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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #161635 > unrolled thread

gufw problem

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  gufw problem Francis Gerund <ranrund@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 23:00 +0100
    Re: gufw problem Jape Person <japers@comcast.net> - 2015-12-09 02:40 +0100
      Re: gufw problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 02:50 +0100
        Re: gufw problem Francis Gerund <ranrund@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 03:30 +0100
          Re: gufw problem Jape Person <japers@comcast.net> - 2015-12-09 03:50 +0100
            Re: gufw problem Francis Gerund <ranrund@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 05:00 +0100
              Re: gufw problem Jape Person <japers@comcast.net> - 2015-12-09 05:30 +0100
                Re: gufw problem Bret Busby <bret.busby@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 06:00 +0100
                  Re: gufw problem Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-12 03:10 +0100
                    Re: gufw problem John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-12 05:20 +0100
                Re: gufw problem Sven Arvidsson <sa@whiz.se> - 2015-12-09 14:30 +0100
                  Re: gufw problem Francis Gerund <ranrund@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 20:50 +0100
                    Re: gufw problem Jape Person <japers@comcast.net> - 2015-12-10 21:00 +0100
                    Re: gufw problem Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2015-12-10 21:10 +0100
                    Re: gufw problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:40 +0100
                    Re: gufw problem Andreas Ronnquist <gusnan@openmailbox.org> - 2015-12-12 18:00 +0100
          Re: gufw problem Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-12 00:40 +0100
            Re: gufw problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 00:50 +0100
              Re: gufw problem Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-12 10:00 +0100
                Re: gufw problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 11:00 +0100

#161635 — gufw problem

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello!

I just installed Debian 8.2, 64-bit, Gnome desktop, using the netinst.iso.
Used Synaptic to install Gufw (and ufw as dependency).  Ufw works fine.

But gufw does not show in the application menu or in the favories menu of
Gnome.  The only way to run it seems to be in Gnome terminal (non-login):

        gksudo /usr/bin/gufw

But even then, as soon as the password dialog window pops up, the terminal
is showing this:

        Failed to load module "canberra-gtk-module"

But I do have libcanberra-gtk3-module, and several other libcanberra
components installed.  So, rather than messing up my system completely, has
anyone else  had this problem, and what is the correct way to solve it?

(Please don't say, "ufw is working, so what's the problem?")

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#161640

On 12/08/2015 04:57 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I just installed Debian 8.2, 64-bit, Gnome desktop, using the
> netinst.iso.  Used Synaptic to install Gufw (and ufw as dependency).
> Ufw works fine.
>
> But gufw does not show in the application menu or in the favories menu
> of Gnome.  The only way to run it seems to be in Gnome terminal (non-login):
>
>          gksudo /usr/bin/gufw
>

I can confirm that gufw doesn't show in the menu on Xfce, also. So at 
least one other desktop environment is affected.

I hadn't noticed. Installed it on a friend's system so she'd have a 
reasonably easy-to-use control for ufw. I only ever start gui apps with 
a launcher, so I didn't notice gufw's absence from the menu until I read 
your message and checked it out on her system. This is on a testing 
system, so problem hasn't been fixed yet.

> But even then, as soon as the password dialog window pops up, the
> terminal is showing this:
>
>          Failed to load module "canberra-gtk-module"
>
> But I do have libcanberra-gtk3-module, and several other libcanberra
> components installed.  So, rather than messing up my system completely,
> has anyone else  had this problem, and what is the correct way to solve it?
>
> (Please don't say, "ufw is working, so what's the problem?")
>

What happens if you just use a launcher to launch gufw and then click on 
the Unlock button on the application -- assuming that it comes up?

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

#161642

On Wednesday 09 December 2015 01:32:39 Jape Person wrote:
> On 12/08/2015 04:57 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I just installed Debian 8.2, 64-bit, Gnome desktop, using the
> > netinst.iso.  Used Synaptic to install Gufw (and ufw as dependency).
> > Ufw works fine.
> >
> > But gufw does not show in the application menu or in the favories menu
> > of Gnome.  The only way to run it seems to be in Gnome terminal
> > (non-login):
> >
> >          gksudo /usr/bin/gufw
>
> I can confirm that gufw doesn't show in the menu on Xfce, also. So at
> least one other desktop environment is affected.
>
> I hadn't noticed. Installed it on a friend's system so she'd have a
> reasonably easy-to-use control for ufw. I only ever start gui apps with
> a launcher, so I didn't notice gufw's absence from the menu until I read
> your message and checked it out on her system. This is on a testing
> system, so problem hasn't been fixed yet.
>
> > But even then, as soon as the password dialog window pops up, the
> > terminal is showing this:
> >
> >          Failed to load module "canberra-gtk-module"
> >
> > But I do have libcanberra-gtk3-module, and several other libcanberra
> > components installed.  So, rather than messing up my system completely,
> > has anyone else  had this problem, and what is the correct way to solve
> > it?
> >
> > (Please don't say, "ufw is working, so what's the problem?")
>
> What happens if you just use a launcher to launch gufw and then click on
> the Unlock button on the application -- assuming that it comes up?

What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way?

Lisi

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

#161643

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop.

When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left
corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying
glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ".  If I type in "gufw", it
just bluntly says "No results.".

But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command".  If I type
in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work.

So, yes - it does start that way.

Now, as to:
"What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way?",
maybe I am just autistic.  It just bothers me when things don't work
CORRECTLY.

I guess it just goes to show that for a lot of developers, it is more fun
to devise new "features" that "sort of" work than to fix errors and
deficiencies.

Sigh.


On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday 09 December 2015 01:32:39 Jape Person wrote:
> > On 12/08/2015 04:57 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I just installed Debian 8.2, 64-bit, Gnome desktop, using the
> > > netinst.iso.  Used Synaptic to install Gufw (and ufw as dependency).
> > > Ufw works fine.
> > >
> > > But gufw does not show in the application menu or in the favories menu
> > > of Gnome.  The only way to run it seems to be in Gnome terminal
> > > (non-login):
> > >
> > >          gksudo /usr/bin/gufw
> >
> > I can confirm that gufw doesn't show in the menu on Xfce, also. So at
> > least one other desktop environment is affected.
> >
> > I hadn't noticed. Installed it on a friend's system so she'd have a
> > reasonably easy-to-use control for ufw. I only ever start gui apps with
> > a launcher, so I didn't notice gufw's absence from the menu until I read
> > your message and checked it out on her system. This is on a testing
> > system, so problem hasn't been fixed yet.
> >
> > > But even then, as soon as the password dialog window pops up, the
> > > terminal is showing this:
> > >
> > >          Failed to load module "canberra-gtk-module"
> > >
> > > But I do have libcanberra-gtk3-module, and several other libcanberra
> > > components installed.  So, rather than messing up my system completely,
> > > has anyone else  had this problem, and what is the correct way to solve
> > > it?
> > >
> > > (Please don't say, "ufw is working, so what's the problem?")
> >
> > What happens if you just use a launcher to launch gufw and then click on
> > the Unlock button on the application -- assuming that it comes up?
>
> What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way?
>
> Lisi
>
>

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

#161644

On 12/08/2015 09:20 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
> I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop.
>
> When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left
> corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying
> glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ".  If I type in "gufw",
> it just bluntly says "No results.".
>
> But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command".  If I
> type in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work.
>
> So, yes - it does start that way.
>

Glad to hear it.

> Now, as to:
> "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way?",
> maybe I am just autistic.  It just bothers me when things don't work
> CORRECTLY.
>
> I guess it just goes to show that for a lot of developers, it is more
> fun to devise new "features" that "sort of" work than to fix errors and
> deficiencies.
>
> Sigh.
>

Check out this bug report:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681315

There's a possible solution. Apparently the application's .desktop file 
has an entry in it that prevents it from showing in any desktop 
environment except Unity.

It's actually a "feature"??? How odd.

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

#161645

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Yes!

Thank you, Jape.  This was the answer:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681315.
I guess I'm going to have to learn to hunt down (and to read) bug reports.
Ugh!

Just editing the desktop.gufw file to comment out the offending (and
offensive!) line fixed it.
It now shows up (and works) in the "Favorites" bar and the application
menu,  and I was even able to add it to the "classic" applications menu in
the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop view.

So it works in Gnome 3.  Perhaps in XFCE there is a similar configuration
file that could be edited the same way (I don't use XFCE, so I don't know).

BTW, I really think that "blocking" line in the desktop.gufw was
deliberate.  I think they knew exactly what they were doing.

Thanks again to all for the help.


On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Jape Person <japers@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 12/08/2015 09:20 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
>
>> I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop.
>>
>> When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left
>> corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying
>> glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ".  If I type in "gufw",
>> it just bluntly says "No results.".
>>
>> But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command".  If I
>> type in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work.
>>
>> So, yes - it does start that way.
>>
>>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> Now, as to:
>> "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that
>> way?",
>> maybe I am just autistic.  It just bothers me when things don't work
>> CORRECTLY.
>>
>> I guess it just goes to show that for a lot of developers, it is more
>> fun to devise new "features" that "sort of" work than to fix errors and
>> deficiencies.
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>>
> Check out this bug report:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681315
>
> There's a possible solution. Apparently the application's .desktop file
> has an entry in it that prevents it from showing in any desktop environment
> except Unity.
>
> It's actually a "feature"??? How odd.
>
>
>

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

#161646

On 12/08/2015 10:55 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
> Yes!
>
> Thank you, Jape.  This was the answer:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681315.
> I guess I'm going to have to learn to hunt down (and to read) bug
> reports.  Ugh!
>

Reading Is Fundamental (blast from the past).

When you don't know how things work, it's the man pages.

When things don't work the way they should, it's the bug reports.

If you're new to this, sit back and relax and enjoy it. It's actually a 
lot easier to solve problems like this in a GNU/Linux distribution than 
it is in something like MS Windows. I mean, for any package you find in 
Debian there are going to be man pages and bug reports, and probably 
tons of other data, too.

I look at it kind of like an adventure game with puzzles, like Myst or 
Riven (more blasts from the past).

> Just editing the desktop.gufw file to comment out the offending (and
> offensive!) line fixed it.
> It now shows up (and works) in the "Favorites" bar and the application
> menu,  and I was even able to add it to the "classic" applications menu
> in the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop view.
>
> So it works in Gnome 3.  Perhaps in XFCE there is a similar
> configuration file that could be edited the same way (I don't use XFCE,
> so I don't know).
>

Yes, I tested the solution in Xfce before I posted it. But I thought 
you'd have to test it in Gnome before we could be absolutely certain it 
would work there.

> BTW, I really think that "blocking" line in the desktop.gufw was
> deliberate.  I think they knew exactly what they were doing.
>

Yes, of course. That line didn't write itself. I think it's really odd, 
too, but I'm sure that whoever is responsible for it thought that there 
was a good reason.

The package was actually developed under Ubuntu, if I remember 
correctly. Maybe there was a difference in the way menus are handled 
under the various desktop environments in Debian and Ubuntu. I wouldn't 
know. The last time I touched Ubuntu was a long time before Unity came 
along.

> Thanks again to all for the help.
>
>

Just as a matter of etiquette for this mailing list, I thought I'd 
mention a couple of things.

1. It's best not to reply directly to another user's e-mail address -- 
unless that user has specifically requested to be CC'd. Most people who 
post here subscribe to the list, so they will receive any response you 
make to the debian-user list. If you send to the list and to them, they 
get two copies of each message.

Many mail clients and browser-based mail systems (like gmail) make it 
too easy to respond accidentally to a personal e-mail address instead of 
to the list address. It happens by accident all the time. But it's 
something you might want to avoid, if you can.

2. When replying, it's also usually considered best on this list (and on 
many other technical lists) to user interleaved reply format -- like the 
way I've been replying to you.

It may take a bit of practice to get the quoting down right when 
replying in this manner. Editing and interleaving can mess up 
attribution of what was said and who said it, so you do have to be 
careful. But it's considered to be the best way to communicate on this 
list. That's because you can respond to each specific point made by 
another person with your own point in close proximity. That makes it 
easy for other readers to get the context of your points.

If you examine your reply carefully before sending you should be able to 
see whether or not your editing and interleaving have messed up any of 
the context.

----

I'm glad you got this sorted out. I was pleased to be able to help a little.

Best regards,
JP

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

#161647

On 09/12/2015, Jape Person <japers@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>

>
> Just as a matter of etiquette for this mailing list, I thought I'd
> mention a couple of things.
>
> 1. It's best not to reply directly to another user's e-mail address --
> unless that user has specifically requested to be CC'd. Most people who
> post here subscribe to the list, so they will receive any response you
> make to the debian-user list. If you send to the list and to them, they
> get two copies of each message.
>
> Many mail clients and browser-based mail systems (like gmail) make it
> too easy to respond accidentally to a personal e-mail address instead of
> to the list address. It happens by accident all the time. But it's
> something you might want to avoid, if you can.
>

Simplest way to deal with this, when replying to a mailing list
message, is selecting the "Reply To All" option (in both gmail, and in
PINE/ALPINE), cutting the list email address from the CC field, and,
pasting it over (so as to replace) the email address of the poster of
the message to which the reply is being made.

It is always better, when a mailing list is configured, so that
replies default to the list, but, when that is not configured, I have
found the above method, to be the way to deal with it.

> 2. When replying, it's also usually considered best on this list (and on
> many other technical lists) to user interleaved reply format -- like the
> way I've been replying to you.
>

Also, I believe, named "Inline Posting".

"Top posting" - posting before the message to which a reply is made,
so as to cause absolute confusion as to what exactly, a person is
replying, and, so that people reading the message are not inclined to
read to what the reply is being made, so that the reply is read out of
context, so as to cause maximum confusion.

"Bottom posting" posting after the message to which the reply is made,
so that people who are reading the reply, if they are worth anything,
will read the message to which the reply is made, before reading the
reply that is made, so that the reply is read in the context of the
message to which the reply is made. This message is best, when the
reply is made to the whole of the message, rather than individual
replies to individual points within the message to which the reply is
made.

"Inline posting" - where replies to individual points within a
message, are inserted immediately after the points to which the
individual replies are made. Very useful for that purpose.

"tolerance" - where people who use a different posting method , to
another person, and, tolerate the other person's method, even though
the person believes the person's method to be better and more
appropriate.

"bigotry" = intolerance of something that is different to the bigot -
where some bright spark decides to start a stupid argument about which
posting method should be applied, to the exclusion of all else (this
DOES NOT apply to the poster of the message above, who, to me, is
merely suggesting the contextual benefit of inline posting, rather
than dogmatically insisting that a particular method should be used
exclusively, simply because it is the way of a bigot)

These are simply my opinions and experience, and, others may have
different opinions, and, we should be tolerant of those who are
different to us, while, as above, suggesting (and, not insisting) what
may be a better implementation (although, some may say that what I
posted above, is, maybe, not so tolerant, but, I will not argue the
point, beyond what I have said here).

-- 

Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia

..............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
 you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
 Chapter 28 of Book 1 of
 "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
 A Trilogy In Four Parts",
 written by Douglas Adams,
 published by Pan Books, 1992

....................................................

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

#161707

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 12:53:09PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> 
> "Bottom posting" posting after the message to which the reply is made,
> so that people who are reading the reply, if they are worth anything,
> will read the message to which the reply is made, before reading the
> reply that is made, so that the reply is read in the context of the
> message to which the reply is made. This message is best, when the
> reply is made to the whole of the message, rather than individual
> replies to individual points within the message to which the reply is
> made.

I reckon bottom posting is worse than top posting if the poster doesn't
trim anything.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

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

#161708

Chris Bannister writes:
> I reckon bottom posting is worse than top posting if the poster doesn't
> trim anything.

I agree.  When I open a message and see only quoted material I just
delete it and go on.  I don't understand what's so damn difficult about
deleting a few lines.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#161653

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 23:27 -0500, Jape Person wrote:
> > BTW, I really think that "blocking" line in the desktop.gufw was
> > deliberate.  I think they knew exactly what they were doing.
> > 
> 
> Yes, of course. That line didn't write itself. I think it's really
> odd, 
> too, but I'm sure that whoever is responsible for it thought that
> there 
> was a good reason.
> 
> The package was actually developed under Ubuntu, if I remember 
> correctly. Maybe there was a difference in the way menus are handled 
> under the various desktop environments in Debian and Ubuntu. I
> wouldn't 
> know. The last time I touched Ubuntu was a long time before Unity
> came 
> along.

That line is not really so mysterious. It's quite common for an
application made for, say GNOME, to have OnlyShowIn=GNOME if there is a
similar application in other desktop environments.

In this case it's probably just a leftover from the defaults in Ubuntu,
in a package that seems to be badly in need of some love from the
maintainer. 

-- 
Cheers,
Sven Arvidsson
http://www.whiz.se
PGP Key ID 6FAB5CD5

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

#161680

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

[re:  "Most people who post here subscribe to the list, so they will
receive any response you make to the debian-user list. If you send to the
list and to them, they get two copies of each message."]



Just a note on email addressing:

I was using gmail, with it's built-in interface.  Although the default
reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically adds
the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in addition to
ALSO replying to the whole list.

If I don't remember to manually edit the "send to" address line, someone
gets an extra treat in their inbox.

If anyones does get this sent to their own address in addition to the one
sent to the list, please say so on the list, so that I will know and try to
find some way to fix it "automatically".

Sorry.

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

#161683

On 12/10/2015 02:43 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
> [re:  "Most people who post here subscribe to the list, so they will
> receive any response you make to the debian-user list. If you send to the
> list and to them, they get two copies of each message."]
>
>
>
> Just a note on email addressing:
>
> I was using gmail, with it's built-in interface.  Although the default
> reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically adds
> the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in addition to
> ALSO replying to the whole list.
>
> If I don't remember to manually edit the "send to" address line, someone
> gets an extra treat in their inbox.
>
> If anyones does get this sent to their own address in addition to the one
> sent to the list, please say so on the list, so that I will know and try to
> find some way to fix it "automatically".
>
> Sorry.
>

No apology needed. As I said before, it happens all the time. I 
mentioned it because I wasn't sure whether or not you knew that you had 
CC'd me.

Best regards,
JP

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

#161684

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:43:00 -0500
Francis Gerund <ranrund@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Francis,

>reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically
>adds the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in
>addition to ALSO replying to the whole list.

That's what "Reply All" means - send the reply to all valid addresses.
What you need, and gmail doesn't have IIRC, is a "Reply to List" option.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
He looked the wrong way at a policeman
I Predict A Riot - Kaiser Chiefs

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

#161697

On Thursday 10 December 2015 19:43:00 Francis Gerund wrote:
> I was using gmail, with it's built-in interface.  Although the default
> reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically adds
> the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in addition to
> ALSO replying to the whole list.
>
> If I don't remember to manually edit the "send to" address line, someone
> gets an extra treat in their inbox.

One of the many "joys" - and irritants - of the Gmail interface.  You are 
using the only way I have come across of replying to list only from Gmail.

I solve it by using an email client.   And still manage to make mistakes!!

Lisi

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

#161713

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:43:00 -0500
Francis Gerund <ranrund@gmail.com> wrote:

>[re:  "Most people who post here subscribe to the list, so they will
>receive any response you make to the debian-user list. If you send to
>the list and to them, they get two copies of each message."]
>
>
>
>Just a note on email addressing:
>
>I was using gmail, with it's built-in interface.  Although the default
>reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically
>adds the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in
>addition to ALSO replying to the whole list.
>
>If I don't remember to manually edit the "send to" address line,
>someone gets an extra treat in their inbox.
>
>If anyones does get this sent to their own address in addition to the
>one sent to the list, please say so on the list, so that I will know
>and try to find some way to fix it "automatically".
>

This has been discussed with google, but they don't seem very eager to
fix the problem at all.

Some fruitless discussions can be found here:

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/-Lc4hn9DuJg/1G3eqiEYJ6AJ

/Andreas
gusnan.mailinglists@openmailbox.org

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

#161704

[PLease don't top post.]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:20:38PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
> I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop.
> 
> When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left
> corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying
> glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ".  If I type in "gufw", it
> just bluntly says "No results.".
> 
> But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command".  If I type
> in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work.
> 
> So, yes - it does start that way.
> 
> Now, as to:
> "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way?",
> maybe I am just autistic.  It just bothers me when things don't work
> CORRECTLY.

Me too, that's why I stopped using Gnome. (Disclaimer: Maybe things have changed
since then.)

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

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

#161705

On Friday 11 December 2015 23:33:52 Chris Bannister wrote:
> [PLease don't top post.]
>
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:20:38PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
> > I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop.
> >
> > When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left
> > corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying
> > glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ".  If I type in "gufw",
> > it just bluntly says "No results.".
> >
> > But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command".  If I type
> > in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work.
> >
> > So, yes - it does start that way.
> >
> > Now, as to:
> > "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that
> > way?", maybe I am just autistic.  It just bothers me when things don't
> > work CORRECTLY.
>
> Me too, that's why I stopped using Gnome. (Disclaimer: Maybe things have
> changed since then.)

Why is using the menu the correct way?

Lisi

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

#161710

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:49:19PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2015 23:33:52 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:20:38PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:

[...]

> > > "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that
> > > way?", maybe I am just autistic.  It just bothers me when things don't
> > > work CORRECTLY.
> >
> > Me too, that's why I stopped using Gnome. (Disclaimer: Maybe things have
> > changed since then.)
> 
> Why is using the menu the correct way?

To clarify, my post. I wasn't explicitly referring to the 
'use of a menu' but the phrase 'It just bothers me when things don't
work CORRECTLY.', and by correctly, I mean 'the way I expect, seems
logical to me, ...' 

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

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

#161712

On Saturday 12 December 2015 08:49:51 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:49:19PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Friday 11 December 2015 23:33:52 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:20:38PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that
> > > > way?", maybe I am just autistic.  It just bothers me when things
> > > > don't work CORRECTLY.
> > >
> > > Me too, that's why I stopped using Gnome. (Disclaimer: Maybe things
> > > have changed since then.)
> >
> > Why is using the menu the correct way?
>
> To clarify, my post. I wasn't explicitly referring to the
> 'use of a menu' but the phrase 'It just bothers me when things don't
> work CORRECTLY.', and by correctly, I mean 'the way I expect, seems
> logical to me, ...'

Ah!!  So the *launcher* is the correct way, ;-)  After all, I never use the 
menu.  So gfw works "correctly".  Glad we have sorted that out. ;-)

I must remember that "correctly" is a subjective word.  I suppose it is bound 
to be. ;-)

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web