I agree. Also, you're right, gnome-shell doesn't use Gtk, but a custom UI thingie (based on Clutter [the library.. oh, the irony] and Gobject). The default shell has only short menus, so I guess they didn't bother with having a proper model for longer menus. To be fair, most of the things that could be reached from a menu in gnome 2 should be or are Overview search providers on gnome-shell (places, for example).
GNOME designers took Microsoft's side on the argument about menus that lead to the invention of the Office ribbon...
Oh, those "menus". I think they were just simpler to make (although you can rationalize them saying that they are "linear" (your eyes don't have to move sideways to check the subitems) and clicking on them expresses "intent" (avoiding opening the submenus just by hovering on them)).
Now, why did extension developers not create their own widgets (they could)? Probably because it would be harder, though, or they didn't see the need.
I wish for the same thing. Just being able to script GUIs in a simpler way would be fantastic. Writing scripts for xdotool simply doesn't cut it. But intercomunication between apps still has a long way to go in the linux desktop. I wish DBus was (ab)used more and every app provided a nice interface through it...
I see now what you meant with odd about the clock (I think GNOME's reasoning is that you can get the month and date information from the calendar). gnome-tweak-tool has switches for adding the month and day, and also displaying the seconds in the clock; you might want to check that. You can disable dynamic workspaces and change the number of them with it too.
I completely agree things should be a lot more clear about the extensions operation and the website too.
The workspaces behavior is fine for me because i never have that many windows open, but I completely understand it doesn't scale well for your usage. Actually, I use https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/503/always-zoom-workspaces/ to have the workspaces always visible instead of having to move the mouse all the way to the right (To switch windows I liked using https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/317/window-display/ so I could search for window titles, but it hasn't been updated to 3.6). A pager like what you proposed would be a nice extension for gnome-shell, and I think it would be entirely doable.
In some things, I agree things can be much better (and I'm interested in why you find the date format odd). In others, you're just unused to the way things work with extensions.
1) If you go to "Installed extensions" on the website, you'll see an icon besides the toggles for enabling/disabling the extensions. If you press it, it will launch an application that exposes the settings for it. I tried to set the grid you suggested (3x9) with it, and it worked. This application can be launched from the desktop too, it's called `gnome-shell-extension-prefs`.
2) Extensions installed from the website are always installed in ~/.local/share/gnome-shell/extensions/ and removing them locally is as simple as deleting the folder and reloading the shell (I know this is not ideal, and it's not mentioned in the website).
3) Errors can be inspected from the "Looking Glass", which you can launch pressing F2 and entering "lg" in the run dialog that appears. You then go to "Extensions". Under every extension listed there is a link that says "Errors", that should show you give you some feedback. To close the Looking Glass you just press Escape. From the looking glass you can inspect the shell innards through a javascript REPL (there's a tool in the left hand you can use to select a piece of the shell and inject it into it---i'm not sure this description is very clear, but you should try it.). Most errors I've had installing extensions have been caused by version incompatibilities; if the website didn't get what version you were using it will show you incompatible extensions, and even if it does, it will let you try to install incompatible versions and not display any errors (I guess because the communication between the browser and the shell is not bidirectional).
I think the whole enabling/disabling extensions mechanism should be integrated on the shell somehow, instead of delegating that work to the website, that isn't too intuitive/doesn't explain things too wee (neat as it is, when things do work).
Anyway, it's too bad it didn't work for you, I hope if you give it a chance again in the future (you might not) these things are ironed out.
For what it's worth, I agree with what you said. I won't feed the trolls, though!
If only some people can configure the thing, does it really matter whether it is more configurable? I think that's where he's wrong and you are right. If you have easier ways to configure your system the way you need, you are just set. And so would be many others with similar needs.
You would love gnome 3, then. It doesn't have any sort of "rotating/rolling/whatevering windows" and gadgets by default, and it is actually designed with with focus in mind (you can disable notifications, for example), and it encourages to have few windows in the same viewport (at least at the resolution I use it commonly, 1366x768). It has minimal tiling, so you can easily have windows open along side, etc. The 3D stuff is mainly for some visual details, like real transparency in some parts of the desktop (like notifications), window shadows, window borders smoothing, the shell modal dialogs (the desktop is dimmed around them), live window updates in the overview (which is kinda like OSX exposé).
The only lag I find sometimes is IO related, because I have tracker and zeitgeist integrated to the overview search and the disk is read when I look for stuff. The 3D stuff is never a bottleneck.
Well, something could be back again some other day. But it's very unlikely it's us. That's not how it works: there's no point of convergence, and much less that point is us.
Of course not, in that sense. Only your phrasing ("Just because it COULD kill you doesn't mean it is dangerous.") seemed odd to me.
The "can" in my post works, I think, as a probability cause. You _could_ kill me, in principle; it is quite unlikely, however. The same thing about radiation. It could most likely kill me _if_ I were exposed to it; that is, conditionally.
It seems to me one would use differently the expressions "to be dangerous" and "to be a danger to...", however. You could be dangerous without being a danger to _me_. "dangerous" is more like "a danger to something".
Nevermind. You said "just because...". I overlooked the "just" part. That considered, I think we agree on the fundamental thing. One wouldn's consider as a danger to oneself something that merely could (in principle) kill oneself. But I think in that case one could say the thing is dangerous (in principle, however).
Well, the only contact I have with my bookmarks is the "awesome bar", and yes, it is kind of like quicksilver.
I delete the history when FF exits. So my bookmarks are a list of the sites I visit most frequently and stuff I think I might use later (reference, catalogs, libraries, etc.) This way, the results the "awesome bar" gives me are uncluttered- it contains only my bookmarks and my most recent browsing history (from the current session). It works for me.
One could ask: Why don't you use bookmarks for frequently visited addresses? [keywords aside] Do you depend on the history to go there fast, or do you type the entire address?
About the second point you make: you can also do keywords for stuff like that (as searches). [You can set this in the "Manage Search Engines" dialog in the search bar, which, btw, I don't use] I have FF set up so i can type, e.g, "w war" to search "war" on en.wikipedia - it redirects me to the "war" article. I can type "w lazlo moholy-nagy" if I want to search for Lázló Moholy-Nagy but don't remember the way Lázló is written. It does a search and the article shows ups first. If I type "w moholy-nagy" it sends me right to the article.
Plus, one can set up a keyword for (it seems, arbitrary) input forms, so this is very versatile. [However, those keyword searches are separated from the mycroft ones, and this is an inconsistency on the program.]
I use to do searches and queries the way you point to, and admit there are cases where the approach I have just mentioned doesn't work: by example, if there is no input form to build the keyworded search from, or no search engine addon is available.
Well, I see your point. However, I think one can (and should) adjust behaviour--of course, not for the programmer's sake.
I mean this in the sense of Bram Molenaar (vim's main author) generic advise: 1) Detect inefficiency 2) Find a quicker way 3) Make it an habit. I think that advise is valuable and to the point.
In this case, changing behaviour doesn't mean learning *everything* from scratch. But: if you can't find a quicker way, then maybe it's fault of the program. The interface isn't accesible enough. In this sense, the way of doing it I pointed has a (from the usability point of view, severe) flaw: the user must open the Bookmarks Manager to set a keyword for the bookmark. It would be easier if such a thing were accesible from the "star button dialog". Actually, I'd prefer that to the tags thing there.
Everybody hopes transitions such as FF2 > FF3 should be as seamless as possible for the users, and programmers should try to make it happen. I've seen lots of people complain about FF3 about the point we are discussing, and of course there is a problem about that. So we agree on this.
To end: this change hasn't been such a big deal for me, but only as I adapted my behaviour. But it seems natural now.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Also, you're right, gnome-shell doesn't use Gtk, but a custom UI thingie (based on Clutter [the library.. oh, the irony] and Gobject). The default shell has only short menus, so I guess they didn't bother with having a proper model for longer menus. To be fair, most of the things that could be reached from a menu in gnome 2 should be or are Overview search providers on gnome-shell (places, for example). GNOME designers took Microsoft's side on the argument about menus that lead to the invention of the Office ribbon...
Oh, those "menus". I think they were just simpler to make (although you can rationalize them saying that they are "linear" (your eyes don't have to move sideways to check the subitems) and clicking on them expresses "intent" (avoiding opening the submenus just by hovering on them)). Now, why did extension developers not create their own widgets (they could)? Probably because it would be harder, though, or they didn't see the need.
I wish for the same thing. Just being able to script GUIs in a simpler way would be fantastic. Writing scripts for xdotool simply doesn't cut it. But intercomunication between apps still has a long way to go in the linux desktop. I wish DBus was (ab)used more and every app provided a nice interface through it...
Btw, have you tried bbpager?
I see now what you meant with odd about the clock (I think GNOME's reasoning is that you can get the month and date information from the calendar). gnome-tweak-tool has switches for adding the month and day, and also displaying the seconds in the clock; you might want to check that. You can disable dynamic workspaces and change the number of them with it too.
I completely agree things should be a lot more clear about the extensions operation and the website too.
The workspaces behavior is fine for me because i never have that many windows open, but I completely understand it doesn't scale well for your usage. Actually, I use https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/503/always-zoom-workspaces/ to have the workspaces always visible instead of having to move the mouse all the way to the right (To switch windows I liked using https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/317/window-display/ so I could search for window titles, but it hasn't been updated to 3.6). A pager like what you proposed would be a nice extension for gnome-shell, and I think it would be entirely doable.
In some things, I agree things can be much better (and I'm interested in why you find the date format odd). In others, you're just unused to the way things work with extensions.
1) If you go to "Installed extensions" on the website, you'll see an icon besides the toggles for enabling/disabling the extensions. If you press it, it will launch an application that exposes the settings for it. I tried to set the grid you suggested (3x9) with it, and it worked. This application can be launched from the desktop too, it's called `gnome-shell-extension-prefs`.
2) Extensions installed from the website are always installed in ~/.local/share/gnome-shell/extensions/ and removing them locally is as simple as deleting the folder and reloading the shell (I know this is not ideal, and it's not mentioned in the website).
3) Errors can be inspected from the "Looking Glass", which you can launch pressing F2 and entering "lg" in the run dialog that appears. You then go to "Extensions". Under every extension listed there is a link that says "Errors", that should show you give you some feedback. To close the Looking Glass you just press Escape. From the looking glass you can inspect the shell innards through a javascript REPL (there's a tool in the left hand you can use to select a piece of the shell and inject it into it---i'm not sure this description is very clear, but you should try it.). Most errors I've had installing extensions have been caused by version incompatibilities; if the website didn't get what version you were using it will show you incompatible extensions, and even if it does, it will let you try to install incompatible versions and not display any errors (I guess because the communication between the browser and the shell is not bidirectional).
I think the whole enabling/disabling extensions mechanism should be integrated on the shell somehow, instead of delegating that work to the website, that isn't too intuitive/doesn't explain things too wee (neat as it is, when things do work).
Anyway, it's too bad it didn't work for you, I hope if you give it a chance again in the future (you might not) these things are ironed out.
For what it's worth, I agree with what you said. I won't feed the trolls, though! If only some people can configure the thing, does it really matter whether it is more configurable? I think that's where he's wrong and you are right. If you have easier ways to configure your system the way you need, you are just set. And so would be many others with similar needs.
You would love gnome 3, then. It doesn't have any sort of "rotating/rolling/whatevering windows" and gadgets by default, and it is actually designed with with focus in mind (you can disable notifications, for example), and it encourages to have few windows in the same viewport (at least at the resolution I use it commonly, 1366x768). It has minimal tiling, so you can easily have windows open along side, etc. The 3D stuff is mainly for some visual details, like real transparency in some parts of the desktop (like notifications), window shadows, window borders smoothing, the shell modal dialogs (the desktop is dimmed around them), live window updates in the overview (which is kinda like OSX exposé).
The only lag I find sometimes is IO related, because I have tracker and zeitgeist integrated to the overview search and the disk is read when I look for stuff. The 3D stuff is never a bottleneck.
If it did, we should dump the technology as useless.
Well, something could be back again some other day. But it's very unlikely it's us. That's not how it works: there's no point of convergence, and much less that point is us.
Yes, you can: http://alt.org/nethack/soiled/
Risking off-topic, Earl Grey tea is delicious.
Because you *still* need (a/some kind of) desktop to launch a browser?
Sorry. I didn't noticed the person I answered this wasn't the same as the parent.
Of course not, in that sense. Only your phrasing ("Just because it COULD kill you doesn't mean it is dangerous.") seemed odd to me.
The "can" in my post works, I think, as a probability cause. You _could_ kill me, in principle; it is quite unlikely, however. The same thing about radiation. It could most likely kill me _if_ I were exposed to it; that is, conditionally.
It seems to me one would use differently the expressions "to be dangerous" and "to be a danger to...", however. You could be dangerous without being a danger to _me_. "dangerous" is more like "a danger to something".
Nevermind. You said "just because...". I overlooked the "just" part. That considered, I think we agree on the fundamental thing. One wouldn's consider as a danger to oneself something that merely could (in principle) kill oneself. But I think in that case one could say the thing is dangerous (in principle, however).
Well, the fact it could kill you means it's dangerous. To be dangerous isn't the same as to actually kill.
Well, the only contact I have with my bookmarks is the "awesome bar", and yes, it is kind of like quicksilver.
I delete the history when FF exits. So my bookmarks are a list of the sites I visit most frequently and stuff I think I might use later (reference, catalogs, libraries, etc.) This way, the results the "awesome bar" gives me are uncluttered- it contains only my bookmarks and my most recent browsing history (from the current session). It works for me.
One could ask: Why don't you use bookmarks for frequently visited addresses? [keywords aside] Do you depend on the history to go there fast, or do you type the entire address?
About the second point you make: you can also do keywords for stuff like that (as searches). [You can set this in the "Manage Search Engines" dialog in the search bar, which, btw, I don't use] I have FF set up so i can type, e.g, "w war" to search "war" on en.wikipedia - it redirects me to the "war" article. I can type "w lazlo moholy-nagy" if I want to search for Lázló Moholy-Nagy but don't remember the way Lázló is written. It does a search and the article shows ups first. If I type "w moholy-nagy" it sends me right to the article.
Plus, one can set up a keyword for (it seems, arbitrary) input forms, so this is very versatile. [However, those keyword searches are separated from the mycroft ones, and this is an inconsistency on the program.]
I use to do searches and queries the way you point to, and admit there are cases where the approach I have just mentioned doesn't work: by example, if there is no input form to build the keyworded search from, or no search engine addon is available.
Well, I see your point. However, I think one can (and should) adjust behaviour--of course, not for the programmer's sake.
I mean this in the sense of Bram Molenaar (vim's main author) generic advise: 1) Detect inefficiency 2) Find a quicker way 3) Make it an habit. I think that advise is valuable and to the point.
In this case, changing behaviour doesn't mean learning *everything* from scratch. But: if you can't find a quicker way, then maybe it's fault of the program. The interface isn't accesible enough. In this sense, the way of doing it I pointed has a (from the usability point of view, severe) flaw: the user must open the Bookmarks Manager to set a keyword for the bookmark. It would be easier if such a thing were accesible from the "star button dialog". Actually, I'd prefer that to the tags thing there.
Everybody hopes transitions such as FF2 > FF3 should be as seamless as possible for the users, and programmers should try to make it happen. I've seen lots of people complain about FF3 about the point we are discussing, and of course there is a problem about that. So we agree on this.
To end: this change hasn't been such a big deal for me, but only as I adapted my behaviour. But it seems natural now.
If you really care that much, you can use "s" as a keyword for slashdot.org if you have it bookmarked in FF3.
I think they are analogous at that. Only, the composing parts of the thing you play with are of different structure.
More in the mood of some part of the general discussion.