31–40 of 244 posts
Still no match for Gnome 2's UI. RIP that old interface, the best of the *nix desktops.
It is possible to mitigate some of that inconvenience by using a theme where everything is scaled up (and there are tools to generate them), but there will be still GTK 2 software that looks bad.
Specifically, I want to be able to click around on directories to choose where to save a file, type the file name, then press enter. This should save the file, not filter the directory listing.
Also, I don’t want it to default to overwriting some file I saved last week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and hints at backwards compatibility. To me it communicates no commitment to backwards compatibility, i.e. no semantic versioning. This might be enforceable if one is Apple, but doesn't sound good for an open-source platform.
To me it communicates a commitment that they'll never have any significant breaking change ever again without changing their name, fork style.
What's with the change over to these '40' style naming schemes? I absolutely detest it if it's not done for a real reason. Firstly, without major versions it does not single anything to end users and end developers. Is '40' still mostly compatible with the gnome 3.x.x API? Is there a major divergence between 40 and 41? Is 41 and 40 a total rewrite? 3.x.x works and there's a reason why. It conveys a lot of information…
As far as I understand "40" is just short for "3.40.0". The expectation is that they will remain compatible with the 3.x.x series for a long time, so the 3 is somewhat redundant. This release contains more UI changes than usual, but it is very far away from the change from gnome 2 to 3.
I dunno which it is, but the typography/font rendering is just jarring in these screens. I imagine there's a bunch of hacking you can do to make it look crisper/aligned but no way I'd have time for that.
Canonical, could you please make the Ubuntu font really-SIL-free, so that Cantarell can be taken behind the barn and shot? Pretty please?
I feel really stupid to ask , but can I install this on Windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and hints at backwards compatibility. To me it communicates no commitment to backwards compatibility, i.e. no semantic versioning. This might be enforceable if one is Apple, but doesn't sound good for an open-source platform.
To me it communicates a commitment that they'll never have any significant breaking change ever again without changing their name, fork style.