10:23 a.m.
Why are tons of apps setting ShowOnlyIn=GNOME; in their .desktop file?
This does not bode well for KDE users.
# grep -i onlyshowin /usr/share/applications/*.desktop|grep -i gnome|wc -l
63
Sixty-Three apps which I have installed are only showing up in GNOME!!
What the hell for⁈⁈⁈
Is Fedora *trying* to cripple KDE or what⁈
I dont see a single application using ShowOnlyIn=KDE
10:31 a.m.
Christopher Stone wrote:
Why are tons of apps setting ShowOnlyIn=GNOME; in their .desktop
file?
...
Is Fedora *trying* to cripple KDE or what⁈
I'd assume many of those are warranted, but likely not all.
I'd also assume not malice, but just not knowing better.
bugzilla cases of finding items should aren't (or shouldn't be)
gnome-specific.
I dont see a single application using ShowOnlyIn=KDE
In fairness, there are at least a few, look in
/usr/share/applications/kde/*.desktop
-- Rex
10:32 a.m.
New subject: WTF??? ShowOnlyIn=GNOME
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:23:50AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
# grep -i onlyshowin /usr/share/applications/*.desktop|grep -i
gnome|wc -l
63
Sixty-Three apps which I have installed are only showing up in GNOME!!
What the hell for?????????
People may just be coping an example without thought. If they are wrong
(eg KDE apps with no gnome equivalent) then file bugs against them
10:38 a.m.
Christopher Stone wrote:
Why are tons of apps setting ShowOnlyIn=GNOME; in their .desktop
file?
This does not bode well for KDE users.
# grep -i onlyshowin /usr/share/applications/*.desktop|grep -i gnome|wc -l
63
You're not catching the kde folder with your grep there. Try it like
this and maybe your feelings will change:
$ grep -rli 'onlyshowin=kde' /usr/share/applications/ | wc -l
145
$ grep -rli 'onlyshowin=gnome' /usr/share/applications/ | wc -l
56
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time may be a great healer, but it's a lousy beautician.
11:33 p.m.
On 7/20/07, Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com> wrote:
Christopher Stone wrote:
> Why are tons of apps setting ShowOnlyIn=GNOME; in their .desktop file?
>
> This does not bode well for KDE users.
>
> # grep -i onlyshowin /usr/share/applications/*.desktop|grep -i gnome|wc -l
> 63
You're not catching the kde folder with your grep there. Try it like
this and maybe your feelings will change:
$ grep -rli 'onlyshowin=kde' /usr/share/applications/ | wc -l
145
$ grep -rli 'onlyshowin=gnome' /usr/share/applications/ | wc -l
56
Oops you are right. But I still don't understand why all these apps
are classified as show only in KDE/GNOME. Surely you can run an app
like kate in GNOME, or banshee in KDE.
Can we please rethink this and remove some of these OnlyShowIns?
9:04 a.m.
You will have to work on a case by case basis, filing bugs where needed.
Some applications would only be sane in a specific environment. As an
example, Gnome should have a link to Nautilus for file management, KDE
to Konqueror (or whatever they have got in KDE 4. Dolphin?).
11:18 a.m.
On 7/21/07, Naheem Zaffar <naheemzaffar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You will have to work on a case by case basis, filing bugs where
needed.
Some applications would only be sane in a specific environment. As an
example, Gnome should have a link to Nautilus for file management, KDE
to Konqueror (or whatever they have got in KDE 4. Dolphin?).
I do not understand this logic. Why do we assume GNOME users will
only use Nautilus, and KDE users will only use Konqueror?
Is is so much a stretch of the imagination to think that a KDE user
might actually want to run Nautilus (or vice versa)?
11:36 a.m.
Hi guys,
On 7/21/07, Christopher Stone <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/21/07, Naheem Zaffar <naheemzaffar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> You will have to work on a case by case basis, filing bugs where needed.
>
> Some applications would only be sane in a specific environment. As an
> example, Gnome should have a link to Nautilus for file management, KDE
> to Konqueror (or whatever they have got in KDE 4. Dolphin?).
I do not understand this logic. Why do we assume GNOME users will
only use Nautilus, and KDE users will only use Konqueror?
Is is so much a stretch of the imagination to think that a KDE user
might actually want to run Nautilus (or vice versa)?
I think the adopted approach is better. If I am in Gnome, launching
Konqueror will run several KDE dependencies (like ARTS maybe? can't
remember what exactly) and they will stay running last time I checked.
If I were not a power user, I would rather be shielded from that
situation and enjoy better performance. If I were a power user, I
would disable showonlyin as needed.
Tarek
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
5:34 a.m.
Am Samstag, den 21.07.2007, 09:18 -0700 schrieb Christopher Stone:
On 7/21/07, Naheem Zaffar <naheemzaffar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> You will have to work on a case by case basis, filing bugs where needed.
>
> Some applications would only be sane in a specific environment. As an
> example, Gnome should have a link to Nautilus for file management, KDE
> to Konqueror (or whatever they have got in KDE 4. Dolphin?).
I do not understand this logic. Why do we assume GNOME users will
only use Nautilus, and KDE users will only use Konqueror?
Of course Gnome users might want to use Konqueror, and they are free to
do so. But if they know what Konqueror is, then they know how to add a
launcher to their panel.
The alternative is what Suse has - a disasterous hard-to-use clutter of
menu items.
5:15 p.m.
On 7/22/07, nodata <lsof(a)nodata.co.uk> wrote:
Am Samstag, den 21.07.2007, 09:18 -0700 schrieb Christopher Stone:
> On 7/21/07, Naheem Zaffar <naheemzaffar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some applications would only be sane in a specific environment. As an
> > example, Gnome should have a link to Nautilus for file management, KDE
> > to Konqueror (or whatever they have got in KDE 4. Dolphin?).
>
> I do not understand this logic. Why do we assume GNOME users will
> only use Nautilus, and KDE users will only use Konqueror?
Of course Gnome users might want to use Konqueror, and they are free to
do so. But if they know what Konqueror is, then they know how to add a
launcher to their panel.
The alternative is what Suse has - a disasterous hard-to-use clutter of
menu items.
How can one possibly argue that an installed application should not
show up in a users menu?
Somehow if I add a menu entry for an application I installed, it will
make my menu a unusable clutter of Suse mess?
What in the world are you people thinking??
7:49 p.m.
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 03:15:24PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
How can one possibly argue that an installed application should not
show up in a users menu?
Easily. Too many menu items make the menu useless. Not everything should be
there. Instead, put some thought into it.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
9:50 p.m.
On 7/22/07, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> wrote:
Easily. Too many menu items make the menu useless. Not everything
should be
there. Instead, put some thought into it.
... and allow individual users and sysadmins to optionally re-enable
items back into the menu without having to edit the actual .desktop
files. Tailored defaults are perfectly fine with me, as long as a I
can still back in and build my Frankenmenu in a way that doesn't have
to be redone every time there is an application package update and the
.desktop file is reinstalled.
-jef
11:25 p.m.
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 06:50:15PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>Easily. Too many menu items make the menu useless. Not everything
should be
>there. Instead, put some thought into it.
... and allow individual users and sysadmins to optionally re-enable
items back into the menu without having to edit the actual .desktop
files. Tailored defaults are perfectly fine with me, as long as a I
can still back in and build my Frankenmenu in a way that doesn't have
to be redone every time there is an application package update and the
.desktop file is reinstalled.
Agreed.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
10:17 a.m.
On 7/22/07, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 03:15:24PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> How can one possibly argue that an installed application should not
> show up in a users menu?
Easily. Too many menu items make the menu useless. Not everything should be
there. Instead, put some thought into it.
Obviously zero amount of thought is being used right now because there
is no reason why an application like kate or banshee (just to name a
couple) should not show up in an Xfce desktop menu.
10:25 a.m.
Christopher Stone (chris.stone(a)gmail.com) said:
On 7/22/07, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 03:15:24PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > How can one possibly argue that an installed application should not
> > show up in a users menu?
>
> Easily. Too many menu items make the menu useless. Not everything should
> be
> there. Instead, put some thought into it.
Obviously zero amount of thought is being used right now because there
is no reason why an application like kate or banshee (just to name a
couple) should not show up in an Xfce desktop menu.
Well, I'd argue that showing things like both of kreversi/iagno in
GNOME/KDE is rather silly.
Perhaps we need a DoNotShowIn rather than OnlyShowIn.
Bill
11:54 a.m.
On Monday 23 July 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Perhaps we need a DoNotShowIn rather than OnlyShowIn.
Just in case people are not aware of it, NotShowIn already exists.
http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec-la...
10:25 a.m.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:17:37 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
kate
On a shared system where some users prefer Gnome and some prefer KDE, I
don't want to have KDE apps such as kate cluttering up the Gnome
users's menu. Likewise I wouldn't want the KDE user to be cluttered
with gnome.
As stated before, perhaps what is needed is the tools such as
gnome-menu or whatever xfce uses ignore the ShowOnlyIn argument and
display them all anyway.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
3:28 p.m.
On 23/07/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:17:37 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> kate
On a shared system where some users prefer Gnome and some prefer KDE, I
don't want to have KDE apps such as kate cluttering up the Gnome
users's menu. Likewise I wouldn't want the KDE user to be cluttered
with gnome.
As stated before, perhaps what is needed is the tools such as
gnome-menu or whatever xfce uses ignore the ShowOnlyIn argument and
display them all anyway.
I seem to recall back in the middle ages, that when in Gnome, there
was a main Menu entry called KDE, which brought a submenu up showing
the menu of KDE apps you would see in KDE. And vice versa. I think
this would be a nice thing to have, and might represent a happy medium
for all sides of this argument.
4:24 p.m.
Am Montag, den 23.07.2007, 21:28 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Underwood:
On 23/07/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:17:37 -0700
> "Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > kate
>
> On a shared system where some users prefer Gnome and some prefer KDE, I
> don't want to have KDE apps such as kate cluttering up the Gnome
> users's menu. Likewise I wouldn't want the KDE user to be cluttered
> with gnome.
>
> As stated before, perhaps what is needed is the tools such as
> gnome-menu or whatever xfce uses ignore the ShowOnlyIn argument and
> display them all anyway.
I seem to recall back in the middle ages, that when in Gnome, there
was a main Menu entry called KDE, which brought a submenu up showing
the menu of KDE apps you would see in KDE. And vice versa. I think
this would be a nice thing to have, and might represent a happy medium
for all sides of this argument.
I don't. It requires the user to know (and care) what a "KDE" or a
"Gnome" is. A user shouldn't have to hunt around two different menus
(which is what this suggestion is) just to find their application.
If they are in Gnome, they get the Gnome stuff, if they are in KDE they
get the KDE stuff. If they know better, they know better.
4:55 p.m.
On 7/23/07, nodata <lsof(a)nodata.co.uk> wrote:
I don't. It requires the user to know (and care) what a
"KDE" or a
"Gnome" is. A user shouldn't have to hunt around two different menus
(which is what this suggestion is) just to find their application.
If they are in Gnome, they get the Gnome stuff, if they are in KDE they
get the KDE stuff. If they know better, they know better.
This is so dumb it makes Microsoft engineers look like friggin' geniuses.
You think a user who doesn't know the difference between KDE and GNOME
is going to know why banshee doesn't show up in their menus because
they run KDE or XFCE?
12:07 p.m.
Am Montag, den 23.07.2007, 14:55 -0700 schrieb Christopher Stone:
On 7/23/07, nodata <lsof(a)nodata.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't. It requires the user to know (and care) what a "KDE" or a
> "Gnome" is. A user shouldn't have to hunt around two different menus
> (which is what this suggestion is) just to find their application.
>
> If they are in Gnome, they get the Gnome stuff, if they are in KDE they
> get the KDE stuff. If they know better, they know better.
This is so dumb it makes Microsoft engineers look like friggin' geniuses.
It's a damn lot letter than the "Let's have a KDE and a Gnome and a XFCE
menu" suggestion.
Show the KDE equivalent in the KDE desktop - Amarok or whatever.
6:57 p.m.
On 7/24/07, nodata <lsof(a)nodata.co.uk> wrote:
Am Montag, den 23.07.2007, 14:55 -0700 schrieb Christopher Stone:
> On 7/23/07, nodata <lsof(a)nodata.co.uk> wrote:
> > I don't. It requires the user to know (and care) what a "KDE" or
a
> > "Gnome" is. A user shouldn't have to hunt around two different
menus
> > (which is what this suggestion is) just to find their application.
> >
> > If they are in Gnome, they get the Gnome stuff, if they are in KDE they
> > get the KDE stuff. If they know better, they know better.
>
> This is so dumb it makes Microsoft engineers look like friggin' geniuses.
It's a damn lot letter than the "Let's have a KDE and a Gnome and a XFCE
menu" suggestion.
Show the KDE equivalent in the KDE desktop - Amarok or whatever.
I should not have disrespected your opinion before, but if a user
installs Amarok, then that user should have a menu item for it
regardless of what desktop environment she is using.
If a user running Xfce wants to use Amarok, then let her. Do not try
to force her into using non-KDE and non-GNOME apps simply because she
runs Xfce.
7:17 p.m.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:57:58 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I should not have disrespected your opinion before, but if a user
installs Amarok, then that user should have a menu item for it
regardless of what desktop environment she is using.
If a user running Xfce wants to use Amarok, then let her. Do not try
to force her into using non-KDE and non-GNOME apps simply because she
runs Xfce.
Stop assuming
A) a single user system.
B) a user controlled system
C) an intelligent thought about what gets installed (everything crowd?)
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
8:34 p.m.
On 7/24/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:57:58 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I should not have disrespected your opinion before, but if a user
> installs Amarok, then that user should have a menu item for it
> regardless of what desktop environment she is using.
>
> If a user running Xfce wants to use Amarok, then let her. Do not try
> to force her into using non-KDE and non-GNOME apps simply because she
> runs Xfce.
Stop assuming
A) a single user system.
B) a user controlled system
C) an intelligent thought about what gets installed (everything crowd?)
Can you please clarify? How is it any different if a system has one
user or one hundred? If a sysadmin requires everyone to use Kate as
their editor (for some hypothetical reason), then the menu item should
show up no matter what DE any one of the users chooses to run.
I'm not sure what a "user controlled system" means.
Also, I don't understand your argument for item C. If someone wants
to install every single application then I would guess that this same
user would also want to have these applications show up in their menu.
Why would someone who installs every single application only want a
subset of those applications in their menus?
Is it really correct to assume that someone who installs all
applications is not intelligent and we need to think for them? This
is Microsoft philosophy. Do not try to force a user into using her
machine the way *you* think she should.
8:43 p.m.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:34:09 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Can you please clarify? How is it any different if a system has one
user or one hundred?
I can have a handfull of gnomeusers that only want gnome apps like
gedit. I can have a handfull of kde users that only want kde apps like
kate. I can have other "power" users that make use of things like
gnome-menu or the kde equiv to see /all/ items. I don't want to
needlessly clutter the gnome user's menus with 10 different editor
choices, or even 2. Likewise others.
If a sysadmin requires everyone to use Kate as
their editor (for some hypothetical reason), then the menu item should
show up no matter what DE any one of the users chooses to run.
If the sysadmin is requiring it, the sysadmin will be able to force it
in the menus, using something like sabayon to setup a desktop and
enforce the policy.
I'm not sure what a "user controlled system" means.
Where the user is the admin and is in control over what applications
are installed.
Also, I don't understand your argument for item C. If someone wants
to install every single application then I would guess that this same
user would also want to have these applications show up in their menu.
Why would someone who installs every single application only want a
subset of those applications in their menus?
Is it really correct to assume that someone who installs all
applications is not intelligent and we need to think for them? This
is Microsoft philosophy. Do not try to force a user into using her
machine the way *you* think she should.
Most often those that install "everything" are the ones that put no
thought into what they actually want. They give up and just install
everything, and then complain when the menus are too cluttered.
It's not like we haven't played this game before. While what we have
now may have a few bugs, and a few ShowOnlyIn may need to get converted
to DontShowIn or some such, it's a far sight better than the chaos
we've had before. And yes, some tools like gnome-menu should probably
learn to override/ignore these things and show what it would look like
on a gnome login.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
10:20 p.m.
On 7/24/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:34:09 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you please clarify? How is it any different if a system has one
> user or one hundred?
I can have a handfull of gnomeusers that only want gnome apps like
gedit. I can have a handfull of kde users that only want kde apps like
kate. I can have other "power" users that make use of things like
gnome-menu or the kde equiv to see /all/ items. I don't want to
needlessly clutter the gnome user's menus with 10 different editor
choices, or even 2. Likewise others.
Yes, and I can have a handfull of kde users that only want gnome apps
like gedit. I can have a handfull of gnome users that only want kde
apps like kate.
What's the difference?
> I'm not sure what a "user controlled system"
means.
Where the user is the admin and is in control over what applications
are installed.
So I still don't understand your argument against adding menu items
for installed applications in this case.
Most often those that install "everything" are the ones
that put no
thought into what they actually want. They give up and just install
everything, and then complain when the menus are too cluttered.
Yea, okay. Let's make life difficult for everyone else so that the
idiots who install every application will no longer complain about
every application showing up in their menus.
This makes a lot of sense. NOT!
It's not like we haven't played this game before. While what
we have
now may have a few bugs, and a few ShowOnlyIn may need to get converted
to DontShowIn or some such, it's a far sight better than the chaos
we've had before. And yes, some tools like gnome-menu should probably
learn to override/ignore these things and show what it would look like
on a gnome login.
I see nothing wrong with gnome-menu and/or kde-menu as long as its
able to override ShowOnlyIn.
10:27 p.m.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:20:23 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I see nothing wrong with gnome-menu and/or kde-menu as long as its
able to override ShowOnlyIn.
Good, lets work toward that end end this silly argument.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
5:51 p.m.
On 7/24/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:20:23 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I see nothing wrong with gnome-menu and/or kde-menu as long as its
> able to override ShowOnlyIn.
Good, lets work toward that end end this silly argument.
Right. I'm not sure why you think it's silly. And I'm even more
puzzled why you participate in arguments you think are silly. But
anyway, shall I go ahead and file a bug against gnome-menus for this?
9:05 p.m.
I didn't want to join in this argument but i feel like i have to point
out my opinion.
I personally don't like the gnome or kde menu structure at all!! both
are extremely user unfriendly and doesn't seem to experience any
changes (gnome 2.20? kde 4?? both still seem to have the unfriendly
menu).
But what i dislike most of all is that somehow you guys figured out
that have the rights to restrict us access from certain menu items
(kde programs not showing up in gnome and visa versa) i find this
kinda shocking in Fedora's behavior... and i don't want menu items to
be hidden from view in another WM. you guys _need_ to change this. and
(like pointed out before by others) if i install a gnome app on KDE
than if it adds a menu entry (some apps don't add a entry) i want it
to be seen in the menu regardless of gnome, xfce or kde or any WM.
just show the icon!! and _don't_ add things like "KDE Icons" or "Gnome
Icons" (i _will_ start complaining about them if they get in) just
sort the icons how they are supposed to be sorted and show them.
hiding my (windows) partitions icons.. (sadly) oke but hiding my
application ICONS.. no that's not good!!
2007/7/26, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com>:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:51:12 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> shall I go ahead and file a bug against gnome-menus for this?
Sure.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
9:08 p.m.
and can you tell me of a quick way of getting rid of those lines?
without having to edit each file and without updates that restore it again.
Thanx.
2007/7/26, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com>:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:51:12 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> shall I go ahead and file a bug against gnome-menus for this?
Sure.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
10:15 p.m.
On 7/25/07, Mark <markg85(a)gmail.com> wrote:
and can you tell me of a quick way of getting rid of those lines?
without having to edit each file and without updates that restore it again.
Thanx.
This is an example command to remove the lines:
# desktop-file-install --remove-only-show-in GNOME
/usr/share/applications/gnome-banshee.desktop
running this with find twice using GNOME and KDE should fix it, but I
think updates will probably overwrite your changes.
10:50 a.m.
Christopher Stone wrote:
On 7/25/07, Mark <markg85(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> and can you tell me of a quick way of getting rid of those lines?
> without having to edit each file and without updates that restore it
> again.
>
> Thanx.
This is an example command to remove the lines:
# desktop-file-install --remove-only-show-in GNOME
/usr/share/applications/gnome-banshee.desktop
running this with find twice using GNOME and KDE should fix it, but I
think updates will probably overwrite your changes.
You could keep a local cache of .desktop files in
$HOME/.local/applications (or if you want them to be elsewhere, export
XDG_DATA_DIRS to the directory of your choosing and stick them in
$XDG_DATA_DIRS/applications
You'd probably need to regenerate the database after that though.
4:31 p.m.
On 7/23/07, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/07/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:17:37 -0700
> "Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > kate
>
> On a shared system where some users prefer Gnome and some prefer KDE, I
> don't want to have KDE apps such as kate cluttering up the Gnome
> users's menu. Likewise I wouldn't want the KDE user to be cluttered
> with gnome.
>
> As stated before, perhaps what is needed is the tools such as
> gnome-menu or whatever xfce uses ignore the ShowOnlyIn argument and
> display them all anyway.
I seem to recall back in the middle ages, that when in Gnome, there
was a main Menu entry called KDE, which brought a submenu up showing
the menu of KDE apps you would see in KDE. And vice versa. I think
this would be a nice thing to have, and might represent a happy medium
for all sides of this argument.
There is a gnome-menus which can be used on the KDE side, but I don't
know if there is a kde-menus for GNOME. I think this would be
perfectly acceptable provided these packages actually have the ability
to override the OnlyShowIn directive.
7:41 a.m.
On 23/07/07, Christopher Stone <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I seem to recall back in the middle ages, that when in Gnome,
there
> was a main Menu entry called KDE, which brought a submenu up showing
> the menu of KDE apps you would see in KDE. And vice versa. I think
> this would be a nice thing to have, and might represent a happy medium
> for all sides of this argument.
There is a gnome-menus which can be used on the KDE side, but I don't
know if there is a kde-menus for GNOME. I think this would be
perfectly acceptable provided these packages actually have the ability
to override the OnlyShowIn directive.
Ah. My apologies for the (now obsolete) message earlier :) I too remember
the middle ages ;)
I found the package "kmenu-gnome" lurking in the package manager, ... seems
to work, although it only shows two items (grip and "Configuration Editor"
:)) Thanks for the pointer.
2:23 p.m.
On 7/26/07, Bill Crawford <billcrawford1970(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I found the package "kmenu-gnome" lurking in the package
manager, ... seems
to work, although it only shows two items (grip and "Configuration Editor"
:)) Thanks for the pointer.
Ah, okay, well I'm confused. I thought gnome-menus added gnome items
to the KDE menu, but I guess it is actually kmenu-gnome. I filed a
bug against kmenu-gnome:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249902
9:53 a.m.
perhaps it's better to adjust the KDE menu package (whichever one that
might be) and edit it so that it ignores the ShowOnlyIn directive.
Than it will display all menu items where they are supposed to be.
2007/7/27, Christopher Stone <chris.stone(a)gmail.com>:
On 7/26/07, Bill Crawford <billcrawford1970(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I found the package "kmenu-gnome" lurking in the package manager, ...
seems
> to work, although it only shows two items (grip and "Configuration
Editor"
> :)) Thanks for the pointer.
Ah, okay, well I'm confused. I thought gnome-menus added gnome items
to the KDE menu, but I guess it is actually kmenu-gnome. I filed a
bug against kmenu-gnome:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249902
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
10:37 a.m.
Dnia 2007-07-29, o godz. 16:53:04 Mark <markg85(a)gmail.com> napisał(a):
perhaps it's better to adjust the KDE menu package (whichever one
that
might be) and edit it so that it ignores the ShowOnlyIn directive.
Than it will display all menu items where they are supposed to be.
Perhaps you need
to propose that option (but as an option) upstream. It's a
good idea, let them help their users.
Lam
11:36 a.m.
2007/7/29, Leszek Matok <Lam(a)lam.pl>:
Dnia 2007-07-29, o godz. 16:53:04 Mark <markg85(a)gmail.com>
napisał(a):
Perhaps you need to propose that option (but as an option) upstream. It's a
good idea, let them help their users.
Done: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148335
or a fedora only patch if they don't want to accept it for upstream?
the issue is that the kmenu applet doesn't seem to have a
configuration place where that option can be made optional. perhaps it
has a text file configuration somewhere?
9:32 a.m.
Mark wrote:
perhaps it's better to adjust the KDE menu package (whichever one
that
might be) and edit it so that it ignores the ShowOnlyIn directive.
Than it will display all menu items where they are supposed to be.
Breaking the desktop spec is the wrong thing to do. Get the spec
changed, or change the desktop files to not have the ShowOnlyIn. But
don't break the spec.
8:24 a.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:17:37 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> kate
On a shared system where some users prefer Gnome and some prefer KDE, I
don't want to have KDE apps such as kate cluttering up the Gnome
users's menu. Likewise I wouldn't want the KDE user to be cluttered
with gnome.
With this approach you make at least two assumptions:
1. Consistency is more important than usability
2. KDE text editor A has the same functionality as GNOME text editor B
(making them interchangeable)
Not making an important application (for a particular user) available
merely on the grounds of consistency shows a disregard for the users needs
just so that the menu can look "nice" and is a very bad move in my eyes.
Setting up sane defaults is ok but you shouldn't cut off users from
applications they might need.
As stated before, perhaps what is needed is the tools such as
gnome-menu or whatever xfce uses ignore the ShowOnlyIn argument and
display them all anyway.
The gnome menu editor needs a way to let the user choose which applications
should be available in the menu. I think the best way is not to make that
choice based on a particular desktop environment but based on the needs of
the user i.e. the user shouldn't have to choose the particular DE he wants
to show the app in but instead have a way to say "I need this application
for my daily work so show it all the time". If I use Kate to edit my files
it should show up in the menu all the time not just when I boot into a
particular DE.
So to summarize: Setting defaults is fine but there should be an easy way
for users to configure an application as "Show always".
Regards,
Dennis
7:32 a.m.
On 23/07/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
As stated before, perhaps what is needed is the tools such as
gnome-menu or whatever xfce uses ignore the ShowOnlyIn argument and
display them all anyway.
I seem to remember many years ago, having a "KDE menu" top level show up
in the GNOME menu. Could we not arrange for something like this (and
likewise a "GNOME" toplevel entry in the KDE menu) so that those who know
what they want can go look in there?
11:45 p.m.
On Sunday, July 22, 2007 6:34 am nodata wrote:
The alternative is what Suse has - a disasterous hard-to-use clutter
of
menu items.
Actually, I think SuSE's menu arrangement is brilliant; I never had any
trouble finding what I wanted to use. In fact, even now, I generally pattern
my Fedora menu after the SuSE structure.
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
6:07 a.m.
Christopher Stone wrote:
On 7/21/07, Naheem Zaffar <naheemzaffar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> You will have to work on a case by case basis, filing bugs where needed.
>
> Some applications would only be sane in a specific environment. As an
> example, Gnome should have a link to Nautilus for file management, KDE
> to Konqueror (or whatever they have got in KDE 4. Dolphin?).
I do not understand this logic. Why do we assume GNOME users will
only use Nautilus, and KDE users will only use Konqueror?
Konqueror is a bad example because its a webbrowser too and already
listed under applications->internet.
11:25 a.m.
Christopher Stone wrote:
Why are tons of apps setting ShowOnlyIn=GNOME; in their .desktop
file?
This does not bode well for KDE users.
# grep -i onlyshowin /usr/share/applications/*.desktop|grep -i gnome|wc -l
63
Sixty-Three apps which I have installed are only showing up in GNOME!!
What the hell for⁈⁈⁈
Is Fedora *trying* to cripple KDE or what⁈
No. Why do you want assume malice for potential bugs?
I dont see a single application using ShowOnlyIn=KDE
That's because you are looking in the wrong folder. Next time, try and
be less melodramatic.
Rahul
1:49 a.m.
New subject: WTF??? ShowOnlyIn=GNOME
Hi Christopher Stone!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:23:50AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote next:
What the hell for?????????
Some words about not KDE nor Gnome.
This 'only show in ...' provides
inconvenient behaviour in the Xfce DE. I should like to use as many as
possible KDE's applications under Xfce, but can't in easy way (w/o any
additional work. Now I'm running their via Alt+F2 shortkey).
P.S. Is here maintainer of the Xfce packages? May be you could clearify
this.
--
With best regards,
Andy Shevchenko. mailto: andy(a)smile.org.ua
11:25 a.m.
New subject: WTF??? ShowOnlyIn=GNOME
On 7/20/07, Andy Shevchenko <andy(a)smile.org.ua> wrote:
Hi Christopher Stone!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:23:50AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote next:
> What the hell for?????????
Some words about not KDE nor Gnome. This 'only show in ...' provides
inconvenient behaviour in the Xfce DE. I should like to use as many as
possible KDE's applications under Xfce, but can't in easy way (w/o any
additional work. Now I'm running their via Alt+F2 shortkey).
Indeed. Thanks for bringing up this very valid point.
6125
days inactive
6135
days old
46 comments
22 participants
participants (22)
-
Alan Cox -
Andy Shevchenko -
Bill Crawford -
Bill Nottingham -
Christopher Aillon -
Christopher Stone -
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn -
drago01 -
Jef Spaleta -
Jesse Keating -
Jonathan Underwood -
Kelly Miller -
Leszek Matok -
Mark -
Matthew Miller -
Naheem Zaffar -
nodata -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rex Dieter -
Tarek W. -
Todd Zullinger -
Ville Skyttä