Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux.ubuntu > #186474 > unrolled thread

GUI "crash"

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux.ubuntu

Contents

  GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 05:47 -0600
    Re: GUI "crash" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 09:17 -0500
      Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 08:27 -0600
        Re: GUI "crash" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:53 -0500
          Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 10:18 -0600
      Re: GUI "crash" Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-01-22 07:19 -0800
        Re: GUI "crash" "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-22 16:52 +0100
        Re: GUI "crash" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:57 -0500
          Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 10:25 -0600
        Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 10:24 -0600
    Re: GUI "crash" Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:30 +0000
      Re: GUI "crash" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:02 -0500
        Re: GUI "crash" Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-01-22 17:22 +0100
          Re: GUI "crash" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-22 11:32 -0500
            Re: GUI "crash" "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-22 19:46 +0100
          Re: GUI "crash" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:01 -0500
        Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 10:29 -0600
          Re: GUI "crash" "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-22 19:47 +0100
            Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 12:58 -0600
              Re: GUI "crash" mike antipasto <pizzadude@mycomputerrox.org> - 2016-01-22 19:20 -0500
                Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 18:29 -0600
                  Re: GUI "crash" mike antipasto <pizzadude@mycomputerrox.org> - 2016-01-22 20:42 -0500
                    Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 21:53 -0600
                      Re: GUI "crash" "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-23 10:13 +0100
                        Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-23 06:23 -0600
                          Re: GUI "crash" "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-23 16:40 +0100
                            Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-23 10:16 -0600
      Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 10:26 -0600
      Re: GUI "crash" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-22 11:29 -0500
    Re: GUI "crash" ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2016-01-22 15:47 +0000
      Re: GUI "crash" philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 10:30 -0600
    Re: GUI "crash" Probable solution philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 13:40 -0600
      Re: GUI "crash" Probable solution "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-22 20:11 -0600
        Re: GUI "crash" Probable solution philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 21:32 -0600
          Re: GUI "crash" Probable solution Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-23 11:36 +0000
            Re: GUI "crash" Probable solution philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-23 06:24 -0600
    Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 12:05 -0600
      Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 13:24 -0500
        Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 12:30 -0600
          Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-24 13:36 -0500
            Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Catzilla <catzilla@pussyboss.invalid> - 2016-01-24 18:46 +0000
          Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-24 19:18 +0000
            Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 13:56 -0600
              Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-24 21:52 +0100
                Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 14:58 -0600
                  Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-24 23:03 +0100
                    Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 17:23 -0600
              Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-24 18:11 -0500
              Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:04 +0000
                Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 19:22 -0600
                  Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:39 +0000
                    Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-25 04:33 -0600
                Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-24 23:06 -0600
                  Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 00:15 -0500
                    Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-24 23:42 -0600
                  Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:41 +0000
                    Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-25 09:51 -0600
                      Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 10:03 -0600
                        Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-25 11:06 -0500
                        Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-25 10:54 -0600
                          Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-25 12:07 -0500
                  Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-25 05:49 -0500
                    Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-25 10:50 -0500
                Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-25 10:42 -0500
                Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-25 10:42 -0500
                Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-01-25 10:09 -0800
                  Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:00 +0000
                    Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-26 05:26 -0500
            Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-24 18:09 -0500
              Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2016-01-25 04:10 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#186562 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On 2016-01-24, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno, published this proof of the Infinite Monkey Theorem:

SNIP
>
>   Have you even followed the thread?

I think so.
There was some argument about the camera brand most used in your family 
photos.

>
>
>   And we already know what credulity to assign to your guesses.

Winchester.

-- 
♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186564 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:30:17 -0600, philo wrote:

> On 01/24/2016 12:24 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> philo wrote:
>>
>>> I did some more testing with Thumbnails disabled, then used Nautilus
>>> to copy about 1.2gigs of data, it still crashed.
>>>
>>> Tried Xfe and it worked very well, smooth and without a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tried Xfe with thumbnails enabled and it did not work so hot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bottom line is to use Xfe with thumbnails off when moving or copying
>>> data
>>>
>>> and to use Nautilus with thumbnails enable for simply viewing
>>
>> I think they just need to fix the bug.  Moving or copying when data is
>> images thumbnails is really handy and SHOULD be a viable option.
>> Nautilus people fix the bug!
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Considering that Nautilus has been around for 15 years my guess is it's
> not going to get fixed.

No that is not how things work with Linux :-)

Edmund

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186569 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On 01/24/2016 01:18 PM, Edmund wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:30:17 -0600, philo wrote:
>
>> On 01/24/2016 12:24 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> philo wrote:
>>>
>>>> I did some more testing with Thumbnails disabled, then used Nautilus
>>>> to copy about 1.2gigs of data, it still crashed.
>>>>
>>>> Tried Xfe and it worked very well, smooth and without a problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tried Xfe with thumbnails enabled and it did not work so hot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line is to use Xfe with thumbnails off when moving or copying
>>>> data
>>>>
>>>> and to use Nautilus with thumbnails enable for simply viewing
>>>
>>> I think they just need to fix the bug.  Moving or copying when data is
>>> images thumbnails is really handy and SHOULD be a viable option.
>>> Nautilus people fix the bug!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Considering that Nautilus has been around for 15 years my guess is it's
>> not going to get fixed.
>
> No that is not how things work with Linux :-)
>
> Edmund
>



Well, Linux is free so I have zero reason to complain.

That said, if one method does not work there is almost always some 
alternative that does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186572 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

Op 24-01-16 om 20:56 schreef philo:
> On 01/24/2016 01:18 PM, Edmund wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:30:17 -0600, philo wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/24/2016 12:24 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> philo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I did some more testing with Thumbnails disabled, then used Nautilus
>>>>> to copy about 1.2gigs of data, it still crashed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tried Xfe and it worked very well, smooth and without a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tried Xfe with thumbnails enabled and it did not work so hot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line is to use Xfe with thumbnails off when moving or copying
>>>>> data
>>>>>
>>>>> and to use Nautilus with thumbnails enable for simply viewing
>>>>
>>>> I think they just need to fix the bug.  Moving or copying when data is
>>>> images thumbnails is really handy and SHOULD be a viable option.
>>>> Nautilus people fix the bug!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Considering that Nautilus has been around for 15 years my guess is it's
>>> not going to get fixed.
>>
>> No that is not how things work with Linux :-)
>>
>> Edmund
>>
>
>
>
> Well, Linux is free so I have zero reason to complain.
>
> That said, if one method does not work there is almost always some
> alternative that does.

True, it has been around for quite a few years, first Koqueror and then 
Dolphin :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186575 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On 01/24/2016 02:52 PM, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
> Op 24-01-16 om 20:56 schreef philo:
>> On 01/24/2016 01:18 PM, Edmund wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:30:17 -0600, philo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/24/2016 12:24 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>>> philo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I did some more testing with Thumbnails disabled, then used Nautilus
>>>>>> to copy about 1.2gigs of data, it still crashed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tried Xfe and it worked very well, smooth and without a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tried Xfe with thumbnails enabled and it did not work so hot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bottom line is to use Xfe with thumbnails off when moving or copying
>>>>>> data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and to use Nautilus with thumbnails enable for simply viewing
>>>>>
>>>>> I think they just need to fix the bug.  Moving or copying when data is
>>>>> images thumbnails is really handy and SHOULD be a viable option.
>>>>> Nautilus people fix the bug!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Considering that Nautilus has been around for 15 years my guess is it's
>>>> not going to get fixed.
>>>
>>> No that is not how things work with Linux :-)
>>>
>>> Edmund
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, Linux is free so I have zero reason to complain.
>>
>> That said, if one method does not work there is almost always some
>> alternative that does.
>
> True, it has been around for quite a few years, first Koqueror and then
> Dolphin :)



And back then it probably was not terribly common for someone to just 
grab a 1.2 gig folder and copy it. I think my hard drive at the time was 
20 gigs total and a large folder would have been 200megs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186577 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

Op 24-01-16 om 21:58 schreef philo:
> On 01/24/2016 02:52 PM, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
>> Op 24-01-16 om 20:56 schreef philo:
>>> On 01/24/2016 01:18 PM, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:30:17 -0600, philo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/24/2016 12:24 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>>>> philo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did some more testing with Thumbnails disabled, then used Nautilus
>>>>>>> to copy about 1.2gigs of data, it still crashed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tried Xfe and it worked very well, smooth and without a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tried Xfe with thumbnails enabled and it did not work so hot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bottom line is to use Xfe with thumbnails off when moving or copying
>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and to use Nautilus with thumbnails enable for simply viewing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they just need to fix the bug.  Moving or copying when
>>>>>> data is
>>>>>> images thumbnails is really handy and SHOULD be a viable option.
>>>>>> Nautilus people fix the bug!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering that Nautilus has been around for 15 years my guess is
>>>>> it's
>>>>> not going to get fixed.
>>>>
>>>> No that is not how things work with Linux :-)
>>>>
>>>> Edmund
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Linux is free so I have zero reason to complain.
>>>
>>> That said, if one method does not work there is almost always some
>>> alternative that does.
>>
>> True, it has been around for quite a few years, first Koqueror and then
>> Dolphin :)
>
>
>
> And back then it probably was not terribly common for someone to just
> grab a 1.2 gig folder and copy it. I think my hard drive at the time was
> 20 gigs total and a large folder would have been 200megs

When I went to the Toshiba dealer for a larger than the default 2GB hard 
drive in my laptop they told me 6GB was the max.

So around the corner I knew this guy doing computer repairs from his 
garage and he mounted me a 60GB HD :)

The present D-800 takes ~100MB raw photo's and I've again upgraded.

Back on topic, I don't like icon view in the file manager, never did, I 
need to see details like size and esp. date and time.
My students get kicked when on icon view :)

As a KDE user I'm using Gwenview and I only need to press T(humbnails) 
to get an overview (or light table as it was called in the days of 
analogue).
Very similar to Irfanview.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186587 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On 01/24/2016 04:03 PM, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, Linux is free so I have zero reason to complain.
>>>>
>>>> That said, if one method does not work there is almost always some
>>>> alternative that does.
>>>
>>> True, it has been around for quite a few years, first Koqueror and then
>>> Dolphin :)
>>
>>
>>
>> And back then it probably was not terribly common for someone to just
>> grab a 1.2 gig folder and copy it. I think my hard drive at the time was
>> 20 gigs total and a large folder would have been 200megs
>
> When I went to the Toshiba dealer for a larger than the default 2GB hard
> drive in my laptop they told me 6GB was the max.
>
> So around the corner I knew this guy doing computer repairs from his
> garage and he mounted me a 60GB HD :)
>
> The present D-800 takes ~100MB raw photo's and I've again upgraded.
>
> Back on topic, I don't like icon view in the file manager, never did, I
> need to see details like size and esp. date and time.
> My students get kicked when on icon view :)
>
> As a KDE user I'm using Gwenview and I only need to press T(humbnails)
> to get an overview (or light table as it was called in the days of
> analogue).
> Very similar to Irfanview.



The computer I had back then was my (now) wife's old P-1 that came with 
an 850 meg drive. I put in a 20 meg and had to add drive overlay 
software as the BIOS would not see the whole thing.

I added RAM and dual booted Win98 and Red Hat 5.2


It took me a hell of a long time to figured out hot to even install 
Linux but I learned a hell of a lot in the process

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186584 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:56:17 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.net> Gave us:

>On 01/24/2016 01:18 PM, Edmund wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:30:17 -0600, philo wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/24/2016 12:24 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> philo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I did some more testing with Thumbnails disabled, then used Nautilus
>>>>> to copy about 1.2gigs of data, it still crashed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tried Xfe and it worked very well, smooth and without a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tried Xfe with thumbnails enabled and it did not work so hot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line is to use Xfe with thumbnails off when moving or copying
>>>>> data
>>>>>
>>>>> and to use Nautilus with thumbnails enable for simply viewing
>>>>
>>>> I think they just need to fix the bug.  Moving or copying when data is
>>>> images thumbnails is really handy and SHOULD be a viable option.
>>>> Nautilus people fix the bug!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Considering that Nautilus has been around for 15 years my guess is it's
>>> not going to get fixed.
>>
>> No that is not how things work with Linux :-)
>>
>> Edmund
>>
>
>
>
>Well, Linux is free so I have zero reason to complain.
>
>That said, if one method does not work there is almost always some 
>alternative that does.


  You just went miles over the Edmund retard's head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186591 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:56:17 -0600, philo wrote:

> On 01/24/2016 01:18 PM, Edmund wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:30:17 -0600, philo wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/24/2016 12:24 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> philo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I did some more testing with Thumbnails disabled, then used Nautilus
>>>>> to copy about 1.2gigs of data, it still crashed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tried Xfe and it worked very well, smooth and without a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tried Xfe with thumbnails enabled and it did not work so hot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line is to use Xfe with thumbnails off when moving or copying
>>>>> data
>>>>>
>>>>> and to use Nautilus with thumbnails enable for simply viewing
>>>>
>>>> I think they just need to fix the bug.  Moving or copying when data
>>>> is images thumbnails is really handy and SHOULD be a viable option.
>>>> Nautilus people fix the bug!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Considering that Nautilus has been around for 15 years my guess is
>>> it's not going to get fixed.
>>
>> No that is not how things work with Linux :-)
>>
>> Edmund
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Well, Linux is free so I have zero reason to complain.

In a way you get what you are paying for?
> 
> That said, if one method does not work there is almost always some
> alternative that does.

That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about a 
zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of incompatible 
desktop environments and most people only live 80 years or so.
That is not enough time to try them all and the number of linux releases 
grow as we speak.
THATS the way linux works, they don't fix bugs the keep coming with new 
releases with often exactly the same and a couple of new bugs.

ALL file browsers I tried fail in one way or another and sometimes both.
Unfortunately that is how it is.

Edmund

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186592 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On 01/24/2016 07:04 PM, Edmund wrote:
>
>>>>>> data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and to use Nautilus with thumbnails enable for simply viewing
>>>>>
>>>>> I think they just need to fix the bug.  Moving or copying when data
>>>>> is images thumbnails is really handy and SHOULD be a viable option.
>>>>> Nautilus people fix the bug!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Considering that Nautilus has been around for 15 years my guess is
>>>> it's not going to get fixed.
>>>
>>> No that is not how things work with Linux :-)
>>>
>>> Edmund
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, Linux is free so I have zero reason to complain.
>
> In a way you get what you are paying for?
>>
>> That said, if one method does not work there is almost always some
>> alternative that does.
>
> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about a
> zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of incompatible
> desktop environments and most people only live 80 years or so.
> That is not enough time to try them all and the number of linux releases
> grow as we speak.
> THATS the way linux works, they don't fix bugs the keep coming with new
> releases with often exactly the same and a couple of new bugs.
>
> ALL file browsers I tried fail in one way or another and sometimes both.
> Unfortunately that is how it is.
>
> Edmund
>
>
>
>


I had a problem, I found a simple solution and I move on.

Don't have the time to dwell on "what should be".

Too busy to worry about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186602 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:22:51 -0600, philo wrote:

> On 01/24/2016 07:04 PM, Edmund wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and to use Nautilus with thumbnails enable for simply viewing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they just need to fix the bug.  Moving or copying when data
>>>>>> is images thumbnails is really handy and SHOULD be a viable option.
>>>>>> Nautilus people fix the bug!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Considering that Nautilus has been around for 15 years my guess is
>>>>> it's not going to get fixed.
>>>>
>>>> No that is not how things work with Linux :-)
>>>>
>>>> Edmund
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Linux is free so I have zero reason to complain.
>>
>> In a way you get what you are paying for?
>>>
>>> That said, if one method does not work there is almost always some
>>> alternative that does.
>>
>> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about a
>> zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of incompatible
>> desktop environments and most people only live 80 years or so.
>> That is not enough time to try them all and the number of linux
>> releases grow as we speak.
>> THATS the way linux works, they don't fix bugs the keep coming with new
>> releases with often exactly the same and a couple of new bugs.
>>
>> ALL file browsers I tried fail in one way or another and sometimes
>> both.
>> Unfortunately that is how it is.
>>
>> Edmund
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> I had a problem, I found a simple solution and I move on.

Your solution is as you told us - not using an option - that isn't a 
solution its a workaround at best.
> 
> Don't have the time to dwell on "what should be".
> 
> Too busy to worry about it.

Thats what I do, find something that is workable and go on but that 
doesn't make me blind for those shortcomings.
Your remark that Nautilus is around for 15 years so it not likely going 
to get fixed, is spot on. I tried before I made bug reports more then 10 
years ago, there are others confirming the same, do you think it is fixed 
even now? Nope,! but we have 25 or so more linux releases :-)
 Yes I know failing packages, missing repositories "has nothing to do" 
with the zillion linux releases, never mind that IF there was only ONE 
linux release with perfectly working software nobody in his right mind 
would want another 200 releases with none working software.

Edmund

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186604 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On 01/25/2016 02:39 AM, Edmund wrote:
> O
>>>
>>> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about a
>>> zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of incompatible
>>> desktop environments and most people only live 80 years or so.
>>> That is not enough time to try them all and the number of linux
>>> releases grow as we speak.
>>> THATS the way linux works, they don't fix bugs the keep coming with new
>>> releases with often exactly the same and a couple of new bugs.
>>>
>>> ALL file browsers I tried fail in one way or another and sometimes
>>> both.
>>> Unfortunately that is how it is.
>>>
>>> Edmund
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I had a problem, I found a simple solution and I move on.
>
> Your solution is as you told us - not using an option - that isn't a
> solution its a workaround at best.
>>
>> Don't have the time to dwell on "what should be".
>>
>> Too busy to worry about it.
>
> Thats what I do, find something that is workable and go on but that
> doesn't make me blind for those shortcomings.
> Your remark that Nautilus is around for 15 years so it not likely going
> to get fixed, is spot on. I tried before I made bug reports more then 10
> years ago, there are others confirming the same, do you think it is fixed
> even now? Nope,! but we have 25 or so more linux releases :-)
>   Yes I know failing packages, missing repositories "has nothing to do"
> with the zillion linux releases, never mind that IF there was only ONE
> linux release with perfectly working software nobody in his right mind
> would want another 200 releases with none working software.
>
> Edmund
>
>
>
Bottom line: Linux is free and huge portions of it work better than the 
"paid for" operating systems....so if one small portion is not quite 
right...who am I to complain?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186599 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:04:36 -0000 (UTC)
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about a 
> zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of incompatible 
> desktop environments

You're spouting nonsense again.  Name us just /two/ of those
incompatible desktop environments and describe how they
are incompatible.

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User (deprecated) # 2136

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186600 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:04:36 -0000 (UTC)
> Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about a
>> zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of incompatible
>> desktop environments
>
> You're spouting nonsense again.  Name us just /two/ of those
> incompatible desktop environments and describe how they
> are incompatible.

Windows and anything else
OSX and anything else

;-)

-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186601 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 00:15:10 -0500
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:

> Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:04:36 -0000 (UTC)
> > Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about
> >> a zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of
> >> incompatible desktop environments  
> >
> > You're spouting nonsense again.  Name us just /two/ of those
> > incompatible desktop environments and describe how they
> > are incompatible.  
> 
> Windows and anything else
> OSX and anything else
> 
> ;-)
> 
So true.  They aren't even compatible with their own prior or later
releases.

Linux, of course, does have several desktop environments and they don't
share the same toolkits across all of them.  Nevertheless, they are all
'compatible' one with the other in that all programs for any one will
also run just fine on any of the others with the addition of the proper
libraries.

Old Edmund still is trotting out that dead horse argument that has
/never/ been true as far as I can tell and for as far back as I've run
Linux (going on 19 years).

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User (deprecated) # 2136

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186605 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:06:40 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:04:36 -0000 (UTC)
> Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about a
>> zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of incompatible
>> desktop environments
> 
> You're spouting nonsense again.  Name us just /two/ of those
> incompatible desktop environments and describe how they are
> incompatible.
> 
> Cybe R. Wizard

If you should start reading the thread for a change Mr Denial, you could 
read an beautiful example with this topic alone.

Hint Gnome KDE
Of course continuing denying each and every linux problem is so much 
easier for you since that is all you do all the time.
Have fun splitting hairs in order to deny this too.

Edmund

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186612 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:41:20 -0000 (UTC)
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:06:40 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:04:36 -0000 (UTC)
> > Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about
> >> a zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of
> >> incompatible desktop environments  
> > 
> > You're spouting nonsense again.  Name us just /two/ of those
> > incompatible desktop environments and describe how they are
> > incompatible.
> > 
> > Cybe R. Wizard  
> 
> If you should start reading the thread for a change Mr Denial, you
> could read an beautiful example with this topic alone.
> 
> Hint Gnome KDE
> Of course continuing denying each and every linux problem is so much 
> easier for you since that is all you do all the time.
> Have fun splitting hairs in order to deny this too.
> 
> Edmund

Stop trying to obfuscate that of which you have no knowledge or else
come right out and tell us what you mean.  I have both gnome and KDE
[1]. I have programs which are defaults for both.  Guess what?  All
work in either environment.  If you have other experiences trot them on
out. My guess is that you don't, but I'd love to see what you do have.

[1] ...and LXDE and Xfce4 and many window managers.  Everything (all
programs) works in each and all.

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User (deprecated) # 2136

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186613 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:51:01 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:41:20 -0000 (UTC)
> Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:06:40 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>> 
>> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:04:36 -0000 (UTC)
>> > Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >   
>> >> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about
>> >> a zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of
>> >> incompatible desktop environments  
>> > 
>> > You're spouting nonsense again.  Name us just /two/ of those
>> > incompatible desktop environments and describe how they are
>> > incompatible.
>> > 
>> > Cybe R. Wizard  
>> 
>> If you should start reading the thread for a change Mr Denial, you
>> could read an beautiful example with this topic alone.
>> 
>> Hint Gnome KDE
>> Of course continuing denying each and every linux problem is so much 
>> easier for you since that is all you do all the time.
>> Have fun splitting hairs in order to deny this too.
>> 
>> Edmund
> 
> Stop trying to obfuscate that of which you have no knowledge or else
> come right out and tell us what you mean.  I have both gnome and KDE
> [1]. I have programs which are defaults for both.  Guess what?  All
> work in either environment.  If you have other experiences trot them on
> out. My guess is that you don't, but I'd love to see what you do have.
> 
> [1] ...and LXDE and Xfce4 and many window managers.  Everything (all
> programs) works in each and all.
> 
> Cybe R. Wizard

Now you're getting as bad as Aragorn.  Clouding the issue
with facts.  Cut that out!

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186614 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:03:09 -0600, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> Gave
us:

>On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:51:01 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:41:20 -0000 (UTC)
>> Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:06:40 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>>> 
>>> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:04:36 -0000 (UTC)
>>> > Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >   
>>> >> That is hardly a workable solution for most of us, there are about
>>> >> a zillion linux releases and each version has a handful of
>>> >> incompatible desktop environments  
>>> > 
>>> > You're spouting nonsense again.  Name us just /two/ of those
>>> > incompatible desktop environments and describe how they are
>>> > incompatible.
>>> > 
>>> > Cybe R. Wizard  
>>> 
>>> If you should start reading the thread for a change Mr Denial, you
>>> could read an beautiful example with this topic alone.
>>> 
>>> Hint Gnome KDE
>>> Of course continuing denying each and every linux problem is so much 
>>> easier for you since that is all you do all the time.
>>> Have fun splitting hairs in order to deny this too.
>>> 
>>> Edmund
>> 
>> Stop trying to obfuscate that of which you have no knowledge or else
>> come right out and tell us what you mean.  I have both gnome and KDE
>> [1]. I have programs which are defaults for both.  Guess what?  All
>> work in either environment.  If you have other experiences trot them on
>> out. My guess is that you don't, but I'd love to see what you do have.
>> 
>> [1] ...and LXDE and Xfce4 and many window managers.  Everything (all
>> programs) works in each and all.
>> 
>> Cybe R. Wizard
>
>Now you're getting as bad as Aragorn.  Clouding the issue
>with facts.  Cut that out!

  Yeah...  you guys trolling the troll.  I think he is really the letter
spaced one.  Or wants to be.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186617 — Re: GUI "crash" Follow up and answer

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:03:09 -0600
Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]
> 
> Now you're getting as bad as Aragorn.  Clouding the issue
> with facts.  Cut that out!
> 
I know.

BAD Wizard!  BAD ranger!

Cybe R. Wizard -are the trolls really Orcs?
-- 
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User (deprecated) # 2136

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux.ubuntu

csiph-web