From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 6 13:31:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B9616A4CE for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:31:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lakermmtao03.cox.net (lakermmtao03.cox.net [68.230.240.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32CDD43D4C for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:31:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from dolphin.localnet.net ([68.11.71.51]) by lakermmtao03.cox.net ESMTP <20040706133129.YCPA3786.lakermmtao03.cox.net@dolphin.localnet.net>; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:31:29 -0400 Received: from dolphin.localnet.net (localhost.localnet.net [127.0.0.1]) i66DVSwl001463; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:31:28 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from conrads@dolphin.localnet.net) Received: (from conrads@localhost) by dolphin.localnet.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i66DVSe1001462; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:31:28 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from conrads) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.5 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:31:28 -0500 (CDT) Organization: A Rag-Tag Band of Drug-Crazed Hippies From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org cc: gnome-list@gnome.org Subject: Deficiency in nautilus or metacity X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: conrads@cox.net List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:31:30 -0000 I've been rather bothered by what I perceive to be a deficiency in GNOME's handling of "launchers". Not sure if this is attributable to metacity or nautilus or both (I'd be interested to know which). When creating a new launcher, a rich set of options are available. But bringing up the properties for an existing launcher, the user is presented with a much more restricted functionality, preventing the easy modification of certain properties. I'm wondering what the rationale is for this, whether it's intentional or not, and whether or not we may see some enhancement of the launcher properties dialog in the future. Thanks. -- Conrad J. Sabatier -- "In Unix veritas"