From blaz at inlimbo.org Sat Feb 7 09:07:28 2004 From: blaz at inlimbo.org (Blaz Zupan) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:07:28 +0100 Subject: Line spacing in gnome-terminal Message-ID: <1076144847.13277.16.camel@gold.home.inlimbo.org> I just upgraded from RedHat 9 to Fedora Core 1 by using apt-get (wow, it was easy, I was impressed). Unfortunatelly I don't really like how gnome-terminal looks in Fedora. I used the default settings in RedHat 9 and I still use the default settings in Fedora, so the selected font in gnome-terminal is "Luxi Mono", size 10. In RedHat 9, the spacing between lines was just fine and easy on the eyes. In Fedora, the lines are too squished together. The line spacing is fine in other applications, for example in Evolution which I'm using to write this e-mail or in Mozilla. If I ssh to a remote RedHat 9 box and run gnome-terminal on the Redhat box and display it on the Fedora box, it looks fine. If I copy the RedHat 9 gnome-terminal binary (gnome 2.2) to the Fedora box and run it locally, the spacing is too small, same as with the Fedora-provided 2.4 gnome-terminal. As a test, I created a new account on my box, so that no legacy settings remaining in my .gconf, .gnome, etc. directories could screw up the settings, but the problem remains. As I don't really want to post binaries to this mailing list, I have posted an example screenshot on my website. The upper window shows gnome-terminal running locally on the Fedora box (lines too squished together) while the lower windows is a gnome-terminal running on a remote RedHat 9 box and displayed on the local Fedora box (lines ok). http://home.amis.net/blaz/fedora-gnome-terminal.png Any idea how to fix this? I googled around, searched both the RedHat and Fedora mailing lists and also looked at Bugzilla, but found nothing. From hp at redhat.com Sun Feb 15 22:01:58 2004 From: hp at redhat.com (Havoc Pennington) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:01:58 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: TARBALLS DUE + Release Update / Schedule Slip] Message-ID: <1076882517.15202.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Jeff Waugh Subject: TARBALLS DUE + Release Update / Schedule Slip Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:55:07 +1100 Size: 4165 URL: From stevelist at silverorange.com Thu Feb 19 19:01:17 2004 From: stevelist at silverorange.com (Steven Garrity) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:01:17 -0400 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC Message-ID: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> There was some talk a while back on this list about trimming down the list of screensavers included in Fedora Core. By my count, there are 177 screensavers included (let me know if I've got some installed from somewhere else or something, but I don't think so). I've gone through the list and tried take a shot at identifying which screensavers should stay in Core and which should go. I tagged each screensaver as wither Ok (it should stay), Drop (let's lose it), and Kill (once that should really go). First, the "Ok" list - these screensavers all seemed pretty professional and I think would be an ok default set. glmatrix goop Ripples desktop xmatrix flurry distort pipes gltext coral bubble3d ifs euler2d spotlight fontglide Next, the "Kill" list - these ones seemed unprofessional or just plain wacky enough to drop alltogether: bsod braid pedal bouncingcow juggle apple2 barcode noseguy Finally, the rest of then, my "drop" list, I didn't think were worthy of being included by default, but could live in an Extras package: anemone polyominoes piecewise penetrate popsquares pong polytopes nerverot lissie phosphor petri penrose rotor rorschach qix wander rubik rotzoomer pyro pulsar rocks rd-bomb queens lisa lament loop lmorph ljlatest kumppa klein lightning lavalite laser molecule moire2 metaballs munch mountain morph3d menger maze moire moebius mirrorblob vines truchet whirlwindwarp webcollage-helper webcollage triangle speedmine vidwhacker vermiculate twang xspirograph xrayswarm xanalogtv zoom xteevee xsublim worm whirlygig xlyap xjack xflame sonar sierpinski spiral spheremonics sphere shadebobs sballs slip slidescreen sierpinski3d superquadrics strange stairs thornbird t3d swirl squiral sproingies stonerview starwars starfish demon decayscreen dangerball deluxe deco cynosure crystal blocktube cubestorm cubenetic flipflop fadeplot eruption flame flag epicycle drift discrete engine endgame blaster atunnel blitspin blinkbox attraction antspotlight ant atlantis apollonian critical circuit ccurve compass cloudlife cage boxed bouboule bumps bubbles flipscreen3d hopalong halftone greynetic helix halo glslideshow glplanet grav glsnake kaleidescope jigglypuff interference julia jigsaw hypercube hyperball imsmap hypertorus gleidescope gears galaxy glblur gflux fluidballs flow forest flyingtoasters glknots glforestfire Thoughts? Comments? Thanks, Steven Garrity From lists at ethanzimmerman.com Thu Feb 19 16:10:28 2004 From: lists at ethanzimmerman.com (ethan zimmerman) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:10:28 -0500 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> References: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> Message-ID: <1077207027.7875.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> > Next, the "Kill" list - these ones seemed unprofessional or just plain > wacky enough to drop alltogether: > > bsod > braid > pedal > bouncingcow Nooo! Don't take away my bouncing cow! From jensknutson at yahoo.com Thu Feb 19 19:42:28 2004 From: jensknutson at yahoo.com (Jens Knutson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:42:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> Message-ID: <20040219194228.63824.qmail@web14206.mail.yahoo.com> --- Steven Garrity wrote: > First, the "Ok" list - these screensavers all seemed pretty > professional and I think would be an ok default set. > > glmatrix > goop [snip long list] A very large number of these require either OpenGL support and/or a very fast machine. Any box running Fedora that doesn't meet those requirements will come practically to a *halt* when one of these comes up. The default set should probably consist of 5-10 very minimal, non-3D, "professional" (read: very conservative) screensavers. Then there could be 2 more packages, one that included all the GL screensavers, and one that included Everything Else. Also, I think a "kill" list is a terrible idea, because it would only serve to divide people and create endless, stupid flames on this and other fedora lists, which already suffer from a terribly poor signal to noise ratio. (Which reminds me: How dare you suggest dropping the Best. Screensavers. Ever, Bouncing Cow and Barcode?? You'll burned at the stake for thy crimes, heretic!! EAT FLAMING DEATH!!! etc, etc... See what I mean? Even I'm falling prey to it already!) So anyhow, we would have three packages (the names are just suggestions, they could be called anything): xscreensaver: this would be the core, plus the 5-10 conservative choices that are suitable for basically all machines and configurations xscreensaver-3D: all the GL screensavers xscreensaver-extras: everything that's not in the first two The only other question then would be: who decides what lucky 5-10 go in the core xscreensaver package? I think it's easiest to take the Benevolent Dictator model here, since trying to vote on it, or trust the nerdy masses like ourselves to make decisions that will affect mere mortal users, is a poor proposition, and will only lead to the kinds of arguments I outlined above. So who do we make our Benevolent Dictator? Well, if he will have the job, I would like to nominate Garrett LeSage, as he has the good aesthetic sense and technical knowledge to make a qualified decision on what would probably make a good default set of screensavers. If anyone else thinks there's another BD we could nominate, I'm open to that, too. Garrett, Steven? What do you think? - jck ===== "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." -- Albert Einstein __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools From nomis80 at nomis80.org Thu Feb 19 21:20:08 2004 From: nomis80 at nomis80.org (Simon Perreault) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:20:08 -0500 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <20040219194228.63824.qmail@web14206.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040219194228.63824.qmail@web14206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200402191620.08228.nomis80@nomis80.org> On February 19, 2004 14:42, Jens Knutson wrote: > Any box running Fedora that doesn't meet those > requirements will come practically to a *halt* when one of these comes > up. No it won't. Because the screensaver priority is set low (if it is not already, then it should be), the screensaver will run very slowly but the rest of the system will not be hindered. > The default set should probably consist of 5-10 very minimal, > non-3D, "professional" (read: very conservative) screensavers. There are 15MB of screen savers installed with xscreensaver. Some should go, if only to make space for more important stuff. So I agree. ;) -- Simon Perreault -- http://nomis80.org From notting at redhat.com Thu Feb 19 21:29:04 2004 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:29:04 -0500 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> References: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> Message-ID: <20040219212904.GC2242@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Steven Garrity (stevelist at silverorange.com) said: > There was some talk a while back on this list about trimming down the > list of screensavers included in Fedora Core. By my count, there are 177 > screensavers included (let me know if I've got some installed from > somewhere else or something, but I don't think so). > > I've gone through the list and tried take a shot at identifying which > screensavers should stay in Core and which should go. xscreensaver - blank only, core xscreensaver-extras - everything else Simple, clean, avoids flamewars. Bill From stevelist at silverorange.com Thu Feb 19 21:46:01 2004 From: stevelist at silverorange.com (Steven Garrity) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:46:01 -0400 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <20040219212904.GC2242@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> <20040219212904.GC2242@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <40352E99.606@silverorange.com> Bill Nottingham wrote: > xscreensaver - blank only, core > xscreensaver-extras - everything else > > Simple, clean, avoids flamewars. Even better. Do it! Steven Garrity From jensknutson at yahoo.com Thu Feb 19 21:48:03 2004 From: jensknutson at yahoo.com (Jens Knutson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:48:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <200402191620.08228.nomis80@nomis80.org> Message-ID: <20040219214803.19792.qmail@web14202.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Perreault wrote: > On February 19, 2004 14:42, Jens Knutson wrote: > > Any box running Fedora that doesn't meet those > > requirements will come practically to a *halt* when one of these > >comes up. > > No it won't. Because the screensaver priority is set low (if it is > not already, then it should be), the screensaver will run very slowly but > the rest of the system will not be hindered. That's nice in theory, except I've watched it with my own eyes - a reasonably fast, but non-3D-accelerated machine get extremely slow with a 3D screensaver running. Besides that, even if it didn't slow the system down, they still *look* like crap unaccelerated, and thus, should go in their own package, IMHO. - jck ===== "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." -- Albert Einstein __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools From jensknutson at yahoo.com Fri Feb 20 00:23:52 2004 From: jensknutson at yahoo.com (Jens Knutson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:23:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <40352E99.606@silverorange.com> Message-ID: <20040220002352.86980.qmail@web14207.mail.yahoo.com> --- Steven Garrity wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > xscreensaver - blank only, core > > xscreensaver-extras - everything else > > > > Simple, clean, avoids flamewars. > > Even better. Do it! Isn't that taking it a bit far though? Can't we find any middle ground at all, or is it "utterly boring" or "CRACK-O-RAMA!", with no inbetween? -jck ===== "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." -- Albert Einstein __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools From benno at truesurfer.net Fri Feb 20 00:38:45 2004 From: benno at truesurfer.net (Benno Goedhart) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:38:45 +0100 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> References: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> Message-ID: <40355715.7020006@truesurfer.net> Steven Garrity wrote: > There was some talk a while back on this list about trimming down the > list of screensavers included in Fedora Core. By my count, there are 177 > screensavers included (let me know if I've got some installed from > somewhere else or something, but I don't think so). > > I've gone through the list and tried take a shot at identifying which > screensavers should stay in Core and which should go. > > I tagged each screensaver as wither Ok (it should stay), Drop (let's > lose it), and Kill (once that should really go). > > First, the "Ok" list - these screensavers all seemed pretty professional > and I think would be an ok default set. > > glmatrix > goop > Ripples desktop > xmatrix > flurry > distort > pipes > gltext > coral > bubble3d > ifs > euler2d > spotlight > fontglide > > Next, the "Kill" list - these ones seemed unprofessional or just plain > wacky enough to drop alltogether: > > bsod > braid > pedal > bouncingcow > juggle > apple2 > barcode > noseguy > > Finally, the rest of then, my "drop" list, I didn't think were worthy of > being included by default, but could live in an Extras package: > > anemone > polyominoes > piecewise > penetrate > popsquares > pong > polytopes > nerverot > lissie > phosphor > petri > penrose > rotor > rorschach > qix > wander > rubik > rotzoomer > pyro > pulsar > rocks > rd-bomb > queens > lisa > lament > loop > lmorph > ljlatest > kumppa > klein > lightning > lavalite > laser > molecule > moire2 > metaballs > munch > mountain > morph3d > menger > maze > moire > moebius > mirrorblob > vines > truchet > whirlwindwarp > webcollage-helper > webcollage > triangle > speedmine > vidwhacker > vermiculate > twang > xspirograph > xrayswarm > xanalogtv > zoom > xteevee > xsublim > worm > whirlygig > xlyap > xjack > xflame > sonar > sierpinski > spiral > spheremonics > sphere > shadebobs > sballs > slip > slidescreen > sierpinski3d > superquadrics > strange > stairs > thornbird > t3d > swirl > squiral > sproingies > stonerview > starwars > starfish > demon > decayscreen > dangerball > deluxe > deco > cynosure > crystal > blocktube > cubestorm > cubenetic > flipflop > fadeplot > eruption > flame > flag > epicycle > drift > discrete > engine > endgame > blaster > atunnel > blitspin > blinkbox > attraction > antspotlight > ant > atlantis > apollonian > critical > circuit > ccurve > compass > cloudlife > cage > boxed > bouboule > bumps > bubbles > flipscreen3d > hopalong > halftone > greynetic > helix > halo > glslideshow > glplanet > grav > glsnake > kaleidescope > jigglypuff > interference > julia > jigsaw > hypercube > hyperball > imsmap > hypertorus > gleidescope > gears > galaxy > glblur > gflux > fluidballs > flow > forest > flyingtoasters > glknots > glforestfire > > > > Thoughts? Comments? I love them screensavers, and I wouldn't want them to be decreased. I love the diversity of them. Any time I look at my screen there's somethign different. Especially since almost anybody these days has a capable pc. At the office I use a P3-800 with GeForce 256 @ 1600x1200, which is capable enough for most screensavers. Really, don't remove any of them. From stevelist at silverorange.com Fri Feb 20 00:47:33 2004 From: stevelist at silverorange.com (Steven Garrity) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:47:33 -0400 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <40352E99.606@silverorange.com> References: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> <20040219212904.GC2242@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <40352E99.606@silverorange.com> Message-ID: <40355925.5000501@silverorange.com> I was a little concerned that we're spinning our wheels until Extras is ready, but a co-worker pointed out that there are really three parts to be done, two of which can be done now: 1. repackaging 2. changing the default 3. moving one or more packages out of core 1 & 2 can be done now. As for changing the default, Seth Vidal stated that "No matter what happens, how about having the gnome and kde default screensaver be 'blank' or 'fedora' instead of 'random'" ( https://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2003-December/msg00109.html). I agree. Another issues brought up by Nathan Fredrickson is the appearance of the screen-lock window (https://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2003-December/msg00092.html). It is quite out of step with the rest of Fedora right now. If it can't be handled with standard Gnome controls, perhaps we should look at a visual style like the login screen. Steven Garrity From notting at redhat.com Fri Feb 20 02:42:30 2004 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:42:30 -0500 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <40355925.5000501@silverorange.com> References: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> <20040219212904.GC2242@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <40352E99.606@silverorange.com> <40355925.5000501@silverorange.com> Message-ID: <20040220024230.GA19042@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Steven Garrity (stevelist at silverorange.com) said: > I was a little concerned that we're spinning our wheels until Extras is > ready, but a co-worker pointed out that there are really three parts to > be done, two of which can be done now: > > 1. repackaging > 2. changing the default > 3. moving one or more packages out of core The last isn't really practical, as it's still built out of the same source rpm. Bill From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Fri Feb 20 02:47:25 2004 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:47:25 -0500 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <20040220002352.86980.qmail@web14207.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040220002352.86980.qmail@web14207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1077245245.13086.10.camel@binkley> > Isn't that taking it a bit far though? Can't we find any middle ground > at all, or is it "utterly boring" or "CRACK-O-RAMA!", with no > inbetween? > > -jck What's so hard about xscreensavers and xscreensavers-extras - if you want any of the spiffy/silly ones you have to go get them in the other package? Why is that not reasonable? -sv From nphilipp at redhat.com Fri Feb 20 10:19:13 2004 From: nphilipp at redhat.com (Nils Philippsen) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:19:13 +0100 Subject: Paring Down the Screensavers - RFC In-Reply-To: <20040219212904.GC2242@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <403507FD.5040405@silverorange.com> <20040219212904.GC2242@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1077272352.9928.19.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 22:29, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Steven Garrity (stevelist at silverorange.com) said: > > There was some talk a while back on this list about trimming down the > > list of screensavers included in Fedora Core. By my count, there are 177 > > screensavers included (let me know if I've got some installed from > > somewhere else or something, but I don't think so). > > > > I've gone through the list and tried take a shot at identifying which > > screensavers should stay in Core and which should go. > > xscreensaver - blank only, core > xscreensaver-extras - everything else I'd go for xscreensaver{,-3D}{,-extras} or xscreensaver{,-3D,-extras}. But that's not the main obstacle, indeed it would be easy to automatically sort them out... The main obstacle I see with xscreensaver is its configuration through one monolithic appdefaults file (well through Xresources which doesn't exactly mandate this, but you get the idea). This makes "addons" to xscreensaver a real drag if you want to do them as properly packaged RPMs. This should IMO be handled through some /etc/X11/xscreensaver.d directory or similar where subpackages/addons can just drop in the configuration snippets for the contained screensaver hacks. Another (probably much higher) obstacle would be to get this past jwz ;-). Any ideas? Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp at redhat.com "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From markmc at redhat.com Fri Feb 20 15:44:30 2004 From: markmc at redhat.com (Mark McLoughlin) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:44:30 +0000 Subject: Gnome-panel update? In-Reply-To: <1077289579.4766.32.camel@athlon.localdomain> References: <1077186217.11891.4.camel@athlon.localdomain> <1077210868.3458.40.camel@laptop> <1077289579.4766.32.camel@athlon.localdomain> Message-ID: <1077291869.3168.139.camel@laptop> Hi Leonard, Moving to fedora-desktop-list at redhat.com. Prolly more appropriate, hope you don't mind. On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 15:06, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hello Mark, > > > > Seeing the multitude of issues with gnome-panel that have not been > > > solved I thought it might be time for an update. There are two > > > approaches to this: Fixing the current tree, or updating to 2.4.2 which > > > is a bug fix release. > > >From the changes made to > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104178 I understand > you are planning to upgrade to 2.4.2. Yes, I think that's the only sensible way of doing it ... gnome-panel 2.4.0 seems to have been a pretty broken release. > Great. This means I need only to > gather patches for issues that are not addressed upstream. I think the > missing help file for the update tool falls into this category. I'm not sure what bug you're referring to here. > I am > unsure if the missing help file for the show desktop applet has been > solved upstream. This should be an easy fix for the author anyway. Yeah, should be straightforward. The docs are in the user-guide AFAIR. > What is your opinion on splitting of a -devel package? Maybe Michael > Schwendt is willing to generate the necessary spec file diff. I think its a good idea, yes, but I probably will only do it for FC2. Should be straightforward too. I'm still going through gnome-panel bugzilla for the first time. When I get through it, I'll send you on a list of bugs which will be fixed in the update and you can let me know if I'm missing any important ones. Some we'll just punt until FC2, obviously. Thanks, Mark. From leonard at den.ottolander.nl Fri Feb 20 21:58:25 2004 From: leonard at den.ottolander.nl (Leonard den Ottolander) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:58:25 +0100 Subject: Gnome-panel update? Message-ID: <1077314305.4766.64.camel@athlon.localdomain> Hello Mark, (Luckily your post is already in the archive as I was not yet subscribed to this list.) > > I think the missing help file for the update tool falls into this > > category. > I'm not sure what bug you're referring to here. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107435 or actually https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84496 . > > What is your opinion on splitting of a -devel package? Maybe Michael > > Schwendt is willing to generate the necessary spec file diff. > I think its a good idea, yes, but I probably will only do it for FC2. > Should be straightforward too. That is probably a good idea as it is an enhancement. > I'm still going through gnome-panel bugzilla for the first time. When I > get through it, I'll send you on a list of bugs which will be fixed in > the update and you can let me know if I'm missing any important ones. > Some we'll just punt until FC2, obviously. I'll have another look at the list myself. I noticed others are and have been doing this as well as part of bug triage. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research From llim at redhat.com Sat Feb 21 03:52:33 2004 From: llim at redhat.com (Lawrence Lim) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:52:33 +1000 (EST) Subject: Testers Required for Next Generation Input Method Message-ID: The Fedora Project will be adopting a revolutionary new Input Method system in the upcoming release of the Fedora Core 2. We would like to extend an invitation at this time to East Asian users in particular to test this preliminary release and provide us with feedback so we can improve the software and ensure that the Input Methods will be easier, more efficient and pleasant to use. Intranet/Internet Input Method Framework (IIIMF) is the next generation Input Method Framework set to replace the legacy X Window System Input Method (XIM) used by existing Input Methods such as chinput, xcin, kinput2, ami and many others. As the technology is still at its infancy, wider testing effort by community is needed to expediate the maturity of the technology. IIIMF server loads Language Engines (LE) dynamically at runtime as requested by clients. In this first round of testing, four LEs are available: + iiimf-le-inpinyin for Simplified Chinese (zh_CN.UTF-8) + iiimf-le-xcin for Traditional Chinese (zh_TW.UTF-8) + iiimf-le-canna for Japanese (ja_JP.UTF-8) + iiimf-le-hangul for Korean (ko_KR.UTF-8) If you wish to participate in this first round of testing, a Testing Guide is now available at . It will give you the necessary information in setting up the IIIMF and using the LE specific to your locale. Input Method Testing Discussion Mailing List: fedora-i18n-list at redhat.com Subscribe at: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-i18n-list IRC: Channel #fedora-i18n on irc.freenode.net -- Best Regards, Fedora I18N Team From llim at redhat.com Sun Feb 22 01:22:36 2004 From: llim at redhat.com (Lawrence Lim) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:22:36 +1000 (EST) Subject: Missing URL - Testers Required for Next Generation Input Method Message-ID: My apologies for the missing URL in the previous email. Cheers, Lawrence -- Full invitation letter: http://apac.redhat.com/iiimftest/ Testing guide: http://apac.redhat.com/iiimftest/testing-guide/ IIIMF testing packages: http://apac.redhat.com/iiimftest/files More information on IIIMF and other Projects on OpenI18N: http://www.openi18n.org/ http://www.openi18n.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=30&page=1 From heterodox at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 27 01:58:25 2004 From: heterodox at satx.rr.com (HD) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:58:25 -0600 Subject: Changing Background color Message-ID: <403EA441.6000101@satx.rr.com> Hi, I know there is a way to change then bg color of the login screen with the KDE Control Center. I have done that. I have also changed the bg color of the splash screen by editing the Xsession file. It is now a nice soft green. But what I can't figure out is how to change the BG color of the screen that shows briefly just before the login screen becomes active. It is currently the default blue.... I would like to change it to white. I assume I can change something to #ffffff in a file somewhere.... Does anyone know what file this would be? Thanks, -- HD Tipping my hat to Fedora. From heterodox at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 27 17:04:52 2004 From: heterodox at satx.rr.com (HD) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:04:52 -0600 Subject: Changing Background color In-Reply-To: <403EA441.6000101@satx.rr.com> References: <403EA441.6000101@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: HD wrote: > Hi, > > I know there is a way to change then bg color of the login screen with > the KDE Control Center. I have done that. I have also changed the bg > color of the splash screen by editing the Xsession file. It is now a > nice soft green. But what I can't figure out is how to change the BG > color of the screen that shows briefly just before the login screen > becomes active. It is currently the default blue.... I would like to > change it to white. I assume I can change something to #ffffff in a > file somewhere.... Does anyone know what file this would be? > > Thanks, Well, I poked around some more and I figured it out for myself :) In /etc/X11/xdm/Xsetup_0 I changed the line /usr/X11R6/bin/xsetroot -solid "#20305A" to /usr/X11R6/bin/xsetroot -solid "#ffffff" That did exactly what I wanted :) -- HD Tipping my hat to Fedora.