 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why? Just take KDE4's widget bar for instance.
Now KDE is an X11 Window manager. X11 was designed to allow for remote
logins, using XDMCP. By the very nature of such remote use, display
sizes /will/ vary.
One of the first things I noticed when I first managed to log in to KDE4
via XDMCP was that the widget bar had shrunk, and failed to occupy the
whole width of the screen.
Okay, so there is a button to click that will allow you to enter a mode
where you can resize the widget bar, and do other cool stuff like
dragging the individual widgets around.
Or accidently change the widget bar's height (because the interface is
new to you, and you decide to toy around), with no "back to defaults"
button to undo your changes.
As for moving the widgets around, they'll give you some kind of
crosshair to click-and-drag. Sometimes. You need to do /something/ right
to make the widgets move - if you don't (and it's not that it would be
in any way obvious /what/ it is you must do right), then the widget may
feel the urge to consider itself clicked on, and pop up. Great. You've
just been dropped out of "move-the-stuff-around"-mode.
But back to the widget bar's width. Oh yes, the "move-stuff-around"-mode
does give you some sliders to move the left and right ends of the widget
bar, so you can adjust it to your screen size. But that'll just last
till next time you log in with that old screen resolution.
Ha, but wait! There's an option to "Maximize Panel" - and indeed that
does cause the widget bar to go flush to both sides. Nice. But if the
developers had thought a tiny bit further, they might have provided this
as a /locking/ option, to have the widget bar auto-adjust to whatever
screen resolution you're logging in at. Well, they did not.
Another thing bothering me about KDE4 is its standard of single-clicking
a highlighted item to activate it, but they can't be blamed for me being
so accustomed to the Windows Way, and I concede that the KDE4 Way is
indeed more consistent with web browser standard behavior.
The scroll-wheel-switches-desktops thingie Warp is so fond of I find
actually quite annoying, can't think of how anyone might like it - as it
has the scroll wheel change functionality dramatically depending on what
the mouse cursor is currently hovering over. It might be less irritating
if KDE4 would have totally given up the concept of an application being
"in focus", or auto-focus whatever application the cursor is currently
hovering over, but that's not the case: The concept of focus is still
there, it's just being limited to the keyboard. Which I find a dubious
idea, given that mice by now have grown additional keys with
functionality that often transcends the concept of a point-and-click
device, while at the same time keyboards occasionally grow pointing
devices, and it becomes hard to tell the "mouse keys" from the "keyboard
keys".
(To be honest, Windows to some degree does the same thing, routing
scroll wheel events to whatever the mouse cursor is hovering over;
however, this is at least limited to the application in general that has
the focus. Plus, it's not usually used for such a dramatically different
functionality.)
But there are practical issues with this, too: So there you are
scrolling with the mouse wheel through your desktops. Whoops - now
you're scrolling through some list of a window on this desktop that
happens to be where the other desktop had desktop background.
Say what you will, but the scroll wheel is good for scrolling, and
shouldn't be abused for desktop switching. Now if a mouse has a 2D
scroll wheel, using the left/right scrolling for that (and exclusively
that) seems fair to me, but the up/down... no way. I hope I find out how
to turn this off soon.
Ah well, and did I mention that KDE4 uses a totally different font size
in a XDMCP login than it does when logged in locally?
Or that the Dolphin file manager gives you a nice "open with file
manager in super user mode" option, but in that mode refuses to launch
KWrite to open a config file for edit? Which to me defies the main
purpose of having a super user mode in the first place.
It's also nice that the "Personal Settings" window does pop up a pretty
list of items when you hover over a category icon, but although it
appears pretty much like a popup menu, no way you can click on an icon
in the popup...
Gee, if openSUSE 11.2 didn't come with a brand new version of boost, I'd
throw it off my hard drive again any moment...
... well, maybe that's enough of ranting for now. I do find some good in
KDE4, too. Enabling users to configure standard keyboard shortcuts
globally for all applications, for instance. I hope it works as
advertised. The standard editor, KWrite, seems superior to the Gnome
counterpart, too. Not to mention Notepad...
And my, this one-click-to-activate thing is more addictive than I
thought... I guess I'll turn it back on again...
Well, maybe modern Linux desktops don't suck /that/ much after all...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The standard editor, KWrite, seems superior to the Gnome
> counterpart, too. Not to mention Notepad...
Heh, it even comes with syntax highlighting for POV-Ray. I guess it can
stay for good... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka schrieb:
> The scroll-wheel-switches-desktops thingie Warp is so fond of I find
> actually quite annoying, can't think of how anyone might like it - as it
> has the scroll wheel change functionality dramatically depending on what
> the mouse cursor is currently hovering over. It might be less irritating
> if KDE4 would have totally given up the concept of an application being
> "in focus", or auto-focus whatever application the cursor is currently
> hovering over, but that's not the case: The concept of focus is still
> there, it's just being limited to the keyboard. Which I find a dubious
> idea, given that mice by now have grown additional keys with
> functionality that often transcends the concept of a point-and-click
> device, while at the same time keyboards occasionally grow pointing
> devices, and it becomes hard to tell the "mouse keys" from the "keyboard
> keys".
You rant and live and learn. For instance that you actually /can/ have
that "mouse cursor = focus" policy in KDE4...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>> The standard editor, KWrite, seems superior to the Gnome
>> counterpart, too. Not to mention Notepad...
>
> Heh, it even comes with syntax highlighting for POV-Ray. I guess it can
> stay for good... ;-)
Get Kate. It uses the same underlying file editing component as KWrite, but
supports a lot more features, like opening multiple documents at once.
And an embedded terminal (useful for typing the ./povray command ;) ).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> You rant and live and learn. For instance that you actually /can/ have
> that "mouse cursor = focus" policy in KDE4...
Yep, and it's great. The only problem of focus-follows-cursor (and alt +
click anywhere to drag windows) is that you get really used to it and really
really miss it when you use M$ Windows!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez schrieb:
> Get Kate. It uses the same underlying file editing component as KWrite, but
> supports a lot more features, like opening multiple documents at once.
What - KWrite doesn't? Didn't notice yet, but in that case... yes, I
probably want Kate...
> And an embedded terminal (useful for typing the ./povray command ;) ).
Heh, I just noticed the integrated terminal in the Dolphin file manager.
Which cd's automatically. Now /that/ is a smart idea! :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/17/2009 1:47 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> You rant and live and learn. For instance that you actually /can/ have
>> that "mouse cursor = focus" policy in KDE4...
>
> Yep, and it's great. The only problem of focus-follows-cursor (and alt +
> click anywhere to drag windows) is that you get really used to it and really
> really miss it when you use M$ Windows!
>
Is there an ALT-TAB substitute on Windows that utilizes the mouse? Maybe
a hotkey + mousewheel?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD schrieb:
> Is there an ALT-TAB substitute on Windows that utilizes the mouse? Maybe
> a hotkey + mousewheel?
My old Logitech mouse had dedicated buttons for that below and above the
scroll wheel; never really used them though... aside from that - no, I
think I just tried any possible combo of Alt, Shift and Ctrl. Anything
more exotic would be less convenient than just pressing alt-tabl, so I
don't expect any such.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Another thing bothering me about KDE4 is its standard of single-clicking
> a highlighted item to activate it, but they can't be blamed for me being
> so accustomed to the Windows Way, and I concede that the KDE4 Way is
> indeed more consistent with web browser standard behavior.
I'm 98% sure that this is configurable. In fact, I seem to remember the
very first time I logged in with KDE it asked me which behaviour I
wanted. (Unfortunately it wants you to pick a bundle of settings, and no
single bundle actually had the exact combination I wanted, but still...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There are a couple of annoying things about Windows too.
First, clicking on a window brings it to the foreground. You migth say
"well how else could it possibly work?" But back in the days of AmigaOS,
clicking a window gives it focus, but doesn't actually raise it to the
top of the screen.
Now *usually* either policy is fine. However, it's occasionally annoying
when you have a fullscreen window and you want to copy some information
from a smaller window into the fullscreen window. Under AmigaOS, you
just position the windows where you want them, click the big window and
start typing. Under Windows, if you do this, the big window will occlude
the smaller one.
Sure, you can change window sizes, but it's irritating.
(On the other hand, under AmigaOS, if the raise and lower buttons are
obscured, you can't raise or lower the window, which is arguably far
more annoying.)
The other thing that annoys me is the scroll wheel. Why oh why oh WHY
does it NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SCROLL THE THING YOU WANT TO
SCROLL?! >_<
This is so exasperating! I point at something, scroll the wheel, and
some unrelated item somewhere else on the screen scrolls. WTF? The most
frequent example of this is in Windows Explorer. You open a folder than
contains millions of files, so you scroll the wheel... and the folder
list at the side scrolls 2 pixels left/right, rather than the main pane
scrolling down three pages like you actually wanted. WHY?!?! >_<
Also, which moron decided that clicking something twice on the task bar
should minimize it? I never *ever* want this to happen!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> First, clicking on a window brings it to the foreground. You migth say
> "well how else could it possibly work?" But back in the days of AmigaOS,
> clicking a window gives it focus, but doesn't actually raise it to the
> top of the screen.
My single biggest gripe with every modern windowing gui. Acorn's RISCOS also had
the feature you describe. Maybe it's just the workflow habits I got into back
then, but to this day I am continually vexed by MS's windows jumping to the top
of the stack as soon as you glance at them.
> (On the other hand, under AmigaOS, if the raise and lower buttons are
> obscured, you can't raise or lower the window, which is arguably far
> more annoying.)
Under RISCOS, clicking any window control (including the titlebar) brought it to
the front.
> Also, which moron decided that clicking something twice on the task bar
> should minimize it? I never *ever* want this to happen!
I find that one handy - it's a much bigger target than the minimise icon! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> First, clicking on a window brings it to the foreground. You migth say
>> "well how else could it possibly work?" But back in the days of AmigaOS,
>> clicking a window gives it focus, but doesn't actually raise it to the
>> top of the screen.
>
> My single biggest gripe with every modern windowing gui. Acorn's RISCOS also had
> the feature you describe. Maybe it's just the workflow habits I got into back
> then, but to this day I am continually vexed by MS's windows jumping to the top
> of the stack as soon as you glance at them.
Under X11, you just need to write a custom window manager and you can
change this. Under Windows, you can write a new Explorer UI, but I don't
think you can actually change the window focus behaviour...
>> (On the other hand, under AmigaOS, if the raise and lower buttons are
>> obscured, you can't raise or lower the window, which is arguably far
>> more annoying.)
>
> Under RISCOS, clicking any window control (including the titlebar) brought it to
> the front.
Yes, it's hardly a difficult problem to solve. It's just that AmigaOS
didn't have a solution.
>> Also, which moron decided that clicking something twice on the task bar
>> should minimize it? I never *ever* want this to happen!
>
> I find that one handy - it's a much bigger target than the minimise icon! :)
And I find it irritating that when I'm flicking through half a dozen
windows, if I accidentally click on the window that happens to be
selected already, it tries to minimise it.
Maybe I'm biased because on my ancient PC, minimising and maximising
windows is quite a slow operation... But, in general, I never minimize
windows at all. (Except to reach the desktop.)
I will say, though, that the taskbar itself is a nice idea. (Under
AmigaOS, you could sometimes "lose" windows if you couldn't find a way
to bring them to the front. The default Workbench window is always
fullscreen...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Another thing bothering me about KDE4 is its standard of single-clicking
> a highlighted item to activate it, but they can't be blamed for me being
> so accustomed to the Windows Way,
That really hasn't been the "Windows Way" since they came out with Active
Desktop 10+ years ago. If you want that behavior on Windows, you can turn it
on too. (I thought it had been the default at least since 2000 or XP.)
On the other hand, it bugs me when I have that on in Linux desktops and
double-clicks bring up the application twice. Duh.
> (To be honest, Windows to some degree does the same thing, routing
> scroll wheel events to whatever the mouse cursor is hovering over;
I wish Vista consistently worked that way. :-) I find the Windows mouse
scroll usually useless in Vista, altho I don't remember being annoyed by it
in XP. Maybe they changed something subtle.
> Ah well, and did I mention that KDE4 uses a totally different font size
> in a XDMCP login than it does when logged in locally?
Don't fonts always come from the local machine? Or did they fix this in X by
now?
> And my, this one-click-to-activate thing is more addictive than I
> thought... I guess I'll turn it back on again...
any explorer window: Tools->Folder Options->General... in Windows.
And yes, it's much more handy, especially if there's easily found areas of
the screen where clicking does *not* select anything.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> really miss it when you use M$ Windows!
So turn it on in Windows. GIYF.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> from a smaller window into the fullscreen window.
I saw a demo of a drag-and-drop idea I've been lusting after ever since.
If you pick something up to drag-and-drop it, then move diagonally over the
corner of a window, it peels the window down like you're curling down the
page of a book so you can see what's behind it and drop your thing there.
You could do drag-and-drop between multiple full-screen windows that way.
> Sure, you can change window sizes, but it's irritating.
One of the great advantages of having two screens, too.
> The other thing that annoys me is the scroll wheel. Why oh why oh WHY
> does it NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SCROLL THE THING YOU WANT TO
> SCROLL?! >_<
Even the add-ons I've found don't work for this, sadly.
> Also, which moron decided that clicking something twice on the task bar
> should minimize it? I never *ever* want this to happen!
I find that very handy. Click to open the window, it's the wrong one, click
again to fold it back up. It helps when you have a bunch of windows all
with the same title big enough you can't read the text that distinguishes them.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> AmigaOS, you could sometimes "lose" windows if you couldn't find a way
Yeah. Wait until you get a program running full-screen that pops up a modal
dialog underneath the full-screen window, and that won't let you interact
with the window until you answer the dialog.
Vista's anti-focus-stealing stuff seems to only prevent focus stealing when
it's *wrong* to do so. Cripes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> AmigaOS, you could sometimes "lose" windows if you couldn't find a way
>
> Yeah. Wait until you get a program running full-screen that pops up a
> modal dialog underneath the full-screen window, and that won't let you
> interact with the window until you answer the dialog.
>
> Vista's anti-focus-stealing stuff seems to only prevent focus stealing
> when it's *wrong* to do so. Cripes.
Pretty sure AmigaOS doesn't support model dialogs. (Of course, the
application can stop responding to UI events that come from other
windows, or manually disable all the widgets. But it doesn't have the
"model" dialogs that Windows has, which can't be moved and so forth.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Pretty sure AmigaOS doesn't support model dialogs.
Heck, even *I* remember that AmigaOS had model dialogs. Now, most of the
workbench-level software didn't use them, but I remember the apps having
them. (I wonder if I could still find my old Amiga OS books...)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Pretty sure AmigaOS doesn't support model dialogs.
>
> Heck, even *I* remember that AmigaOS had model dialogs. Now, most of the
> workbench-level software didn't use them, but I remember the apps having
> them. (I wonder if I could still find my old Amiga OS books...)
I don't recall any program using the standard Intuition interface having
model dialogs. Sure, if you build a highly custom UI of your own rather
than using the OS, you can implement whatever you like. But that's
hardly an OS feature. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Sure, if you build a highly custom UI of your own rather
> than using the OS, you can implement whatever you like. But that's
> hardly an OS feature. ;-)
I mean, there were flags for controlling whether your window got the title
bar and such, yes? At least I *think* so.
Of course, lots of programs that wanted to be "modal" just opened an entire
screen. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Sure, if you build a highly custom UI of your own rather than using
>> the OS, you can implement whatever you like. But that's hardly an OS
>> feature. ;-)
>
> I mean, there were flags for controlling whether your window got the
> title bar and such, yes? At least I *think* so.
Year, you can turn off the titlebar (usually only for a splash screen),
the close button, the resize gadget, and so forth. It's just that
programs typically didn't do this.
> Of course, lots of programs that wanted to be "modal" just opened an
> entire screen. ;-)
...or that, yes. ;-)
However, screens can be rearranged. :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Year, you can turn off the titlebar (usually only for a splash screen),
> the close button, the resize gadget, and so forth. It's just that
> programs typically didn't do this.
Yes, because AmigaOS wasn't a PITA to run multiple threads in one program
that didn't get screwed up by unusual interactions with multiple windows. ;-)
Contrast with MacOS or Win3.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Pretty sure AmigaOS doesn't support model dialogs.
>
> Heck, even *I* remember that AmigaOS had model dialogs. Now, most of the
> workbench-level software didn't use them, but I remember the apps having
> them. (I wonder if I could still find my old Amiga OS books...)
Funny how you misspelled "modal dialogs" the same way as him.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Ah well, and did I mention that KDE4 uses a totally different font size
>> in a XDMCP login than it does when logged in locally?
>
> Don't fonts always come from the local machine? Or did they fix this in X
> by now?
X has a "font server" for sure. But I have no idea how it works. I never
used remote X for serious purposes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/17/09 07:38, Invisible wrote:
> The other thing that annoys me is the scroll wheel. Why oh why oh WHY
> does it NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SCROLL THE THING YOU WANT TO
> SCROLL?! >_<
>
> This is so exasperating! I point at something, scroll the wheel, and
> some unrelated item somewhere else on the screen scrolls. WTF? The most
Because you didn't give it focus. As Darren mentioned, you can switch
to point-to-focus, and then it'll likely work.
en!
--
Be independent! No, not that way! This way!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Funny how you misspelled "modal dialogs" the same way as him.
That can happen when the word is right in front of your face, yes. I fixed
it in the other post. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
waiting for the "Blender sucks" daily povray newsgroups bash tomorrow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> waiting for the "Blender sucks" daily povray newsgroups bash tomorrow.
Diff'rent strokes... For me personally, I quickly get irritated whenever I
have to do something in XP (like use Moray - I simply can't get it going
well under wine) and I have to leave the happy cocoon of KDE 4 for a few
moments.
XP, 7 or Vista feels dated and slow. Granted, that is in standard "as
installed" versions, with no tweaks or additional apps. I find KDE much
better and faster on Fedora 11.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> I quickly get irritated whenever I have to do something in XP
I just had to replace my monitor today. I got a nice new widescreen thingie
to work with, etc. And I discovered something interesting.
I'm annoyed by bad design, not by the difficulty of accomplishing a task.
It annoyed me that the connector for the old monitor took 3 minutes to get
disconnected because it was screwed down and the designer of the connector
put an unmovable flange a quarter inch over the screw.
It didn't annoy me at all that the new connector wouldn't fit thru the hole
in the desk I'd drilled and it took me half an hour of work with a file to
enlarge it the 2mm it took to slide the connector through.
It doesn't bother me that it takes an hour to back up the laptop. It bothers
me that opening "my computer" takes 30 seconds because all the drives for
the developers are shared over the same internet connection they're
streaming sample video over to hundreds of testers.
I knew I got pissed easily at pretty trivially annoying stuff, but I never
realized it was trivial *needlessly* annoying stuff that did it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> I quickly get irritated whenever I have to do something in XP
>
> I just had to replace my monitor today. I got a nice new widescreen
> thingie
> to work with, etc. And I discovered something interesting.
>
> I'm annoyed by bad design, not by the difficulty of accomplishing a task.
>
> It annoyed me that the connector for the old monitor took 3 minutes to get
> disconnected because it was screwed down and the designer of the connector
> put an unmovable flange a quarter inch over the screw.
>
> It didn't annoy me at all that the new connector wouldn't fit thru the
> hole in the desk I'd drilled and it took me half an hour of work with a
> file to enlarge it the 2mm it took to slide the connector through.
>
> It doesn't bother me that it takes an hour to back up the laptop. It
> bothers me that opening "my computer" takes 30 seconds because all the
> drives for the developers are shared over the same internet connection
> they're streaming sample video over to hundreds of testers.
>
> I knew I got pissed easily at pretty trivially annoying stuff, but I never
> realized it was trivial *needlessly* annoying stuff that did it.
I feel much the same. "My" equivalent irritation with Linux that I can admit
to though is - erm... I don't have a name for the phenomenon.
Whenever I'm at work, and for some reason the internet connection goes down,
for no reason I can fathom, MySQL control center starts taking a minute
(literally - 60 seconds, I've timed it!) to open any MySQL table on the
machine. Conversely, emacs takes up to two minutes to start.
I've done /sbin/ifconfigs as a test once, and I can't see that -anything-
passes over the ethernet connection that is relevant. I've not etherealed
yet, probably need to.
However, the moment connectivity is back (I can ping something, anything on
the internet) my MySQL control center starts working at "instant" speed
again, and emacs starts instantly as well.
I've searched the hell out this, but nobody I've so far been able to find
that responded to posts, or nobody else I could google about, have ever
experienced this phenomenon.
I only use direct IP's no symbol resolution is required by either emacs or
MySQL control center. MySQL control center is setup to connect to the local
127.0.0.1 port, emacs is only used to edit files in the local home folder
(so no network pauses or anything seem to be involved.)
Obviously it MUST have something to do with DNS then? But I can find no
literature or mention of -WHY- this happens with my desktop.
It irritates the hell out of me, but apparently -only- my machine, with my
kernel (2.6.18.1) experiences this.
If it IS, in fact, DNS, I've not been able to find how to turn that kind of
timeout delay (which I think it must be) off somehow, without my system
refusing to do DNS queries entirely.
Mostly Linux has chosen to be friendly with me (the old "UNIX is picky whom
it makes friends with") but this is one thing that clouds the waters of our
relationship.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> The scroll-wheel-switches-desktops thingie Warp is so fond of I find
> actually quite annoying, can't think of how anyone might like it - as it
> has the scroll wheel change functionality dramatically depending on what
> the mouse cursor is currently hovering over.
On the contrary, I find Windows' behavior with the mouse wheel absolutely
irritating.
*Of course* the mouse wheel behavior should depend on where the cursor
is currently, exactly in the same way as *clicking*. I'm accustomed to use
the mouse wheel in the exact same way as I use the other mouse buttons:
I point where I want the scrolling to happen, and roll the wheel, and I
expect that thing I'm pointing at to scroll, in the exact same way that
if I point to something and left-click, I expect that thing to be selected,
or if I right-click for a context menu for the pointed thing to pop up.
When Windows refuses to do this, it's extremely irritating. I constantly
find miself scrolling something else than what I want to scroll because
Windows refuses to scroll what I'm pointing at.
Having to click on something before you can scroll it with the wheel is
not only useless, but also can cause unwanted behavior because none of the
mouse buttons simply *selects* the window you click on. If you click on an
active element, that element will also be *activated*, possibly performing
an unwanted operation by mistake. And no, I don't want to have to click on
the title bar of a window before I can scroll it with the mouse wheel.
Thus it's not surprising that I find switching desktops with the mouse
wheel quite natural: If I "scroll" the desktop background, it jumps to the
virtual desktop in that direction.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Having to click on something before you can scroll it with the wheel is
> not only useless, but also can cause unwanted behavior because none of the
> mouse buttons simply *selects* the window you click on. If you click on an
> active element, that element will also be *activated*, possibly performing
> an unwanted operation by mistake. And no, I don't want to have to click on
> the title bar of a window before I can scroll it with the mouse wheel.
On Mac, clicking on an inactive window brings it to the front without
sending the click to the application code, so it won't activate elements.
On some apps.
Some other apps override that behavior, making it useless, since you're
never sure if a click will activate an element or not (depends on whether
that app overrode the click-through behavior or not).
Why does Apple get *almost* everything right? The details they get wrong are
usually *very* annoying.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> On Mac, clicking on an inactive window brings it to the front without
> sending the click to the application code, so it won't activate elements.
That bugs the crap out of me when Mac programs run on Windows. Indeed, I
can't imagine why you'd want it to work that way.
I looked at 3 or 4 "scroll what I'm pointing at already!" programs when I
moved to Vista, and none of them work right.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > On Mac, clicking on an inactive window brings it to the front without
> > sending the click to the application code, so it won't activate elements.
> That bugs the crap out of me when Mac programs run on Windows. Indeed, I
> can't imagine why you'd want it to work that way.
> I looked at 3 or 4 "scroll what I'm pointing at already!" programs when I
> moved to Vista, and none of them work right.
What really irritates me is Windows Explorer in this regard. For example,
if I select a directory from the folder view on the left, and the directory
contents then open on the right, if I try to scroll the file listing, it
just scrolls the folder view on the left. And the other way around. In this
case there isn't even any "title bar" to click in order to select the
proper scrollable view. You have to click *on* the view, and be careful
to not to click on something you don't want to.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
> Also, which moron decided that clicking something twice on the task bar
> should minimize it? I never *ever* want this to happen!
Actually, it's not clicking twice hat triggers this - it's clicking on
an item that has the focus. So if an item already has the focus,
double-clicking will just minimize and restore, effectively doing nothing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
> Maybe I'm biased because on my ancient PC, minimising and maximising
> windows is quite a slow operation... But, in general, I never minimize
> windows at all. (Except to reach the desktop.)
... and they have even a dedicated shortcut in the taskbar for that.
So yes, minimizing windows is more of a nuisance, typically.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> I saw a demo of a drag-and-drop idea I've been lusting after ever since.
>
> If you pick something up to drag-and-drop it, then move diagonally over
> the corner of a window, it peels the window down like you're curling
> down the page of a book so you can see what's behind it and drop your
> thing there. You could do drag-and-drop between multiple full-screen
> windows that way.
That'd be cool, indeed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>> Another thing bothering me about KDE4 is its standard of
>> single-clicking a highlighted item to activate it, but they can't be
>> blamed for me being so accustomed to the Windows Way,
>
> That really hasn't been the "Windows Way" since they came out with
> Active Desktop 10+ years ago. If you want that behavior on Windows, you
> can turn it on too. (I thought it had been the default at least since
> 2000 or XP.)
It used to be the default when they first introduced it, but I can't
remember having seen it actually used by anyone anywhere, so I'm pretty
sure they quickly changed it back. (Can't say from my own installations;
maybe they ask and I just choose double-clicking as a subconscious
reflex reaction, maybe they default to double-clicking without asking;
what I can tell for sure though is that they don't just default to
single-clicking. Vista and 7 may be yet different though.)
>> Ah well, and did I mention that KDE4 uses a totally different font
>> size in a XDMCP login than it does when logged in locally?
>
> Don't fonts always come from the local machine? Or did they fix this in
> X by now?
I have no idea. I just noticed that old Debian "Etch" 4.0r5 Gnome got it
right without me intervening, while openSUSE KDE4 messes up.
>> And my, this one-click-to-activate thing is more addictive than I
>> thought... I guess I'll turn it back on again...
>
> any explorer window: Tools->Folder Options->General... in Windows.
> And yes, it's much more handy, especially if there's easily found areas
> of the screen where clicking does *not* select anything.
KDE4 (at least the Dolphin file manager does it right by giving
somewhere on the icons to click on in order to select instead of
activate. Not sure whether I really want it on in Windows, due to a lack
of such sugar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis schrieb:
> waiting for the "Blender sucks" daily povray newsgroups bash tomorrow.
Can't say anything about that, 'cause I'll possibly never ever give it a
chance again :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> I knew I got pissed easily at pretty trivially annoying stuff, but I
> never realized it was trivial *needlessly* annoying stuff that did it.
Yeah, same here I guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> The scroll-wheel-switches-desktops thingie Warp is so fond of I find
>> actually quite annoying, can't think of how anyone might like it - as it
>> has the scroll wheel change functionality dramatically depending on what
>> the mouse cursor is currently hovering over.
>
> On the contrary, I find Windows' behavior with the mouse wheel absolutely
> irritating.
>
> *Of course* the mouse wheel behavior should depend on where the cursor
> is currently, exactly in the same way as *clicking*. I'm accustomed to use
> the mouse wheel in the exact same way as I use the other mouse buttons:
> I point where I want the scrolling to happen, and roll the wheel, and I
> expect that thing I'm pointing at to scroll, in the exact same way that
> if I point to something and left-click, I expect that thing to be selected,
> or if I right-click for a context menu for the pointed thing to pop up.
Mind you, what I find rritating is not the fact that the mouse wheel
events are routed to the application that happens to be pointed at right
now - I do see the logic, and could get used to it. What I find
irritating is the functionality it has when routed to the desktop. First
because the functionality is pretty much different, and secondly because
it may also affect what actually /is/ under the mouse cursor, as the
next turn of the wheel will bring up a different desktop with different
windows at different places. So that if for instance I scroll one
desktop too far, I may not be able to instantly scroll back, and may
have to find some empty desktop space first.
> Thus it's not surprising that I find switching desktops with the mouse
> wheel quite natural: If I "scroll" the desktop background, it jumps to the
> virtual desktop in that direction.
Yes, but normally just turning the wheel the other direction without
moving the mouse an inch will scroll the same control right back.
With the desktop, you may be in for a surprise there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Invisible schrieb:
>
>> Maybe I'm biased because on my ancient PC, minimising and maximising
>> windows is quite a slow operation... But, in general, I never minimize
>> windows at all. (Except to reach the desktop.)
>
> .... and they have even a dedicated shortcut in the taskbar for that.
>
> So yes, minimizing windows is more of a nuisance, typically.
I find “Win Logo” + m quite handy, actually.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah, while we're ranting anyway...
Why the **** does /no/ graphical user interface provide a way to
rearrange the running programs in taskbar?! I mean, that shouldn't be
/too/ difficult to implement, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> nemesis schrieb:
>> waiting for the "Blender sucks" daily povray newsgroups bash tomorrow.
>
> Can't say anything about that, 'cause I'll possibly never ever give it a
> chance again :-P
whew, that's a relief. Hope you don't use the Gimp either. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/17/09 18:16, Warp wrote:
> What really irritates me is Windows Explorer in this regard. For example,
> if I select a directory from the folder view on the left, and the directory
Windows Explorer tends to irritate me in all regards.<G>
How I missed Norton Commander. Linux saved me with its spinoff midnight
commander.
--
I didn't know my husband drank until one day he came home sober.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/17/09 23:16, clipka wrote:
> Ah, while we're ranting anyway...
>
> Why the **** does /no/ graphical user interface provide a way to
> rearrange the running programs in taskbar?! I mean, that shouldn't be
> /too/ difficult to implement, right?
After having used my current WM for over 5 years now, I have to ask:
Why do y'all need a taskbar anyway?
Seriously.
I have many windows open, I don't need the taskbar. My Alt-Tab behavior
is good and fast enough (and with virtual desktops, I rarely have more
than 2 windows open in the same desktop - unless I'm doing image
processing or something).
When I minimize, I get a nice mini-screenshot of the window at the
bottom of the screen. Makes it really easy to select it. With my current
settings, I can't move them around. I could enable a setting that lets
me move the minimized icon anywhere on the screen, so in principle I
could rearrange (roughly infinite degrees of freedom).
Of course, this whole minimized icon relies on the fact that I have no
icons on my desktop. Which brings me to the next question:
Why do people have icons on their desktop? I guess if you want to have
access to some file *really* fast, it's convenient. However, if I go
down that road, the whole desktop is full inside of one month. I've been
doing fine with an iconless desktop for all these years now.
--
I didn't know my husband drank until one day he came home sober.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis schrieb:
> whew, that's a relief. Hope you don't use the Gimp either. ;)
Not yet :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> Of course, this whole minimized icon relies on the fact that I have
> no icons on my desktop. Which brings me to the next question:
>
> Why do people have icons on their desktop? I guess if you want to
> have access to some file *really* fast, it's convenient. However, if I
> go down that road, the whole desktop is full inside of one month. I've
> been doing fine with an iconless desktop for all these years now.
Simple reason: Tradition. It was the first concept how to replace the
Windows 3.1 program manager.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I saw a demo of a drag-and-drop idea I've been lusting after ever since.
What I really miss in Windows which was the norm on the Acorn GUI was to be
able to drag-n-drop to *save* a file from an application. Quite often I
find myself having the explorer window open of some folder deep on our
network drive and I want to save my document in there. On the Acorn you
could just click save and drag the file icon to the explorer window, but on
Windows you have to navigate in the save dialog to the folder, copy&paste
the path name into the save box, or save to the desktop and then move it in
explorer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Also, which moron decided that clicking something twice on the task
>> bar should minimize it? I never *ever* want this to happen!
>
> Actually, it's not clicking twice hat triggers this - it's clicking on
> an item that has the focus.
Well, yeah, that's what I meant.
You have a row of items, and if you happen to click the one that's
already current, Windows busts a gut trying to minimise it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
