Olav Vitters writes:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:48:28PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Having every appp implement a version of NoSquint makes so much more
> sense than gdm passing through the right option to Xorg!
Do you honestly expect anyone to respond to you? I mean, anyone who
actually bo
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:48:28PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Having every appp implement a version of NoSquint makes so much more
> sense than gdm passing through the right option to Xorg!
Do you honestly expect anyone to respond to you? I mean, anyone who
actually bothers to makes changes?
On 16 June 2012 00:43, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>
> Reindl Harald writes:
>
>> sounds like the same as KDE4.0 and Nvidia some years ago
>>
>> Developers: "nooo Nvidia is the problem not KDE4.0"
>> Users: "But why is KDE3.x and other Desktops working"
>> Developers: "The are doing some hacks to
On 15 June 2012 20:53, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 11:37 AM, Kernel Guardian wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately after GNOME 3, many of them have a problems, especially
>> hardware issues, to run latest Fedora versions. Almost half of them give
>> up from Linux because hardware incompatibility or lack
Reindl Harald writes:
sounds like the same as KDE4.0 and Nvidia some years ago
Developers: "nooo Nvidia is the problem not KDE4.0"
Users: "But why is KDE3.x and other Desktops working"
Developers: "The are doing some hacks to work"
Users: "Why do you not the same"
Developers: "Becasue
Am 15.06.2012 23:48, schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
> Understood. It took me a while, but I was finally enlightened. I finally
> figured out why it's not really a bug –
> it's because NoSquint can be easily installed in Firefox. Looks like most
> folks affected by this have figured out
> the workaro
Olav Vitters writes:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 08:27:22AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Olav Vitters writes:
>
> >You're very demanding and call people "royal highnesses". Sure seems
> >like you seem obliged that people do what you think is right (other
> >idea? wrong!) on a timeframe that you t
On 06/15/2012 06:52 AM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Are we gonna go out there in a massive protest we want shutdown natively in
GNOME, we want shutdown in GNOME without alt, ..., etc? seems unlikely. Now
Mr. Obama may lock us up for disturbing the peace and detain us indefinitely
using NDAA :
On 06/15/2012 11:37 AM, Kernel Guardian wrote:
Unfortunately after GNOME 3, many of them have a problems, especially
hardware issues, to run latest Fedora versions. Almost half of them give
up from Linux because hardware incompatibility or lack of technical
skills to make GUI usable and user frie
Thank you for bugzilla link.
Maybe it would be good for Fedora (and other Linux distributions) to help
Mint developers in advancement Cinnamon as gnome-shell replacement in GNOME
3 environment.
Since it is impossible to influence the development of gnome-shell it would
be nice to have some replacem
On 06/15/2012 05:55 AM, Kernel Guardian wrote:
But why Cinnamon
> isn't part of Fedora repo?
It is under review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252
As you can see, this is a process that requires back and forth quite a
bit. Help is welcome.
Rahul
--
users mailing list
use
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 08:27:22AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Olav Vitters writes:
>
> >You're very demanding and call people "royal highnesses". Sure seems
> >like you seem obliged that people do what you think is right (other
> >idea? wrong!) on a timeframe that you think is correct.
> >
>
--- On Fri, 6/15/12, Ian Malone wrote:
> From: Ian Malone
> Subject: Re: Power-off stupidity remains in Gnome 3 (Was: Power-off stupidity
> remains in Fedora 17)
> To: "Community support for Fedora users"
> Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 4:32 AM
> On 15 Jun
Olav Vitters writes:
You're very demanding and call people "royal highnesses". Sure seems
like you seem obliged that people do what you think is right (other
idea? wrong!) on a timeframe that you think is correct.
Anyway, there I go again, being a royal highness :P
Well, you've pretty much ig
On 15 June 2012 00:43, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
wrote:
> Again, this being the Fedora userlist, it isn't the place to agitate to get
> Gnome fixed. The relevant choice for Fedora as such, concerning the user
> shell, is amongst these:
>
> * to keep Gnome shell as the default user shell;
> * to ke
> include both the advantages and disadvantages of each. If nothing else,
> they'd have to include hard disk, RAM and graphics requirements so that
> you can judge whether or not your computer has what it takes to run each
> DE properly, and what the consequences are of trying to use it when yo
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 06:29:53PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Unfortunately, the royal highnesses that even bothered to reply to
> that years-old bug have waived it off, with vague, occasional
Someone pointed at this lately:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html
It contains
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 19:35 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> Just curious, before I try this... what else does this change, besides
> the power off option (if anything).
>
> Thanks,
> FC
>
>
Hi Fernando,
Please take a look at this page[1]. It has the info about the extension,
including a scree
I deeply reconsider should I involve myself in this thread. Finally “Alea
iacta est“. This will be completely OT but I could not resist.
Actually, this post is about attitude and professionalism in Fedora
community. Lately I saw in to many threads negative attitude about
suggestions, complains, bu
On 06/14/2012 04:43 PM, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan wrote:
* to keep Gnome shell as an option but no longer make it the default;
Given the choice, this is the option I'd pick. Of course, if Fedora
stopped using Gnome shell as the default, we'd probably have to pick a
different one. Either that,
Again, this being the Fedora userlist, it isn't the place to agitate
to get Gnome fixed. The relevant choice for Fedora as such,
concerning the user shell, is amongst these:
* to keep Gnome shell as the default user shell;
* to keep Gnome shell as an option but no longer make it the defaul
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Pick one of four ways to fix that:
>
> yum install gnome-shell-extension-**alternative-status-menu
>
Just curious, before I try this... what else does this change, besides the
power off option (if anything).
Thanks,
FC
--
During times o
Olav Vitters writes:
Venting makes it difficult to understand the issue. State your problem
calmly, otherwise most @ GNOME will quickly ignore either you, or the
whole mailing list.
Too late.
The aforementioned "most @ GNOME" have already been ignoring feedback for a
long time. There are un
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 08:09:57PM +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> Now it really goes OT and becomes venting. I'm far from complaining
> every time and for everything and you'll see in previous mails I don't.
Oops.. didn't want to imply that you did.
Just wanted to explain about venting _in
On 14.06.2012 19:24, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:50:16PM +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
>> As you already know it does. This stupidity in GNOME is changed in next
>> releases so each voice from frustrated users is important. It is the way
>> wrong things can be heard and re
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:50:16PM +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> As you already know it does. This stupidity in GNOME is changed in next
> releases so each voice from frustrated users is important. It is the way
> wrong things can be heard and repaired.
Venting makes it difficult to underst
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:31:43AM -0500, Matthew J. Roth wrote:
> From where I'm sitting, that looks like venting *did something*.
Nope, it is totally pointless. I talked to a few designers personally,
explained calmly a better approach. The announced change pretty much
matches with what I said.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 02:35:43PM +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 00:10 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > Furthermore, updates to extensions are reviewed by GNOME shell
> > developers. If they break stuff, it means additional work for them to
> > review the updated extension.
>
> ... just
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 12:12 +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 14:35 +0930, Tim wrote:
> > It *is* a *basic* thing. Are they purely aiming at a server market?
> > Home users *do* turn their PCs off.
>
> How difficult is pressing the alt button?
>
> I don't understand what the c
Fedora
> release for users. I did too. I packaged stuff, tested each release
> candidate, filed bugs, so that users would have a better experience.
None of that excuses contempt for the users.
> So, when people run around writing "power-off stupidity remains in Fedora
> 17", I&
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 16:44 +0930, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
> >> It *is* a *basic* thing. Are they purely aiming at a server market?
> >> Home users *do* turn their PCs off.
>
> Ankur Sinha:
> > How difficult is pressing the alt button?
>
> The big gripe is that it's an unnecessary thing. Also, it's
a message with "LOL", you might want to consider
> using your personal account next time.
Why? Aren't fedora project contributors allowed to laugh?
Here's the thing. A lot of people worked very hard to make each Fedora
release for users. I did too. I packaged stuff, tested ea
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 12:50 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> On 14.06.2012 11:32, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 09:46 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> > > You must be kidding or you are a masochist. It is idiotic to force
> > > users to know the magical commands to turn of
Ankur Sinha wrote:
>
> I just don't like random folks venting on mailing lists.
What, exactly, is it that you're doing?
> If you haven't learnt yet, venting does nothing. It doesn't bring
> any changes. All it does is waste infra.
>
> From F18, you'll have your poweroff back.
From where I'm si
On 14.06.2012 11:32, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 09:46 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
>> You must be kidding or you are a masochist. It is idiotic to force
>> users to know the magical commands to turn off the computer! On my
>> desktop, yes - I can hold and even 10 other keys o
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 16:44 +0930, Tim wrote:
> The big gripe is that it's an unnecessary thing. Also, it's not
> intuitive. Menus should present your choices. You shouldn't have to
> go
> right clicking, or alt-clicking on menus, trying to find *hidden*
> options. And, you have to know that yo
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 09:46 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> You must be kidding or you are a masochist. It is idiotic to force
> users to know the magical commands to turn off the computer! On my
> desktop, yes - I can hold and even 10 other keys only to change
> menu item and power off. But
On 14.06.2012 08:42, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 14:35 +0930, Tim wrote:
>> It *is* a *basic* thing. Are they purely aiming at a server market?
>> Home users *do* turn their PCs off.
> How difficult is pressing the alt button?
>
> I don't understand what the cribbing is all about
Tim:
>> It *is* a *basic* thing. Are they purely aiming at a server market?
>> Home users *do* turn their PCs off.
Ankur Sinha:
> How difficult is pressing the alt button?
The big gripe is that it's an unnecessary thing. Also, it's not
intuitive. Menus should present your choices. You shoul
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 14:35 +0930, Tim wrote:
> It *is* a *basic* thing. Are they purely aiming at a server market?
> Home users *do* turn their PCs off.
How difficult is pressing the alt button?
I don't understand what the cribbing is all about really:
1. press alt button
2. install the exte
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 19:57 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Pick one of four ways to fix that:
>
> yum install gnome-shell-extension-alternative-status-menu
>
> or
>
> yum groupinstall xfce
>
> or
>
> yum groupinstall lxde
>
> or
>
> yum groupinstall kde
>
>
+1
I'll request you to please
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 00:10 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> Furthermore, updates to extensions are reviewed by GNOME shell
> developers. If they break stuff, it means additional work for them to
> review the updated extension.
... just one reason why basic normal functionality should be part of the
m
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 05:10:02PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> want. Please note that they have made it very clear that they're
> not going to make the slightest effort to avoid breaking third-party
> plugins, even (especially!) those that correct some of Gnome 3's
> most glaring flaws.
There is a b
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 16:59 -0400, Jayson Rowe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Dokuro wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Andre Robatino
> > wrote:
> >> Aaron Konstam sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
> >>> an
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 20:48 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Aaron Konstam sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> > I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
> > annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
> > the stupidity of having to hold down the alt
I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
the stupidity of having to hold down the alt key to get to the power off
option.
It's annoying, but it has an extremely easy fix. Has no one told you about
> Just installed Fedora 17 on VM in VirtualBox and can't undersand what
> stupidity you are talking about. I don't need to hold down alt key. Just
> click on the user name in right top corner and then click on "Power Off..."
> on the botton of the menu.
That's because VirtualBox's "BIOS" does not
On 12/06/12 16:38, Aaron Konstam wrote:
I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
the stupidity of having to hold down the alt key to get to the power off
option.
It is certainly a stupid feature a
2012-06-12 17:38, Aaron Konstam skrev:
I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
the stupidity of having to hold down the alt key to get to the power off
option.
It is certainly a stupid feature an
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 18:02 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> Just a sign that the 2012 apocalypse is real :-).
I didn't realise that Windows 2012 had been released... ;-p
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
--
users mailin
On 06/12/2012 04:26 PM, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan wrote:
You need to address your otherwise legitimate complaint to the
developers of the Gnome shell.
However, don't expect them to pay much attention.
AIUI, the only thing the Gnome developers pay attention to is their own
mailing list. And, if
Andre Robatino writes:
Aaron Konstam sbcglobal.net> writes:
> I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
> annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
> the stupidity of having to hold down the alt key to get to the power off
> option.
>
>
Aaron Konstam writes:
I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
the stupidity of having to hold down the alt key to get to the power off
option.
It is certainly a stupid feature and it continues o
Aaron Konstam cried out:
I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on
retains the stupidity of having to hold down the alt key to get to
the power off option.
That behavior is a feature of the Gnome sh
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:05:17 +0100
Ian Malone wrote:
> You do realise you can install the extension to add it right now? That
> said I'm glad they've finally seen sense on one issue.
Just a sign that the 2012 apocalypse is real :-).
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscr
On 12 June 2012 21:54, Dokuro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Andre Robatino
> wrote:
>> Aaron Konstam sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
>>> annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
>>> the
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Dokuro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Andre Robatino
> wrote:
>> Aaron Konstam sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
>>> annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retain
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Andre Robatino
wrote:
> Aaron Konstam sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
>> annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
>> the stupidity of having to hold down the alt key to
Aaron Konstam sbcglobal.net> writes:
> I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
> annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
> the stupidity of having to hold down the alt key to get to the power off
> option.
>
> It is certainly a stupid
I know that complaining with each successive version of Fedora gets
annoying. But would someone tell me why the developers insist on retains
the stupidity of having to hold down the alt key to get to the power off
option.
It is certainly a stupid feature and it continues on with its stupidity.
Ok,
60 matches
Mail list logo
