011 06:28 PM, jdow wrote: > On 2011/11/27 15:42, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >> Well, considering that top posting | But side posting is more fun > > is strongly discourages in the | and by far a more interesting >> list guidelines,

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 2011/11/27 15:42, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > On 11/27/2011 01:00 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> >> Am 27.11.2011 19:32, schrieb Maurizio Marini: >>> >>> A. Because people read from top to bottom. >>> Q. Why should I not top post? >>> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally r

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 00:57, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > Or the default DE > choice could "rotate" for each release --- XFCE for F17, LXDE for F18, KDE for > F19, Gnome3 for F20, and over again, in turns. That way each DE would have > equal amount of "visibility" among users, more bugs would get fi

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Monday 28 November 2011 09:43:05 Tim wrote: > On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 11:41 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote: > > Developers have already made up their minds and released their new > > innovations, and "not" what the research is asking for. You want to > > look at new small screens like tablets, pho

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 01:00 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 27.11.2011 19:32, schrieb Maurizio Marini: >> >> A. Because people read from top to bottom. >> Q. Why should I not top post? >> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. >> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >>

Re: Fedora - time to blink

For survey data there is the Phoronix Gnome survey. That actually has a lot of quite interesting comments from people who've taken it. In many ways the comments are more valuable than the percentages as it's not a random 'mug people for data' type survey so somewhat self selecting. I also don't t

Re: Fedora - time to blink

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/27/2011 05:13 PM, Tim wrote: > > And then there's the point of view that it's a community > project, and this is the forum for that community, and > *significant* numbers of this community are saying that it > sucks. Yet we're being told we're

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 11:41 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote: > Developers have already made up their minds and released their new > innovations, and "not" what the research is asking for. You want to > look at new small screens like tablets, phones and other small stuff > and replace the traditional

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > User interface research is what I suggested. Not surveys. I don't > really think this list is a reasonable sample. Mailing list tends to > attract a specific type of audience. You have to be knowledgeable > enough to subscribe and follo

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sunday 27 November 2011 20:00:20 Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 27.11.2011 19:32, schrieb Maurizio Marini: > > A. Because people read from top to bottom. > > Q. Why should I not top post? > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad th

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 12:13 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On 27/11/11 17:08, Joe Zeff wrote: > >>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: >> >> Possibly so someone can say >> "It's not bloated, you installed all that stuff" >> >> Please get your attributions right. There's n

Re: Fedora - time to blink

> You will have to do a fairly extensive user interface > research with > samples from non technical users fully new to the user > interface to > conclude anything meaningful.  > > Rahul > > -- You have to be kidding! "research"? On a 6-month release early release often desktop? If you do

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:00:20 -0600 Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 27.11.2011 19:32, schrieb Maurizio Marini: > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:13:53 + > > Frank Murphy wrote: > > > >> That's what top-posting brings. (Not JZ) > >> Let's see the rant's now. > > > > A. Because people read from top

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

Am 27.11.2011 19:32, schrieb Maurizio Marini: > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:13:53 + > Frank Murphy wrote: > >> That's what top-posting brings. (Not JZ) >> Let's see the rant's now. > > A. Because people read from top to bottom. > Q. Why should I not top post? > A: Because it messes up the order

Re: Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:13:53 + Frank Murphy wrote: > That's what top-posting brings. (Not JZ) > Let's see the rant's now. A. Because people read from top to bottom. Q. Why should I not top post? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such

Top posting in a meandeing thread was: Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 27/11/11 17:08, Joe Zeff wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > > Possibly so someone can say > "It's not bloated, you installed all that stuff" > > Please get your attributions right. There's nothing of mine quoted here. That's what top-posting b

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:27:12 +0800 > Ian Chapman wrote: > >> Thanks to Gnome 3 I may well be heading back. > > Don't worry, in the current climate it is only a matter > of time before the KDE developers are seized with the > same "all the world

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 08:57 AM, David wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: >> >> On 27/11/11 16:33, Joe Zeff wrote: >> >> >> >> Possibly so someone can say >> >> "It's not bloated, you installed all that stuff" Please get your attributions right. There's nothing of mine quo

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 11:45 AM, Neal Hogan wrote: > What is this thread about? Or maybe it's easier to say what it's not about > ;-) It started as a Troll and has morphed into what you see now. Which was probably the intention of the Troll. A long, never ending 'chat type' thread that meanders in cont

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:45:50 -0600 Neal Hogan wrote: > What is this thread about? Or maybe it's easier to say what it's not > about ;-) > Well, now that you ask, I'd say that its about 50 to 100 messages too long. -- cmg -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or ch

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 10:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote: > > In the past some surveys were done - and some complained that the > sample was biased - whether by fedora users or users who subscribe to > the mailing lists - but the complainers were generally those who > disagreed with the outcome :-) User i

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:45:50 -0600 Neal Hogan wrote: > What is this thread about? Or maybe it's easier to say what it's not > about ;-) welcome to fedora users! I love this mlist for this threads without head and tail. This is the only list by which i can't unsubscribe, really -- users mailing

Re: Fedora - time to blink

What is this thread about? Or maybe it's easier to say what it's not about ;-) On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On 27/11/11 16:33, Joe Zeff wrote: >> On 11/27/2011 08:02 AM, Ian Chapman wrote: >>> It's also required for me to add an applet to the gnome panel which is >>> w

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 11:18 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 11/27/2011 09:10 PM, Christopher A. Williams wrote: >> >> Actually, I have to disagree with you on that. What works or not is >> *partially* subjective, especially when it comes to user experience. >> There are some things that just don't work, per

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/28/2011 12:33 AM, Joe Zeff wrote: > AIUI, you have to write and/or install various extensions to Gnome 3 to > regain functionality that was in Gnome 2 out-of-the-box. What I don't > understand, however, is why this is called progress. You're not supposed to understand. Just know that it's

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 27/11/11 16:33, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 11/27/2011 08:02 AM, Ian Chapman wrote: >> It's also required for me to add an applet to the gnome panel which is >> what I was referring to. I'm not understanding why I should have to > > AIUI, you have to write and/or install various extensions to Gnome 3 t

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 08:02 AM, Ian Chapman wrote: > It's also required for me to add an applet to the gnome panel which is > what I was referring to. I'm not understanding why I should have to AIUI, you have to write and/or install various extensions to Gnome 3 to regain functionality that was in Gnome

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 09:10 PM, Christopher A. Williams wrote: > > Actually, I have to disagree with you on that. What works or not is > *partially* subjective, especially when it comes to user experience. > There are some things that just don't work, period. I don't think you will find any real consensu

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 05:28 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 11/27/2011 07:38 AM, Joe Zeff wrote: >> On 11/26/2011 12:18 PM, Thomas Cameron wrote: >>> This*is* the bleeding edge. Sometimes it's dangerously sharp, but it >>> always produces better and better code. >> >> No it doesn't. Sometimes it turns out

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 11:22 PM, Christopher A. Williams wrote: >> Or why I have to press Alt + RMB to pop up a menu on a panel in Gnome? >> Seriously, WTF? > > RMB on the window's title bar produces the same pop-up menu. It's only > when you want to do that from another location on the window that > Alt-R

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 11/27/2011 08:40 PM, Tim wrote: > > Joe Zeff: > >>> No it doesn't. Sometimes it turns out that an idea that sounded good > >>> Just Doesn't Work. > > > > Rahul Sundaram: > >> People who do the work decide what works or doesn't work.

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 08:40 PM, Tim wrote: > Joe Zeff: >>> No it doesn't. Sometimes it turns out that an idea that sounded good >>> Just Doesn't Work. > > Rahul Sundaram: >> People who do the work decide what works or doesn't work. This isn't a >> democracy. > > No. They can decide what they want t

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 22:47 +0800, Ian Chapman wrote: > On 11/27/2011 05:56 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > > > KDE4.0 was released very early and it was underdeveloped at the time, which > > was considered stupid by a lot of users. But there were no mistakes in > > *design*, it just lacked configura

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 11:10 PM, Tim wrote: > On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 22:47 +0800, Ian Chapman wrote: >> why I have to press Alt + RMB to pop up a menu on a panel in Gnome? >> Seriously, WTF? > > Gosh, gee, Gnome just don't understand the concept of a menu. It's > supposed to present you with your list of ch

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 10:39 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: >> Thanks to Gnome 3 I may well be heading back. > > Don't worry, in the current climate it is only a matter > of time before the KDE developers are seized with the > same "all the world's a tablet" disease and come out > with a KDE5 where they try to win

Re: Fedora - time to blink

Joe Zeff: >> No it doesn't. Sometimes it turns out that an idea that sounded good >> Just Doesn't Work. Rahul Sundaram: > People who do the work decide what works or doesn't work. This isn't a > democracy. No. They can decide what they want to do. But what works, or doesn't work, is born o

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 22:47 +0800, Ian Chapman wrote: > why I have to press Alt + RMB to pop up a menu on a panel in Gnome? > Seriously, WTF? Gosh, gee, Gnome just don't understand the concept of a menu. It's supposed to present you with your list of choices, neatly categorised, simply by lookin

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 05:56 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > KDE4.0 was released very early and it was underdeveloped at the time, which > was considered stupid by a lot of users. But there were no mistakes in > *design*, it just lacked configurability and features. This of course improved > over time, and to

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:27:12 +0800 Ian Chapman wrote: > Thanks to Gnome 3 I may well be heading back. Don't worry, in the current climate it is only a matter of time before the KDE developers are seized with the same "all the world's a tablet" disease and come out with a KDE5 where they try to wi

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/26/2011 04:10 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 13:30 -0500, Matt Rose wrote: >> As well, KDE's track record on this is not exactly stellar. KDE4 was >> basically unusable up until 4.3 or so. > > I'd dispute that. I've used KDE 4 since it came out and never had major > p

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 07:38 AM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 11/26/2011 12:18 PM, Thomas Cameron wrote: >> This*is* the bleeding edge. Sometimes it's dangerously sharp, but it >> always produces better and better code. > > No it doesn't. Sometimes it turns out that an idea that sounded good > Just Doesn't Work

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 05:28 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > quality and security should ALWAYS win against features and glitter > especially in free software where no marketing is announcing the next > big thing and calculate how much money in what time must be generated You appear repeatedly demanding for

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 04:22 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: > How do you (or maintainers) know with certainty that there isn't a > header file dependence, or a compiler change that would lead to a faster > (or a bug for that matter). The base toolchain has a lot of Red Hat developers working on it and they

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/26/2011 02:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > some years later i will laugh about all the peopole who are thinking keyboard > and > mouse has no future because all this kids will sooner or later (hopefully) get > a job and realize what working with a computer means It occurs to me that the peopl

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/26/2011 12:18 PM, Thomas Cameron wrote: > This*is* the bleeding edge. Sometimes it's dangerously sharp, but it > always produces better and better code. No it doesn't. Sometimes it turns out that an idea that sounded good Just Doesn't Work. That's part of what Fedora is for: finding out

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 14:18 -0600, Thomas Cameron wrote: > > I'd dispute that. I've used KDE 4 since it came out and never had > major > > problems with it (other than completely missing the point of the > whole > > Activities stuff, easily solved by ignoring it). The chest-beating > about > > the

Re: Fedora - time to blink

Am 27.11.2011 00:43, schrieb Mikkel L. Ellertson: > On 11/26/2011 05:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> >>> Simple: Packages don't rebuilt unless there is a necessity to do so >> >> and what about the mass-rebuilds usually happening in devel-cycle >> after upgrades of GCC, GLIBC etc.? >> >> 99% o

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/26/2011 05:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > >> Simple: Packages don't rebuilt unless there is a necessity to do so > > and what about the mass-rebuilds usually happening in devel-cycle > after upgrades of GCC, GLIBC etc.? > > 99% of all packages are rebuilt there > what is with the one pe

Fedora - time to blink

Rahul Sundaram gmail.com> writes: > On 11/27/2011 03:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: > > Try this instead: > > > > rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/growisofs > > dvd+rw-tools-7.1-5.fc14.x86_64 > > > > (this is on F15 - for some reason I have never understoon - some > > packages dont get rebu

Re: Fedora - time to blink

Am 26.11.2011 23:31, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: > On 11/27/2011 03:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: >> Try this instead: >> >> rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/growisofs >> dvd+rw-tools-7.1-5.fc14.x86_64 >> >> (this is on F15 - for some reason I have never understoon - some >> packages dont get reb

Re: Fedora - time to blink

/Isn't it time to change the subject line Roger / On 11/26/2011 05:31 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 11/27/2011 03:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: Try this instead: rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/growisofs dvd+rw-tools-7.1-5.fc14.x86_64 (this is on F15 - for some reason I have never unde

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/26/2011 05:31 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 11/27/2011 03:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: >> Try this instead: >> >> rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/growisofs >> dvd+rw-tools-7.1-5.fc14.x86_64 >> >> (this is on F15 - for some reason I have never understoon - some >> packages dont get rebu

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/27/2011 03:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: > Try this instead: > > rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/growisofs > dvd+rw-tools-7.1-5.fc14.x86_64 > > (this is on F15 - for some reason I have never understoon - some > packages dont get rebuilt and/or repackages ... ) Simple: Packages don't

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On 11/26/2011 05:07 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: > No idea, > Where possible I stick to gui. > But out of curiosity: > ~$ rpm -q wodim growisofs > wodim-1.1.11-8.fc16.x86_64 > package growisofs is not installed > > > Try this instead: rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/growisofs dvd+rw-tools-7.

Re: Fedora - time to blink

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:58:10 -0800 (PST) Antonio Olivares wrote: > I hear you :) I am with you, but sadly the desktop > creators/maintainers/coders are going with it :( > I even saw a guy on TV stating that there was no need for keyboards or mice > anymore Yea, I can't wait for the release

Re: Fedora - time to blink

Am 26.11.2011 22:58, schrieb Antonio Olivares: >> some developers are thinking "it's new, it's cool, the >> others do not bother me" >> well, they can do so >> >> but this will nothing change in the fact that POWER-USERS >> will always use >> a classical desktop, that most computers in profession

  1   2   3   >