I'd be happy if I could get my back and forward buttons working in Dolphin (I'm using openSUSE 11.1). I can't believe that in the year 2009 a linux distro still can't properly configure a mouse out of the box.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to put Windows back on my drive, but seriously, a mouse? One could hardly blame a random Windows user for thinking Linux is crap if his mouse doesn't work properly (something that works fine out-of-the-box in Windows).
Oh, and I've tried xmodmap, evdev, and fiddling with my xorg.conf, to no avail. It seems I probably have to compile imwheel (since there's no RPM for it in openSUSE). One shouldn't have to do this for something so trivial.
If this thing works as advertised, and no way is found around it, then I might be forced to lead a healthier lifestyle, and perhaps even become a more productive member of society!
Nooooo!
Sarcastometer: 50% (this really could make life rather dull and boring)
I personally don't care if KDE 4 was supposed to have used less resources. If it uses more, then maybe I'll get more value for money out of my underused 2GB of RAM.
Since switching from Windows to Mandriva 10 months ago, my second 1GB chip hasn't been touched, so I for one welcome the new memory-justifying KDE 4:-)
Exactly. The Mac Dock is horrid. I can't understand why anybody would want such a large area of their screen taken up with silly pictures (with occasionaly small glows under running applications) when the taskbar (of Win95 fame, and now in KDE, Gnome, etc) is far more usable than the Dock.
I mean, if you minimise a window into the dock, there's no way to get it back simply by using Alt-Tab; you *have* to click on it (yes, there's some other bizarre multi-step sequence of keys to do the same, but come on, that's hardly usable).
Apple have some pretty strange ideas about usability, so they're welcome to patenting their silly dock idea.
Desktop icons are NOT an abomination. They are an abomination FOR YOU because you can't or won't manage them or just let them pile up until they create a mess.
I find desktop icons extremely useful, especially being spaced around the edge of my desktop so that I can still see them with lots of windows open.
The convenience of desktop icons should not be taken away just because SOME people dislike them. That's GNOME-thinking and has no place in KDE!
Until now I've used Winamp but finding the piece of music I'm looking for is a daunting prospect that gets larger as my music collection grows. I originally disliked iTunes because all my songs were in one huge list that was simply unfathomable, however, after recently being forced to try the latest iTunes, courtesy of a Quicktime 7 download, I decided to give it another try. Here's how I now think I may finally be able to tame iTunes:
I have tons of classical music, sorted into folders for each composer. Beneath each composer's folder is a sub-folder which is roughly equivalent to an album, so, for example, I have the following structure:
d:\mp3\Beethoven, Ludwig van\Symphonies (Karajan) d:\mp3\Beethoven, Ludwig van\Symphonies (Zinman) d:\mp3\Beethoven, Ludwig van\Symphonies (Furtwängler)
If I update the ID3 tags in my collection to include the name of this second-level folder in the album field, as well as using an appropriate genre (classical for Beethoven, baroque for Bach, etc), I can finally get to the music I'm looking for quite easily by choosing classical for the genre, Beethoven for the artist, and then any symphony by conductor. Without specifying the album field in particular, iTunes would list all the first movements of Beethoven's 5th symphony together, all the second movements together, and so forth. By having the right ID3 information in my files before adding them to my iTunes library, iTunes is finally usable.
It would be nice to be able to have more control over the quick search facility in iTunes, and the ability to specify that the minimise button activates the mini-player instead of minimising, but I think I can live with what I've come up with. Now I just have to write a perl script to go through my many thousands of MP3s to fix the ID3 tags. Without the right tag setup, iTunes is just hopeless!
Tango, the evil, MS Access loving, pathetic excuse for a RAD environment for web page development, has well and truly tarnished the name "Tango" and anything misfortunate enough to even have any connotations with the South American dancing style. Every time I hear the word "Tango", I and my colleagues want to puke (that is, after we piss ourselves laughing)!!!
If you have OS X then you're not exactly going to rejoice at installing something as bloaty and hungry as KDE. Sure, OS X is big, but the interface is speedy and efficient and not cluttered to all buggery like KDE.
Why is it that open source people see the need for such time wasters? Isn't there something more worthy of their time than getting a desktop environment to work on a commercial OS with one that's even better?
I've tried recent versions of SuSE, Mandrake, and Xandros, and I have to say that Xandros is the closest thing yet to a usable, decent, Linux distribution. In the past I've been a little more willing to overlook the blemishes in free distributions, but they're basically a re-badged copy of all the software that has floated to the top of the open source world. I expect a little more from an operating system, and efficiency, expediency, and stability are foremost among my list of requirements.
If Windows Vista comes with an improved ability to make it look just like Windows 98/2000 insofar as file browsing, etc, goes then the chances of me sticking with it are greatly improved. The last time I tried Vista, file browsing was a complete abomination. They've candified it to such an extent that only the dumbest moron would feel at home using it.
Linux needs a little more polish and better integration. No more klipper workarounds for different clipboard standards. One volume control. Configurable file browsers that aren't big and chunky and as slow as an old jaloppy, either!
The potential user base of Gnome isn't comprised solely of eye-candy-junkies and may actually include people that value speed and efficiency over impressing people with rich colours and icons. Not only are big icons annoyingly huge, but the multiple rows of left-to-right organised file names also slows down the process of finding a particular file.
A single, top-down, alphabetical (for example), list of files makes for a quicker file location experience than scanning from left to right across multiple rows of files. Even if you don't scan the entire row, narrowing down the particular row on which your file might be is still slower than drilling down a single, top-down, list of files.
What's that? You can still list files in such a top-down fashion with Nautilus? Indeed you can, but the icons are still way too large and just add to the annoyance experienced by users such as myself that just want to see a god-damned list of files in the most concise way possible.
If you like the eye-candy, then good on you. Gnome has done the likes of you proud, but they've left a lot of people out in the cold by not including a very simple layout for the rest of us that aren't tickled pink by such diversions as anti-aliased, humungous, icons (that aren't that good looking anyway)!
This will, no doubt, see that my comment is marked as "Troll", but Microsoft have spent millions of dollars to get their file managers just right, and although they might lack some advanced features, they've got the eye-candy sluts satisfied as well as the efficiency-freaks, like me. Kudos to Microsoft and a big "bugger off" to Gnome. We aren't buying your "one size fits all" brand of bloat, thanks!
Unfortunately, the Gnome developers are mezmerized by their own eye-candy and the unlimited possibilities for adding more, more, more!!!!.
I can see it now, the Gnome people in Hell's "Ironic Punishment Division", being forced to add so much bloat to Gnome that they realise they've become Windows Vista's spawned process of doom!
Gnome isn't ever going to cut it in the real world as long as the development team fail to realise that people get sick of bloat in no time, and ultimately, just want something zippy and efficient that doesn't prove time-wasting.
I actually think that most Linux developers prefer being the eternal underdog because they're certainly not helping their cause by remaining slaves to the perpetual eye-candy tweaking at the expense of efficiency!
I see "chunky" is still in vogue!
on
GNOME 2.12 Previewed
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
Looky here! Nobody wants a file browser that forces you into that evil humungo-icon-size style or that horrid tea-towel stripy look. Give me a file browser that is as cut-down, yet lightening fast, as explorer.exe (but without the lock-ups:-) and maybe, just maybe, this Gnome behemoth might be worth a look. I'll bet that the entire width of the left column is highlighted when you click on a file, even if it's only named "1.txt"!!!!! Old, people! That's old! Get with it!
Great. Just what we need. More JVMs than you could poke a stick at! I can imagine the state of Java programming becoming much like the nightmare that is co-called "cross-platform" C/C++. No thanks, guys. Stop wasting your time re-inventing the wheel to satisfy your holier-than-thou licensing fetishes. Do something useful, like stripping the bloat from what has become the great mess that is "desktop Linux", and maybe even standardising it!
Yes, it was. Perhaps they're trying to make sure that it gets noticed, as it wasn't a headline by itself, before. I know that I, personally, wouldn't miss an opportunity to thumb my nose at Redmond:-)
When I click on the big, green, download link, I expect it to *download* the file I'm after. I realise that there's probably some other trickery going on underneath, but do you expect everybody to be bothered with this insignificant minutiae? It's hard enough trying to get people to kick their IE habits, so making the acquisition of the latest, patched, version of Firefox a difficult process isn't going to help the Mozilla cause!
How do we know we're actually downloading the 1.0.1 release, when the download filename is "Firefox Setup 1.0.exe". The update feature under Tools, Options, doesn't work either (as mentioned above). If they're going to release a point release, then how about updating the web site to reflect that? Otherwise, people that might not have seen the announcment might browse by one day, and think "oh, it's still 1.0, I'll stick with what I got". And since the update feature seems to be dead at the moment, that's very baaaaad.
PHP good for web programming? Sure, if you like using a dog's breakfast for a "language". PHP seems like an after-thought and there are no standards. It seems like it's a conglomeration of every bad programming construct it could find (as is the documentation, or should that be, IRC-logs-dressed-up-as-documentation?)
Gnome is never going to encourage people like me that aren't interested in eye-candy and bloat as long as there is only one view style, and that is, everything is bloody huge! Windows Explorer has the best details view of any operating system, and until Nautilus and Konqueror can offer a decent - and fast - details view (where the entire column doesn't go blue when you highlight a file), then I'll just stick to the evil OS from Redmond where I don't have to contend with these shockers!
Hear, hear! Berman and Braga have utterly ruined the Trek franchise. Fancy having a power-hungry, angry, Vulcan leading the High Command (in the episode where he wanted to blow up the Sironites (spelling?). Ludicrous!
It's just not cricket! Wesley Crusher had more balls than Archer ever could hope to have!
The idea that a program would generate the XML for me, based on what few, horrible, GUI tools it decided to expose, is scarey on so many levels. VS.NET is the biggest abomination yet to come out of Redmond. We don't need this type of bloatyness rammed down our throats even more!
In fact, the entire shebang has been an exercise in medicrity. If Archer grew a set of balls and wouldn't anguish so much over the slightest of humanitarian transgressions, we might have a little more respect for the character. His endless pacing back and forth is a sure sign that his character represents the weakest Star Trek captain ever thought of. I say put the knife in, and then stab a few more times, just to make sure this headless-chicken truly is dead!
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be happy if I could get my back and forward buttons working in Dolphin (I'm using openSUSE 11.1). I can't believe that in the year 2009 a linux distro still can't properly configure a mouse out of the box.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to put Windows back on my drive, but seriously, a mouse? One could hardly blame a random Windows user for thinking Linux is crap if his mouse doesn't work properly (something that works fine out-of-the-box in Windows).
Oh, and I've tried xmodmap, evdev, and fiddling with my xorg.conf, to no avail. It seems I probably have to compile imwheel (since there's no RPM for it in openSUSE). One shouldn't have to do this for something so trivial.
If this thing works as advertised, and no way is found around it, then I might be forced to lead a healthier lifestyle, and perhaps even become a more productive member of society!
Nooooo!
Sarcastometer: 50% (this really could make life rather dull and boring)
I personally don't care if KDE 4 was supposed to have used less resources. If it uses more, then maybe I'll get more value for money out of my underused 2GB of RAM.
Since switching from Windows to Mandriva 10 months ago, my second 1GB chip hasn't been touched, so I for one welcome the new memory-justifying KDE 4 :-)
Exactly. The Mac Dock is horrid. I can't understand why anybody would want such a large area of their screen taken up with silly pictures (with occasionaly small glows under running applications) when the taskbar (of Win95 fame, and now in KDE, Gnome, etc) is far more usable than the Dock.
I mean, if you minimise a window into the dock, there's no way to get it back simply by using Alt-Tab; you *have* to click on it (yes, there's some other bizarre multi-step sequence of keys to do the same, but come on, that's hardly usable).
Apple have some pretty strange ideas about usability, so they're welcome to patenting their silly dock idea.
Let me guess... Microsoft has the answer, and it's called Surface?
Desktop icons are NOT an abomination. They are an abomination FOR YOU because you can't or won't manage them or just let them pile up until they create a mess.
I find desktop icons extremely useful, especially being spaced around the edge of my desktop so that I can still see them with lots of windows open.
The convenience of desktop icons should not be taken away just because SOME people dislike them. That's GNOME-thinking and has no place in KDE!
Until now I've used Winamp but finding the piece of music I'm looking for is a daunting prospect that gets larger as my music collection grows. I originally disliked iTunes because all my songs were in one huge list that was simply unfathomable, however, after recently being forced to try the latest iTunes, courtesy of a Quicktime 7 download, I decided to give it another try. Here's how I now think I may finally be able to tame iTunes:
I have tons of classical music, sorted into folders for each composer. Beneath each composer's folder is a sub-folder which is roughly equivalent to an album, so, for example, I have the following structure:
d:\mp3\Beethoven, Ludwig van\Symphonies (Karajan)
d:\mp3\Beethoven, Ludwig van\Symphonies (Zinman)
d:\mp3\Beethoven, Ludwig van\Symphonies (Furtwängler)
If I update the ID3 tags in my collection to include the name of this second-level folder in the album field, as well as using an appropriate genre (classical for Beethoven, baroque for Bach, etc), I can finally get to the music I'm looking for quite easily by choosing classical for the genre, Beethoven for the artist, and then any symphony by conductor. Without specifying the album field in particular, iTunes would list all the first movements of Beethoven's 5th symphony together, all the second movements together, and so forth. By having the right ID3 information in my files before adding them to my iTunes library, iTunes is finally usable.
It would be nice to be able to have more control over the quick search facility in iTunes, and the ability to specify that the minimise button activates the mini-player instead of minimising, but I think I can live with what I've come up with. Now I just have to write a perl script to go through my many thousands of MP3s to fix the ID3 tags. Without the right tag setup, iTunes is just hopeless!
Tango, the evil, MS Access loving, pathetic excuse for a RAD environment for web page development, has well and truly tarnished the name "Tango" and anything misfortunate enough to even have any connotations with the South American dancing style. Every time I hear the word "Tango", I and my colleagues want to puke (that is, after we piss ourselves laughing)!!!
If you have OS X then you're not exactly going to rejoice at installing something as bloaty and hungry as KDE. Sure, OS X is big, but the interface is speedy and efficient and not cluttered to all buggery like KDE.
Why is it that open source people see the need for such time wasters? Isn't there something more worthy of their time than getting a desktop environment to work on a commercial OS with one that's even better?
I've tried recent versions of SuSE, Mandrake, and Xandros, and I have to say that Xandros is the closest thing yet to a usable, decent, Linux distribution. In the past I've been a little more willing to overlook the blemishes in free distributions, but they're basically a re-badged copy of all the software that has floated to the top of the open source world. I expect a little more from an operating system, and efficiency, expediency, and stability are foremost among my list of requirements.
If Windows Vista comes with an improved ability to make it look just like Windows 98/2000 insofar as file browsing, etc, goes then the chances of me sticking with it are greatly improved. The last time I tried Vista, file browsing was a complete abomination. They've candified it to such an extent that only the dumbest moron would feel at home using it.
Linux needs a little more polish and better integration. No more klipper workarounds for different clipboard standards. One volume control. Configurable file browsers that aren't big and chunky and as slow as an old jaloppy, either!
The potential user base of Gnome isn't comprised solely of eye-candy-junkies and may actually include people that value speed and efficiency over impressing people with rich colours and icons. Not only are big icons annoyingly huge, but the multiple rows of left-to-right organised file names also slows down the process of finding a particular file.
A single, top-down, alphabetical (for example), list of files makes for a quicker file location experience than scanning from left to right across multiple rows of files. Even if you don't scan the entire row, narrowing down the particular row on which your file might be is still slower than drilling down a single, top-down, list of files.
What's that? You can still list files in such a top-down fashion with Nautilus? Indeed you can, but the icons are still way too large and just add to the annoyance experienced by users such as myself that just want to see a god-damned list of files in the most concise way possible.
If you like the eye-candy, then good on you. Gnome has done the likes of you proud, but they've left a lot of people out in the cold by not including a very simple layout for the rest of us that aren't tickled pink by such diversions as anti-aliased, humungous, icons (that aren't that good looking anyway)!
This will, no doubt, see that my comment is marked as "Troll", but Microsoft have spent millions of dollars to get their file managers just right, and although they might lack some advanced features, they've got the eye-candy sluts satisfied as well as the efficiency-freaks, like me. Kudos to Microsoft and a big "bugger off" to Gnome. We aren't buying your "one size fits all" brand of bloat, thanks!
Unfortunately, the Gnome developers are mezmerized by their own eye-candy and the unlimited possibilities for adding more, more, more!!!!.
I can see it now, the Gnome people in Hell's "Ironic Punishment Division", being forced to add so much bloat to Gnome that they realise they've become Windows Vista's spawned process of doom!
Gnome isn't ever going to cut it in the real world as long as the development team fail to realise that people get sick of bloat in no time, and ultimately, just want something zippy and efficient that doesn't prove time-wasting.
I actually think that most Linux developers prefer being the eternal underdog because they're certainly not helping their cause by remaining slaves to the perpetual eye-candy tweaking at the expense of efficiency!
Looky here! Nobody wants a file browser that forces you into that evil humungo-icon-size style or that horrid tea-towel stripy look. Give me a file browser that is as cut-down, yet lightening fast, as explorer.exe (but without the lock-ups :-) and maybe, just maybe, this Gnome behemoth might be worth a look. I'll bet that the entire width of the left column is highlighted when you click on a file, even if it's only named "1.txt"!!!!! Old, people! That's old! Get with it!
Mmmmm... Free, downloadey, goodness :-)
Great. Just what we need. More JVMs than you could poke a stick at! I can imagine the state of Java programming becoming much like the nightmare that is co-called "cross-platform" C/C++. No thanks, guys. Stop wasting your time re-inventing the wheel to satisfy your holier-than-thou licensing fetishes. Do something useful, like stripping the bloat from what has become the great mess that is "desktop Linux", and maybe even standardising it!
Yes, it was. Perhaps they're trying to make sure that it gets noticed, as it wasn't a headline by itself, before. I know that I, personally, wouldn't miss an opportunity to thumb my nose at Redmond :-)
I don't think that they could afford the Euro to invest in a proof reader, alas!
When I click on the big, green, download link, I expect it to *download* the file I'm after. I realise that there's probably some other trickery going on underneath, but do you expect everybody to be bothered with this insignificant minutiae? It's hard enough trying to get people to kick their IE habits, so making the acquisition of the latest, patched, version of Firefox a difficult process isn't going to help the Mozilla cause!
How do we know we're actually downloading the 1.0.1 release, when the download filename is "Firefox Setup 1.0.exe". The update feature under Tools, Options, doesn't work either (as mentioned above). If they're going to release a point release, then how about updating the web site to reflect that? Otherwise, people that might not have seen the announcment might browse by one day, and think "oh, it's still 1.0, I'll stick with what I got". And since the update feature seems to be dead at the moment, that's very baaaaad.
PHP good for web programming? Sure, if you like using a dog's breakfast for a "language". PHP seems like an after-thought and there are no standards. It seems like it's a conglomeration of every bad programming construct it could find (as is the documentation, or should that be, IRC-logs-dressed-up-as-documentation?)
Gnome is never going to encourage people like me that aren't interested in eye-candy and bloat as long as there is only one view style, and that is, everything is bloody huge! Windows Explorer has the best details view of any operating system, and until Nautilus and Konqueror can offer a decent - and fast - details view (where the entire column doesn't go blue when you highlight a file), then I'll just stick to the evil OS from Redmond where I don't have to contend with these shockers!
ROTFLMAO :-) That is *so* true!
Hear, hear! Berman and Braga have utterly ruined the Trek franchise. Fancy having a power-hungry, angry, Vulcan leading the High Command (in the episode where he wanted to blow up the Sironites (spelling?). Ludicrous!
It's just not cricket! Wesley Crusher had more balls than Archer ever could hope to have!
The idea that a program would generate the XML for me, based on what few, horrible, GUI tools it decided to expose, is scarey on so many levels. VS.NET is the biggest abomination yet to come out of Redmond. We don't need this type of bloatyness rammed down our throats even more!
In fact, the entire shebang has been an exercise in medicrity. If Archer grew a set of balls and wouldn't anguish so much over the slightest of humanitarian transgressions, we might have a little more respect for the character. His endless pacing back and forth is a sure sign that his character represents the weakest Star Trek captain ever thought of. I say put the knife in, and then stab a few more times, just to make sure this headless-chicken truly is dead!