In Gnome, there is no way to adjust screen-saver settings.
I guess that's important if you're more interested in watching pretty 3D screensavers than using your computer but since I always set my screensaver to black anyway and use DPMS to shut the screen of it isn't an issue for me.
In Gnome, there is no way to view/unview hidden and backup files in the file browser. Sure there is a setting for it but it doesn't work consistently and the feature doesn't know the diff between hidden files and backup files. Play around with it and you'll see what I mean.
It's not a problem for me. Ctrl-h toggles viewing hidden and backup files in Nautilus.
The article isn't exactly clear as to what Linus was trying to change with the right-click. It is an application dependent context menu. I assume we are talking about Nautilus since that is what draws the desktop. Nautilus-actions has been available for quite some time now and allows you to customize menu options. Personally I think only geeks want to customize their context menus anyway, and it can be done if you need it. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a real issue that affects them and that wasn't pulled from a Linus quote, or is flat out wrong (blinking cursor anyone?). Everytime GNOME comes up on Slashdot people bash configuration options but no one can actually come up with a real issue that exists today that affects them. People ought to use the current GNOME before they start talking out of their asses.
I don't mean to insult you, but this is a pretty excellent example of geek-think. The vast majority of people manage focus with the mouse and alt-tab on both other major OSes. Bucking the trend because there's a minority of users with different settings just confuses people who are used to more popular OSes.
Actually most operating systems do not default to focus following the mouse. Most operating systems employ several different methods of focus including click-to-focus, alt-tab (or similar), and top-window focus. Only click-to-focus is dependent on the mouse and it is rarely the only thing that focuses windows on most operating systems, just as you admitted that alt-tab is a common way to focus, which has nothing to do with the mouse. Do we then have to group focus options with the keyboard options too?
Even in Gnome bluetooth doesn't work. They had a really nice, easy to use and working UI in Hardy, but for some daft reason they decided to remove half of it and supplement it with a program that has Apache as a dependency and doesn't work either.
That seeems like an Ubuntu issue to me. I use GNOME and there is no dependency on apache for any bluetooth support and it seems to work for me although I hardly use it.
It's not hidden. The gnome-window-properties program allows you to configure rolling up the window by double-click. It's also available in the gconf key/apps/metacity/general/action_double_click_titlebar
Of course gconf isn't really a solution now is it? It's just a bunch undocumented key-value pairs. Telling users to stop what they're doing, waste a few hours in forums and reading source code to learn that org.gnome.gkrabble.xyzzy should be set to 17 instead of 0 in order to enable scrollwheel events is totally useful.
Can you read? Descriptions and options are listed in gconf-editor. It doens't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the key value pairs do if you're literate.
GNOME's UX sucks because they don't know what they're doing.
That's hardly an argument. Why can no one give a concrete argument other than stupid cursor blinking (that can be configured in GNOME terminal's preferences BTW)?
And Yes, I am a UX expert.
I seriously doubt that considering you're complete illiteracy.
I'm pretty sure most people would think of mouse focus options being tied to the mouse, seeing as how that's what you're using to determine focus.
Only if you have focus following the mouse, which is not the only option. Focus settings are completely independent of mouse settings and they should not be toegether. Mouse settings entail things like speed and acceleration, not focus.
"Make normal things easy and esoteric things possible" would be my suggested motto to any desktop environment's crew.
According to you. I don't think that is a very good way to create an organized DE. Like I said before, searching through 100s of mostly useless preferences is not ideal. What options are you sorely missing with GNOME anyway? The only answer I got so far was the ability to change cursor blinking individually with each application and I hardly think that is a necessary option for 99% of users.
because it's a friggin registry file. very much like how windows has a registry file. and we all know how well that idea turned out in the windows world........
Just because gconf-editor resembles regedit in some ways does not make gconf equivalent to the windows registry. First of all only desktop settings are contained in gconf, not system settings. Second, a corrupt registry won't allow you to boot, nevermind load the desktop, unlike a corrupt gconf. Third, the registry is binary, gconf is XML, so a corrupt key can be recovered by hand if needed.
Or I could be lazy and use KDE, which, instead of forcing me to use arcane commandline utilities and XML, provides me with a nice GUI and a much simpler, much more UNIX-y set of config files. KDE4 screwed it up a lot, but it's still nowhere near as bad as GNOME.
Gconf-editor does not use the commandline and does not require any knowledge of XML whatsoever. You can use gconftool-2 if you want to change options on the commandline but it isn't necessary.
GNOME has plenty of configuration options. You need to draw the line somewhere though. GNOME just happened to draw their line in the sand far apart from KDEs. I don't think you'll find many people who care about the cursor blink option and that's why it's not an option in GNOME. If you prefer that kind of meddling then just use KDE or something else that lets you do that. The more options there are the more cluttered the configuration UI becomes and that makes it more difficult to change things that most of us would like to change. I guess I'm just not convinced that searching through 100s of preferences for each application is an ideal situation.
Gnome is configurable, but the tool used to configure it (gconf) makes it significantly more complicated than it needs to be.
How so? Open gconf-editor. Ctrl-F to search. Search for "focus". The first option returned is for mouse focus. The keys gernerally have descriptions and a list of available options too. What's so hard about that?
Really? That's the best you could come up with? I guess that's my problem with the anti-GNOME crowd. I just don't find it necessary for you to be able to change whether or not the cursor blinks in every single application independently. I don't think that's a must-have feature for most people either. GNOME tries to avoid having all of those crufty configuration options to make it easier to use and configure. You can't include every option under the sun just because one or two people use those options and then expect the system to remain simple. It's also a mess for UI consistency to do things like that. Eliminating useless options like independent cursor blinking and other cruft makes the code smaller and less bug prone.
Yes, that's because you can't configure GNOME, and it doesn't do what you need it to do, so you just give up and accept the brown-plated shit that is given to you.
You could always just grow a brain and use gconf, but I guess it is just easier to bitch and moan.
Granted the GNOME buttons are slightly larger than QT buttons but that's only going to make a difference on very small screens. The next release of GNOME is supposed to come with a theme that is better suited to small screens. Otherwise bigger buttons are better in most cases because screen resolutions for modern desktops and laptops are quite high today. The only way to completely solve this issue is with complete resolution independence.
Pidgin users were furious over a feature change and the Pidgin developers simply responded: "We do what we like." Pidgin is nearly considered part of GNOME because it's still GTK+ and right now it is IMO the best alternative to real AIM (AIM also has a Linux version now).
A lot of people were pissed off about Microsoft's ribbon interface but that hasn't stopped them from pushing it onto all of their apps. The pidgin interface change was minor compared to the ribbon. In fact I still wonder what the big deal was with pidgin interface change. I can't possiblly see why anyone made such a big deal out of it. Personally I find the change to be a good one.
Having to drop to a shell and edit config files on a desktop system to make minor configuration tweaks is unacceptable.
Like what? This isn't 1997. Minor configuration changes do not require editing a text file. Installing the OS sometimes requires this when things go wrong but Windows installs are not without problems and I'd wager that most people couldn't install Windows either. Using Linux doesn't require dropping to the shell and that's what we're talking about here.
Embedded scripting isn't anything new even in the GNOME environment. Scheme is the scripting interface generally available for GNOME applications. This development just allows javascript to be embedded in applications. I think this is a good thing. First, javascript is a very good language. Most problems people associate with javascript have to do with the browser and NOT javascript. Second, javascript is known by a lot more people than scheme. It's probably the most well known and used scripting languages in existance. Combine that with the fact that we now have three high performance javascript implementations that are still improving and I think you have a pretty good case for javascript on the desktop. This will only make extending GNOME applications easier. I think GNOME is in good hands if development focuses on Vala/Javascript application programming.
People have to be willing to adapt and do things differently when the switch operating systems. People seem perfectly capable of adapting to OSX. I don't think it's because its less difficult to adapt to OSX than it is to Linux but because people that do switch to OSX are willing to do it. They do it because it's "cool" or because they are artists, or for many other reasosns. They've been convinced that it is an option for them and a lot of them will make it work even if that means they have to do things differently. Linux is still associated with geeks. There isn't a clear cut reason for most people to switch to Linux.
What Linux lacks is marketing. It's virtually unheard of outside the tech world whereas everyone knows what a Mac is and certainly everyone has some kind of experience with Windows. Linux has little more than word-of-mouth exposure. Linux needs a selling point and someone to successfully market that point. Being unix-like, free, and "good enough" was enough to make it in the server market but things are not so easy in the desktop market where the users are less knowledgable and the benefits of being unix-like isn't a particular advantage.
In my experience most people use channel 6, so channel 4 probably isn't the best choice considering it is only two channels away from 6. 2 or 3 might be better options. I use channel 1 because out of the 15 routers I can see, one is on channel 11, one other router is on channel 1 and the rest are on 6. The router using channel 1 is much farther away from me than the channel 11 router so it's better for me to use channel 1 rather than overlapping at all with 6, although channel 2 might be an even better option because it is still four channels away from channel 6 which would only result in negligible interference.
Isn't that...illegal? I thought there was some law enacted that stated that if something rang up at the register for more than it was priced on the shelf, the seller was obligated to reduce the price by double the discrepancy.
It's not illegal, at least in my state. It would be disasterous if it was illegal because people swap tags, make their own tags, and flat out lie half the time to try to get something cheaper. The law here says that the price that rings up at the register has to be honored. I will say that most people assume it is illegal to charge a different price than what is tagged but I don't know of a state where that is actually the case. Most customer-oriented business will reduce the price if it is a reasonable discrepancy but they aren't obligated to.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that's important if you're more interested in watching pretty 3D screensavers than using your computer but since I always set my screensaver to black anyway and use DPMS to shut the screen of it isn't an issue for me.
It's not a problem for me. Ctrl-h toggles viewing hidden and backup files in Nautilus.
The article isn't exactly clear as to what Linus was trying to change with the right-click. It is an application dependent context menu. I assume we are talking about Nautilus since that is what draws the desktop. Nautilus-actions has been available for quite some time now and allows you to customize menu options. Personally I think only geeks want to customize their context menus anyway, and it can be done if you need it. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a real issue that affects them and that wasn't pulled from a Linus quote, or is flat out wrong (blinking cursor anyone?). Everytime GNOME comes up on Slashdot people bash configuration options but no one can actually come up with a real issue that exists today that affects them. People ought to use the current GNOME before they start talking out of their asses.
Actually most operating systems do not default to focus following the mouse. Most operating systems employ several different methods of focus including click-to-focus, alt-tab (or similar), and top-window focus. Only click-to-focus is dependent on the mouse and it is rarely the only thing that focuses windows on most operating systems, just as you admitted that alt-tab is a common way to focus, which has nothing to do with the mouse. Do we then have to group focus options with the keyboard options too?
That seeems like an Ubuntu issue to me. I use GNOME and there is no dependency on apache for any bluetooth support and it seems to work for me although I hardly use it.
It's not hidden. The gnome-window-properties program allows you to configure rolling up the window by double-click. It's also available in the gconf key /apps/metacity/general/action_double_click_titlebar
Can you read? Descriptions and options are listed in gconf-editor. It doens't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the key value pairs do if you're literate.
That's hardly an argument. Why can no one give a concrete argument other than stupid cursor blinking (that can be configured in GNOME terminal's preferences BTW)?
I seriously doubt that considering you're complete illiteracy.
Only if you have focus following the mouse, which is not the only option. Focus settings are completely independent of mouse settings and they should not be toegether. Mouse settings entail things like speed and acceleration, not focus.
According to you. I don't think that is a very good way to create an organized DE. Like I said before, searching through 100s of mostly useless preferences is not ideal. What options are you sorely missing with GNOME anyway? The only answer I got so far was the ability to change cursor blinking individually with each application and I hardly think that is a necessary option for 99% of users.
What number do I call? Toolbars on my GNOME desktop are not that big and windows roll up when you double click the titlebar.
Just because gconf-editor resembles regedit in some ways does not make gconf equivalent to the windows registry. First of all only desktop settings are contained in gconf, not system settings. Second, a corrupt registry won't allow you to boot, nevermind load the desktop, unlike a corrupt gconf. Third, the registry is binary, gconf is XML, so a corrupt key can be recovered by hand if needed.
Gconf-editor does not use the commandline and does not require any knowledge of XML whatsoever. You can use gconftool-2 if you want to change options on the commandline but it isn't necessary.
There is one but it controls mouse options like one would suspect, not focus options.
GNOME has plenty of configuration options. You need to draw the line somewhere though. GNOME just happened to draw their line in the sand far apart from KDEs. I don't think you'll find many people who care about the cursor blink option and that's why it's not an option in GNOME. If you prefer that kind of meddling then just use KDE or something else that lets you do that. The more options there are the more cluttered the configuration UI becomes and that makes it more difficult to change things that most of us would like to change. I guess I'm just not convinced that searching through 100s of preferences for each application is an ideal situation.
How so? Open gconf-editor. Ctrl-F to search. Search for "focus". The first option returned is for mouse focus. The keys gernerally have descriptions and a list of available options too. What's so hard about that?
Really? That's the best you could come up with? I guess that's my problem with the anti-GNOME crowd. I just don't find it necessary for you to be able to change whether or not the cursor blinks in every single application independently. I don't think that's a must-have feature for most people either. GNOME tries to avoid having all of those crufty configuration options to make it easier to use and configure. You can't include every option under the sun just because one or two people use those options and then expect the system to remain simple. It's also a mess for UI consistency to do things like that. Eliminating useless options like independent cursor blinking and other cruft makes the code smaller and less bug prone.
You could always just grow a brain and use gconf, but I guess it is just easier to bitch and moan.
Granted the GNOME buttons are slightly larger than QT buttons but that's only going to make a difference on very small screens. The next release of GNOME is supposed to come with a theme that is better suited to small screens. Otherwise bigger buttons are better in most cases because screen resolutions for modern desktops and laptops are quite high today. The only way to completely solve this issue is with complete resolution independence.
A lot of people were pissed off about Microsoft's ribbon interface but that hasn't stopped them from pushing it onto all of their apps. The pidgin interface change was minor compared to the ribbon. In fact I still wonder what the big deal was with pidgin interface change. I can't possiblly see why anyone made such a big deal out of it. Personally I find the change to be a good one.
Like what? This isn't 1997. Minor configuration changes do not require editing a text file. Installing the OS sometimes requires this when things go wrong but Windows installs are not without problems and I'd wager that most people couldn't install Windows either. Using Linux doesn't require dropping to the shell and that's what we're talking about here.
Embedded scripting isn't anything new even in the GNOME environment. Scheme is the scripting interface generally available for GNOME applications. This development just allows javascript to be embedded in applications. I think this is a good thing. First, javascript is a very good language. Most problems people associate with javascript have to do with the browser and NOT javascript. Second, javascript is known by a lot more people than scheme. It's probably the most well known and used scripting languages in existance. Combine that with the fact that we now have three high performance javascript implementations that are still improving and I think you have a pretty good case for javascript on the desktop. This will only make extending GNOME applications easier. I think GNOME is in good hands if development focuses on Vala/Javascript application programming.
People have to be willing to adapt and do things differently when the switch operating systems. People seem perfectly capable of adapting to OSX. I don't think it's because its less difficult to adapt to OSX than it is to Linux but because people that do switch to OSX are willing to do it. They do it because it's "cool" or because they are artists, or for many other reasosns. They've been convinced that it is an option for them and a lot of them will make it work even if that means they have to do things differently. Linux is still associated with geeks. There isn't a clear cut reason for most people to switch to Linux.
What Linux lacks is marketing. It's virtually unheard of outside the tech world whereas everyone knows what a Mac is and certainly everyone has some kind of experience with Windows. Linux has little more than word-of-mouth exposure. Linux needs a selling point and someone to successfully market that point. Being unix-like, free, and "good enough" was enough to make it in the server market but things are not so easy in the desktop market where the users are less knowledgable and the benefits of being unix-like isn't a particular advantage.
In my experience most people use channel 6, so channel 4 probably isn't the best choice considering it is only two channels away from 6. 2 or 3 might be better options. I use channel 1 because out of the 15 routers I can see, one is on channel 11, one other router is on channel 1 and the rest are on 6. The router using channel 1 is much farther away from me than the channel 11 router so it's better for me to use channel 1 rather than overlapping at all with 6, although channel 2 might be an even better option because it is still four channels away from channel 6 which would only result in negligible interference.
It's not illegal, at least in my state. It would be disasterous if it was illegal because people swap tags, make their own tags, and flat out lie half the time to try to get something cheaper. The law here says that the price that rings up at the register has to be honored. I will say that most people assume it is illegal to charge a different price than what is tagged but I don't know of a state where that is actually the case. Most customer-oriented business will reduce the price if it is a reasonable discrepancy but they aren't obligated to.
I believe emergency frequncies are much higher, like 4.9 Ghz.
4 overlaps with both 1 and 6. 9 overlaps with both 6 and 11.