> Well, I would still prefer that it pop up in the middle like it used to,
> and I would really like to change it to ^O. Can that be remaped anyway?
> Also the old way of doing this gave you an empty input filed, this leaves
> that old URL in place.
But selected, so that any input or pasting into causes original text
to get replaced. Which seems usefull to me - if you don't want it, just
start typing or paste, if you do, you are able to edit.
Shortcuts in well behaving Gnome apps can get replaced, but this got
disabled as a default somewhere on GTK/Gnome way.
/desktop/gnome/interface/can_change_accels in gconf is a way to get it
back - then go to menus, focus what you want and press accel you desire
to use.
>>>If that provides the same functianlity, I cant figure out how to do it. The
>>>functionality that "sessiosn" provides is the abilty to store one or more groups of
>>>tabs, such that I can simply select a session, and wind up with several tabs each
>>>open to the desired site.
>>>
>>>How can I acomplish this in the new version?
>>
>> Bookmarks/Add Tabs As Folder makes folder with all currently open
>>tabs saved as bookmarks in that folder. Then I close all tabs, then I
>>right click on that bookmark folder newly created and say Open folder in
>>Tabs. All tabs are back and shining. Looks just what you're describing. :)
>
> Uck, at least by comparison.
I'm still confused, what the difference is? Besides that interface is
now consistent and does not impose new unneeded terminology.
> What's the rationale behind removing basic functionality?
Seems like redudant functionality to me, same as your first point -
there is explicit well-known URL input already, no need for duplicating,
IMHO.
Here http://ometer.com/free-software-ui.html and here
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/ you may find some answers
regarding "The Gnome way of things". Seek for "The Question of
Preferences". Streamlining, simplicity, consistency, maintainability are
the buzzwords - technically savvy features seeking geeks are minority of
minority. :)
Not to say that I don't understand adherence to habits - I had myself
a few pills to swallow with Galeon 1.3 - for example no way to hide
menubar, which was possible in 1.2. I even considered diving into
source, but I'm afraid this would not get accepted into mainline because
of possible HIG conflict.
> Can the 1.2 serries of Galeon possible to compile on a modern release?
Supposedly yes, with respective older Mozilla version. I'm not pretty
sure, if 1.2 Galeon line would be able to handle XFT (antialiased)
Mozilla versions.
--
,-._,--..__,.-'
| Pavel Kácha
| [email protected]
`-._,--.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.