Image 01
profile-image

demom

Tommy Brander
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

Well, first the obvious:
have you compiled and installed the aurora-library? That should make the trick =)

Else, what is the path? - Sep 08 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

Is this a problem? Does it affect aurora-panel in any way? That disabling test means that it couldn't find the user menu at (homedir)/.config/menus/applications.menu. Thats all. It should be runnable even without that. - Aug 20 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

Hi again.

Okey, I searched the net after this, and what I found out was that it's the sources that has it's creation dates set in the future. 'Touch' every file, and you should be in the clear. - Aug 20 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

This is a really odd problem.

Either, you don't have glibmm (and that's really odd, since it should have shown up earlier) or you don't have the right version of glibmm. Make sure you have the latest (stable) version... If the problem it still not solved, give me your versions of glib and glibmm and I shall look into it. - Jul 24 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

Okey, thanks for the bug report.

This is because the applications.menu file is not detrected på aurora-panel. it's probably in /etc/xdg/menus. Symlink it to /usr/etc/xdg/menus and it will solve this problem. - Jul 24 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

thanks for that input =) - Jul 11 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

Hmm... What you write is interesting, but in many cases are you wrong. Why? (Late answer)

Starters: It's helluva easier to start writing something on your own that to jupt into a project that's already has alot of developers. I think.

Second: It's not supposed to be a Windows-clone. I created Aurora because of something neither KDE nor GNOME could give me - a beutiful and intuitive desktop. They're just ugly as hell, at least in their default setups. I think.

Third: What you are describing with the missing Linux drivers is a bad circle - you say that we don't have to spend time creating an easy to use DE because there is no drivers. Well, why is there so few drivers? Because the companies making the hardware don't think it's worth the trouble porting them to another platform. Why? Because Linux is'nt adjusted to the masses, those who don't know how to use it. How come? There is no userfirendly desktop on Linux. Follow me?

Forth: You say that you have spend five years working on GNU/Linux, writing user manuals and such... stuff. But somehow you missed the meaning with Open Source - which is not to have ome or two big players but a helluva lot of small players.

Fifth: When I created Aurora it was a design job. I posted it here to get responses from graphics nerds =).

And last: Constructive critic is the bomb, dude. Negative critics is just lame. Shut up or shut down. - Jul 09 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

TRhis will be fixed (I hope) in the new release. - Jul 09 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

It has not died, not at all. This is my pet project, but I also have alot of other stuff to do. Updates will be irregular (for now) but I tries to answer all messages and emails I get. - Jul 09 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

I will check this out. Thanks for the feedback. - Jun 19 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

I kan post screenshots after the weekend, and in english. These are in swedish. - Jun 18 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

I don't think that these requests are any probs to implement.Both are quite simple, but currently I'm quite busy. Perhaps during the next weekend. - Jun 16 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

I have my facts right, I already know that it's dual-licensed. When I started to code on Linux I did so with Qt. So I'm very well aware of that. But that's not what I meant.

I just think it's a crazy idea - totally absurd, actually - to force software developers to buy a license to use a damn toolkit, especially when there already are several really good and free toolkits around. What if Microsoft charged software developers to design applications for their platform?

The Linux community needs software companies to develop apps for the platform and though I'm not 100% sure of this, most of these companies uses GTK+ to develop and not Qt (although I'm aware of some Qt-based commercial software).

That are, just as I, scared off by it's dual-licensing. But all of this is just my opinion. - Jun 14 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

I think that I understand your idea, but there is one big problem (not really a problem with the UI, though) and that is that it's just not intuitive enough. I don't fully agree with you that making them more reality-like will make them more easy to use.

But I don't say that I dislikes your ideas, some of them are relly good. Specially the application-group thingy, I have wondered some about that myself. Thw problem with me, being the fact that I'm currently not writing a Window Manager, is that this are issues I can't control. This is stuff handled by the Window Manager.

The meaning behind the desktop environment I'm writing is something crucial in Linux - that the user shall be focused doing his/her work and not toying or configuring the system. To make the DE as simple and easy to use as possible. - Jun 13 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

I don't know if I missunderstood you, but isn't there already such UI:s? NextSTEP, Enlightenment? - Jun 13 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

I use GTK+, don't like Qt - maybe because it's not free software?

The image viewer I made myself, it's a mini-replica of the one in Windows XP- It's also made with Gtk+ - or more exactly gtkmm, since I prefer C++ over C (the same with Aurora).

If you want to, I can beutify the code and put it up on gnomefiles.org. - Jun 13 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

Hi

Sure, I'm definetly interested. Give me the adress =) - Jun 12 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

GNOME sucks!

No, not really, it's just too damn big. It has grown to be all too complex. The GNOME developers forgot about the ever-important KISS.

And I don't really think they taken the best from every UI. If so, from where comes Nautilus? It's slow, and the new spatial mode don't exactly simplifies file-browsing. And the file-selector is even worse.

But still, I prefer GNOME over KDE =) - Jun 11 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

Dunno if you read my post or my responses, but I have stated before that this is just an working model and that I don't want to clone any other UI. I'm asking for help just because of that.

I repeat; I want a Linux look, not a Windows or MaxOS look.

Best regards, Tommy - Jun 07 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

Hi

Why not create a Linux GUI? Not Windows or OSX, not KDE, or GNOME, since they're both more or less clones, and since everything else on Linux is either too complex or too different.

Wouldn't that be something? - Jun 06 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

Yeah.

I'm not out to copy another GUI, my goal is to create a simple and attractive GUI for Linux users and newcomers. I don't really like either GNOME or KDE (but GNOME is better than KDE, mostly because GTK+ is OSS).

I mean, OSX and Windows has their looks, but both KDE and GNOME are clones of the both. And all other DE's are either too difficult to use or not tha intuitive.

I'm not against taking the good parts, but I don't want it to be a clone. For example, I'm not going to implement panel applets, since I think that's not very intuitive and easy to use. My two goals is KISS and nice looking. - Jun 06 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

I have no source out yet, since it needs some imprivements (i18n isn't 100% implemented yet), but if you want to test it out I might be able to do a test-release in the end of the week.

If I get it ready until that, that is :) - Jun 05 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

I'm not taking the credit for this. It's heavily based on a Windows XP-theme which I don't remember the name of. I used just for the developing phase.

But thanks anyway :) - Jun 05 2005
Aurora Desktop Environment

Various Gnome Stuff by demom 72 comments

This is a start. Planned additions are: (simple) session manager, file browser (i don't like where nautilus is going) control panel a lá OSX amongst other. - Jun 05 2005
Baghira

KDE 3.5 Themes by thomas12777 1262 comments

Hi all

I've got an error compiling both Baghira .4a and .4b, that did not appear when I compiled .4 or any earlier version of Baghira. Here is the last rows of the output:


.libs/optionHandler.o(.text+0x231f): In function `OptionHandler::createShadowWindows(QPopupMenu const*, PopupStuff*, int)':
: undefined reference to `vtable for (anonymous namespace)::ShadowElements'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [baghira.la] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/pak/baghira-0.4b/style'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/pak/baghira-0.4b'
make: *** [all] Error 2


anyone knows what I need to do to compile Baghira? I run Slackware 10.0 with gcc 3.3.4.

I just love Baghira, even if I don't use neither the striped nor the brush metal versions. I just love the widgets. Keep up the good work! - Jul 12 2004
KDE Kicker Menu

Various KDE 1.-4. Improvements by demom 17 comments

The thing is that kickermenu is nothing like the OSX menubar. It's a replacement for the K Menu button, ad nothing else. - Jun 11 2004
KDE Kicker Menu

Various KDE 1.-4. Improvements by demom 17 comments

Thank you :)

Yes, that was my intentions. I am so tired of this Windows 95:ish look that KDE drags along. It's the only thing I think is better on Gnome, because while they do have a Gnome menu button, they are also implementing it as a menu.

It's already a kicker applet (sorry but I forgot to mention that - will update the text), made on Slackware 9.1, which is a pretty standard linux distro, so it should be compileable on all distros, or on most of them, at least. - Jun 11 2004
KDE Kicker Menu

Various KDE 1.-4. Improvements by demom 17 comments

Well, for starters, this menu (kcikermenu) implements the K Menu, aka the KDE program menu which houses all programs and also different other options.

No other menu in KDE (that is, kickerapplets) has this functionality (at least what I know of). The nearest one should come is the K Menu button.

Actually, this menu is aimed at being nothing else than a K Menu button replacement, but does not implement all of it features yet. But it is planned, together with some other minor features...

Even if it is version 1.0 (it's been in development for two months now), it's not feature-finished yet. Or so I think. - Jun 11 2004
KDE Kicker Menu

Various KDE 1.-4. Improvements by demom 17 comments

In what way do you think that the kicker is able to insert the K Menu in a menubar? Not in any way that I've come across. And that don't matter. I did it for myself and not for anyone else, I've been using it for some months now, I just thought that perhaps there was someone else wanting just this particular thing. - Jun 11 2004