From: Greg S. <gs...@fr...> - 2001-10-23 19:44:04
|
Hello, Here is one that would make customizing things a little more efficient. For the drag/drop dialog for assigning icons, the ability to drop any file (not just xpms), and have rox use the same icon that file is using, whether it be from globicons, an AppDir, or MimeType (and of course use the icon itself if you are dropping an image) For example, if I want my 'multimedia_data' folder to use the same icon already assigned to my 'View_Something" AppDir, I would bring up the 'set icon' dialog for 'multimedia_data' and then drag the "View_Something" appdir to it. Wouldn't that be slick? I like this idea a lot better than bookmarks too :) -- Greg -- Greg Spath gs...@fr... http://freefall.homeip.net/ Greg on freefall.homeip.net, port 6667, #mtb fr33f411 on AIM |
From: <amd...@us...> - 2003-04-02 14:09:51
|
It's only a minor detail, but with ROX-Session, it seems there is a layer over the actual root window on which the background will be displayed. This is fine until one tries to use a transparent window (such as an Aterm window), and the background it sees is the root background. Perhaps if the default background for ROX-Session were transparent and the wallpaper chooser used xsetroot or some such method, it would alleviate this problem. |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2003-04-02 14:22:56
|
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:03:13AM -0600, amd...@us... wrote: > It's only a minor detail, but with ROX-Session, it seems there is a > layer over the actual root window on which the background will be > displayed. This is fine until one tries to use a transparent window > (such as an Aterm window), and the background it sees is the root > background. Perhaps if the default background for ROX-Session were > transparent and the wallpaper chooser used xsetroot or some such method, > it would alleviate this problem. Works with gnome-terminal, and others. Suggest asking the aterm people for help. Also, please read the FAQ before posting questions. Thanks. -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Matthew W. O. <wei...@gr...> - 2003-04-02 14:58:50
|
-- amd...@us... <amd...@us...> wrote (on Wednesday, 02 April 2003, 08:03 AM -0600): > It's only a minor detail, but with ROX-Session, it seems there is a > layer over the actual root window on which the background will be > displayed. This is fine until one tries to use a transparent window > (such as an Aterm window), and the background it sees is the root > background. Perhaps if the default background for ROX-Session were > transparent and the wallpaper chooser used xsetroot or some such > method, it would alleviate this problem. Interesting -- I use aterm every day, and have no problems with transparency; the pinboard, as far as I know (and as far as my applications are concerned), sets the root window. What window manager are you using? and are you running a pinboard with ROX? -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney ma...@we... http://matthew.weierophinney.net |
From: Alain S. <sa...@pt...> - 2003-04-02 16:05:01
|
This has nothing to do with ROX-Session, it depends on the wm you use. You should try the following, this should normally work: - try executing "Esetroot -s {your wallpaper}" . Esetroot is included with Eterm, the terminal application of the Enlightenment desktop (Eterm can be installed without Enlightenment). - If this works then put it somewhere where it is always launched after your window manager, most wms have a special option for this purpose. If not, you might try creating a script and put it in {ROX-Session Path}/Autostart. Hope this helps, Alain (P.S.: I'm using ATerm, and once you have put this line at an appropriate location, it works with every window manager) On Wednesday 02 April 2003 16:03, amd...@us... wrote: > It's only a minor detail, but with ROX-Session, it seems there is a layer > over the actual root window on which the background will be displayed. > This is fine until one tries to use a transparent window (such as an Aterm > window), and the background it sees is the root background. Perhaps if the > default background for ROX-Session were transparent and the wallpaper > chooser used xsetroot or some such method, it would alleviate this problem. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: > Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! > No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server > http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > rox-devel mailing list > rox...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rox-devel |
From: la le <di...@ya...> - 2004-10-27 18:40:56
|
hello i was wondering if you guys and gals could possibly add optional support for executing files based on there magic number, as there's plenty of files that have incorrect extensions, or no extentions at all ... or at least a a way to set a default application to use for all (or all that don't have a run application already set) types of files, that way another program can choose what program to run file X with (or is there already a way to set defaults for something like this?) _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com |
From: Jaap K. <j.g...@st...> - 2004-10-27 19:57:03
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:40:49 -0700 (PDT) la le <di...@ya...> wrote: > hello > > i was wondering if you guys and gals could possibly > add optional support for executing files based on > there magic number, as there's plenty of files that > have incorrect extensions, or no extentions at all ... This is something the mime-info spec (freedesktop.org) should address. If I remember correctly they have a number of magic number rules that have a priority higher then the extension checks. Anyway this is a discussion for the freedesktop mailing list me thinks. > or at least a a way to set a default application to > use for all (or all that don't have a run application > already set) types of files, that way another program > can choose what program to run file X with (or is > there already a way to set defaults for something like this?) Did you try the "Send to" feature ? -- ) ( Jaap Karssenberg || Pardus [Larus] | |0| | : : http://pardus-larus.student.utwente.nl/~pardus | | |0| ) \ / ( |0|0|0| ",.*'*.," Proud owner of "Perl6 Essentials" 1st edition :) wannabe |
From: Matthew W. O'P. <mat...@ga...> - 2004-10-27 20:39:45
|
-- la le <di...@ya...> wrote (on Wednesday, 27 October 2004, 11:40 AM -0700): > i was wondering if you guys and gals could possibly > add optional support for executing files based on > there magic number, as there's plenty of files that > have incorrect extensions, or no extentions at all ... I believe that ROX is setup to look first at the extension, then at the magic number. I know from experience that, for instance, if you look at the .DirIcon file in an AppDir, you'll see the correct MIME type -- and that file doesn't contain the proper extension. > or at least a a way to set a default application to > use for all (or all that don't have a run application > already set) types of files, that way another program > can choose what program to run file X with (or is > there already a way to set defaults for something like this?) Try right-clicking on a file and selecting either "Set run action..." or "Send To..." :-) -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney | mailto:ma...@ga... Webmaster and IT Specialist | http://www.garden.org National Gardening Association | http://www.kidsgardening.com 802-863-5251 x156 | http://nationalgardenmonth.org |
From: Stephen W. <st...@ke...> - 2004-10-27 21:30:36
|
"Matthew Weier O'Phinney" <mat...@ga...> wrote: > -- la le <di...@ya...> wrote > (on Wednesday, 27 October 2004, 11:40 AM -0700): > > i was wondering if you guys and gals could possibly > > add optional support for executing files based on > > there magic number, as there's plenty of files that > > have incorrect extensions, or no extentions at all ... > > I believe that ROX is setup to look first at the extension, then at the > magic number. I know from experience that, for instance, if you look at > the .DirIcon file in an AppDir, you'll see the correct MIME type -- and > that file doesn't contain the proper extension. No, it doesn't check the file contents at all. Too slow. The filer installs a special mapping for .DirIcon. -- Stephen Watson http://www.kerofin.demon.co.uk/ If you read this on a mailing list, send any reply back to the list and not to me. Not even CC. |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2004-10-28 09:13:15
|
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:30:32PM +0100, Stephen Watson wrote: > "Matthew Weier O'Phinney" <mat...@ga...> wrote: > > > -- la le <di...@ya...> wrote > > (on Wednesday, 27 October 2004, 11:40 AM -0700): > > > i was wondering if you guys and gals could possibly > > > add optional support for executing files based on > > > there magic number, as there's plenty of files that > > > have incorrect extensions, or no extentions at all ... > > > > I believe that ROX is setup to look first at the extension, then at the > > magic number. I know from experience that, for instance, if you look at > > the .DirIcon file in an AppDir, you'll see the correct MIME type -- and > > that file doesn't contain the proper extension. > > No, it doesn't check the file contents at all. Too slow. The filer > installs a special mapping for .DirIcon. 2.1.4 can check file contents too, but you need to compile with gnomevfs-2.8.0 or later. Contents are always checked after names (we match on whole names, not just extensions, so 'Makefile' works too, etc). I'd like to make it a bit more flexible in future (eg, allow contents matching to be turned off even if you have gnomevfs, and do the binding to gnomevfs at runtime, not compile time, for better binary compatibility). Also, it could be made more efficient (I think we check names twice at present). -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net tal at ecs.soton.ac.uk tal197 at users.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Jonatan L. <th...@ho...> - 2004-11-12 23:40:31
|
Something I have wanted for long time is the ability to "do something" (SendTo) to the current directory. It could be as simple as include a "." dir entry in the filer windows. This could be optional if someone think it's clutter. /Jonatan -=( http://kymatica.com )=- |
From: Matthew W. O'P. <mwe...@gm...> - 2004-11-13 02:27:06
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:42:56 -0200, Jonatan Liljedahl <th...@ho...> wrote: > Something I have wanted for long time is the ability to "do something" > (SendTo) to the current directory. > > It could be as simple as include a "." dir entry in the filer windows. > This could be optional if someone think it's clutter. I would like this feature as well. While it's fairly easy to go up to the parent directory, select the directory and do the SendTo, it would be nice if selecting SendTo while no items were selected in the window would affect the directory. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney mwe...@gm... http://weierophinney.net/matthew/ |
From: <pi...@wg...> - 2004-11-13 13:12:58
|
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:42:56AM -0200, Jonatan Liljedahl wrote: > Something I have wanted for long time is the ability to "do something" > (SendTo) to the current directory. > > It could be as simple as include a "." dir entry in the filer windows. > This could be optional if someone think it's clutter. I'd also like this. Especially because it would enlarge the space that counts for a drop event to the displayed directory. If you enable popup windows during drag events and make windows always resizing, it often happens that a window with an even number of items pops up while dragging. If your target is a 2 rows with 3 items window, some training is required to drop into the uncharted territories. cheers, peter. |
From: Tristan Mc L. <the...@gm...> - 2004-11-16 01:38:32
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:42:56 -0200, Jonatan Liljedahl <th...@ho...> wrote: > Something I have wanted for long time is the ability to "do something" > (SendTo) to the current directory. My long-standing preferred option would be to have a menu somewhere that brought up the the 'file' menu for the current window. For instance, the window manager might have an icon representing the current item (as in frex the Windows 95+/NT4+ window manager), except that rather than pulling down a menu for window operations, It would pull up the ROX-Filer's file menu for the icon with all the usuals. Perhaps 'Copy' and 'Move' would be renamed as 'Save As' and 'Save' (in text editors and the like). Perhaps even the icon would be drag-and-droppable so you could easily send it to an archive. Unfortunately, it's such a complicated relationship between the Filer and the window manager and the program that I imagine hell will freeze over twice before it happens... But it would be *very nice* if it could be done. -- Tristan |
From: Jonatan L. <th...@ho...> - 2004-11-16 02:42:07
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:38:28 +1100 Tristan Mc Leay <the...@gm...> wrote: > On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:42:56 -0200, Jonatan Liljedahl <th...@ho...> > wrote: > > Something I have wanted for long time is the ability to "do > > something"(SendTo) to the current directory. > > My long-standing preferred option would be to have a menu somewhere > that brought up the the 'file' menu for the current window. > > For instance, the window manager might have an icon representing the > current item (as in frex the Windows 95+/NT4+ window manager), except > that rather than pulling down a menu for window operations, It would > pull up the ROX-Filer's file menu for the icon with all the usuals. > Perhaps 'Copy' and 'Move' would be renamed as 'Save As' and 'Save' (in > text editors and the like). Perhaps even the icon would be > drag-and-droppable so you could easily send it to an archive. > > Unfortunately, it's such a complicated relationship between the Filer > and the window manager and the program that I imagine hell will freeze > over twice before it happens... But it would be *very nice* if it > could be done. I really can't see why this icon should be handled by the windowmanager?? Do you mean that the icon should sit in the titlebar of the window? My thought was a simple current-directory icon in the filerwindow ('.'). /Jonatan -=( http://kymatica.com )=- |
From: Tristan Mc L. <the...@gm...> - 2004-11-16 04:12:11
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:44:33 -0200, Jonatan Liljedahl <th...@ho...> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:38:28 +1100 > > > Tristan Mc Leay <the...@gm...> wrote & quoted stuff, including > > Unfortunately, it's such a complicated relationship between the Filer > > and the window manager and the program that I imagine hell will freeze > > over twice before it happens... But it would be *very nice* if it > > could be done. > > I really can't see why this icon should be handled by the > windowmanager?? Do you mean that the icon should sit in the titlebar of > the window? Yeah, a nice integration of the window manager and the desktop. The basic idea would be that a (Filer) icon would just be a zoomed out version of the window, or something like that. My ultimate goal diverges somewhat from the basic premise of the ROX Desktop, but with this simple change I could approach desktop happiness. >My thought was a simple current-directory icon in the > filerwindow ('.'). Yeah, I know, my idea is different from yours. Same species of idea, just a different particular one. -- Tristan |