Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:54 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Gnome "Theme development is a tedious and difficult task, and for the GTK devs to be so careless in breaking their API at every turn disrespects the many hours people put into making themes for it. [...] I was given to believe that this breakage stems from a Microsoft-like climate of preventing users from customizing their systems, and deliberately breaking the work of others so that your 'brand' is the best. Anytime I hear the word 'brand' being used in Linux, I know something valuable is being poisoned." I find the tone of this one a bit too harsh and overly negative at times, but his point still stands.
Thread beginning with comment 541692
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Why not use Qt?
by phoenix on Fri 9th Nov 2012 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why not use Qt?"
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

3. Plasma actually cannot do certain things I liked in Kicker. (eg. Having one big activity span both monitors so my taskbar widget can span smoothly across.) Why should I run a heavier desktop when I don't use the features it adds and do want a feature it removed?


I used to think I wanted one large panel that spanned multiple monitors so there would only be one taskbar. Then I actually looked at the settings for the taskbar plasmoid and noticed it featured an "only show icons for tasks on this monitor" checkbox.

Now, I live quite nicely with separate panels on each monitor, with separate taskbar plasmoids on each panel, each configured to only show tasks that appear on that monitor.

And, I can now stick the system tray and the menu on the inner sides of the monitors (so the bottom-right corner of the left monitor and the bottom-left corner of the right monitor), which would be impossible to do on a "single large panel that spans both".

And, when I finally get a three-monitor setup working, the menu and systray will only appear on the centre monitor. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Why not use Qt?
by zima on Fri 9th Nov 2012 22:31 in reply to "RE[6]: Why not use Qt?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And, I can now stick the system tray and the menu on the inner sides of the monitors (so the bottom-right corner of the left monitor and the bottom-left corner of the right monitor), which would be impossible to do on a "single large panel that spans both".
And, when I finally get a three-monitor setup working, the menu and systray will only appear on the centre monitor. ;)

Doesn't that make them harder to aim/click? ;)
Per Fitt's law - if they would be in "really corner" the target effectively has a sort of unlimited size.

(but seriously, your PC, your business how things are done ;) )

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Why not use Qt?
by phoenix on Fri 9th Nov 2012 23:31 in reply to "RE[7]: Why not use Qt?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

It's more about making it less travel compared to where my eyes are. I'm always looking near the middle of the screens, swapping from screen to screen depending on the app, so it makes it easier to have all the information near the centre.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Why not use Qt?
by ssokolow on Fri 9th Nov 2012 23:23 in reply to "RE[6]: Why not use Qt?"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

I used to think I wanted one large panel that spanned multiple monitors so there would only be one taskbar. Then I actually looked at the settings for the taskbar plasmoid and noticed it featured an "only show icons for tasks on this monitor" checkbox.


I didn't migrate off KDE 3.5 until I found that option. However, despite it being superior in theory, I could never get fully comfortable with it for some reason.

Switching from Plasma to LXPanel was actually a bit satisfying because I regained the ability to have all my windows pile up on the left-hand monitor's taskbar (regardless of which monitor they were one) when there are no more than five of them.

Reply Parent Score: 2