[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Collecting and fixing pet peeve bugs



Hans de Goede <j w r degoede hhs nl> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> I've been thinking for a while about how we (the community) could help
> making Core better, since Core is the foundation on which we all build
> and since @redhat people can only do so much, I believe it is vital that
> we as the community get involved in helping Core.
>
> Helping Core can be done in many ways, many of which require
> infrastructural support. I don't want to talk about those,
> infrastructure and procedural discussions is not my thing. I'm more of a
> show me the code type.
>
> As such I would like to build a list with everyone's favorite / pet
> peeve bugs, or iow the bugs which annoy you the most. Preferably bugs
> which impact a wider audience then just you and which are fixable by
> mere mortals like myself :). Now the first question would be where to
> store this list, please post your comments to this  list for now. And to
> any wikie maintainers reading this, I think this needs a wiki page, agreed?
>
> So everyone please post your bugs here, here are mine:
>
> * I've already mailed todo about the not autoloading of joydev.ko bug:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187005
> And after sinking my teeth into this, a fix has now been reported in BZ,
> and hopefully should show up in a kernel near you soon :)
>
> * Another bug which has been annoying me is the fact that gnome will no
> longer start 3 xterms when I login even though xterm is listed 3 times
> in the non sm programs to start list, appearantly someone thought it
> would be smart to filter duplicates out of this list :| see:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185114
>
> I've got a pretty good idea how to fix this one (for me atleast) the
> sorting dups might be a good idea, but if the dups have different
> arguments then they really aren't dups imho, which would fix this for
> me. Anyone want to beat me writing a patch for this? (I've got other
> priorities atm).
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans

Here is one. It is more a gnome bug but I'll post here for discussion.

* Desktop accommodate much less icons than XP.

With a screen resolution 1280x800, in gnome the desktop can only
contain 72 icons while in Windows XP it can do 170 icons i.e XP is
2.36 times as efficient as gnome in using desktop real estate.

The situation in gnome becomes much worse when you have icons with
long title. This bug has been filed over 4 years ago. I currently have
46 icons on my desktop and they have taken 7/8 of the desktop.

I think this compromises user's productivity. 

-- 
Leon


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]