Tiny Core Base > Release Candidate Testing
tinycore_v2.0rc2
roberts:
It is like I said, there will be some that are willing to over look the bugs no matter what.
TC is about choice. With the ease of which to use your favorite JWM, no full screen video and all, is up to you. To ignore this, is to disavow the whole basis of TC's extensibility.
tclfan:
Please understand I have great respect for TCL. I still think it is the best Linux under the sun. Even better than SliTaz (better network support).
I do appreciate fixing bugs, such as fullscreen. I do appreciate more screen. But who in the right mind had to invent such plain ugly interface with complete disregard to human esthetics. Do we not have any other interfaces that do not have those bugs and would not cause my stomach turn upside down when I look at such primitive menu or I look at the ugly windows with such silly positioning of windows handling buttons, such as 'X'. I have seen many WMs but this one is just going to the extreme of primitivism, not leaving any room for sense of esthetics and intuitiveness.
Yes I know - some will say 'you have a choice' If you do not like it, istall another one and re-master!. However, one key beauty (This is esthetics too) of TCL is that a user like me (No longer developer, just a humble user) could stick TCL into any machine and it works! I do not even have to install network drivers, just works with a decent desktop in my face. If I have to 'exercise my choice' and install a different WM to make it acceptable, or install network drivers, I do not have the time to figure this out. I was hoping TCL is meant for large audience rather than just for developers. If it is done just for sake of size game, then it will become another niche distro rather than becoming a widely known and popular best linux so far, exactly what it deserves and was on the right way...
mcewanw:
I came across this at http://www.koders.com/c/fid0664A5E5EC76AB97A1602CA4BF4EC3F4F7408C57.aspx?s=bits
This would do it for me. I don't need a taskbar, but a clock would be great. I've considered running some clock application, but that would be painful in terms of resources.
I'm not so concerned about the extra "clock alarm" possibity (though if it doesn't add any real bloat...):
--- Code: ---// "Clock in the title bar" code contributed by Kevin Quick
// <kquick@iphase.com>:
// Add a clock to the active window's title bar using specified
// strftime fmt Note: in keeping with the minimalistic, fast, and
// small philosophy of the flwm, the clock will only be updated
// once/minute so any display of seconds is frivolous.
//#define SHOW_CLOCK "%I:%M %p %Z"
// We also support the concept of a clock alarm. The alarm is
// triggered by delivering SIGALRM to flwm and cleared by delivering
// SIGCONT to flwm. When the alarm is active, the foreground and
// background colors of the clock display are determined by the
// following settings. (The following are unused if SHOW_CLOCK is not
// defined).
#define ALARM_FG_COLOR 0x00ffff
#define ALARM_BG_COLOR 0xff0000
--- End code ---
jpeters:
--- Quote from: TCLFAN on May 21, 2009, 08:56:53 AM ---Please understand I have great respect for TCL. I still think it is the best Linux under the sun. Even better than SliTaz (better network support).
I do appreciate fixing bugs, such as fullscreen. I do appreciate more screen. But who in the right mind had to invent such plain ugly interface with complete disregard to human esthetics. Do we not have any other interfaces that do not have those bugs and would not cause my stomach turn upside down when I look at such primitive menu or I look at the ugly windows with such silly positioning of windows handling buttons, such as 'X'. I have seen many WMs but this one is just going to the extreme of primitivism, not leaving any room for sense of esthetics and intuitiveness.
Yes I know - some will say 'you have a choice' If you do not like it, istall another one and re-master!. However, one key beauty (This is esthetics too) of TCL is that a user like me (No longer developer, just a humble user) could stick TCL into any machine and it works! I do not even have to install network drivers, just works with a decent desktop in my face. If I have to 'exercise my choice' and install a different WM to make it acceptable, or install network drivers, I do not have the time to figure this out. I was hoping TCL is meant for large audience rather than just for developers. If it is done just for sake of size game, then it will become another niche distro rather than becoming a widely known and popular best linux so far, exactly what it deserves and was on the right way...
--- End quote ---
Personally, I think "esthetic" looks better with added 'a', as in "aesthetic"
You're a developer, but "do not have the time" to "figure out" how to add "desktop=jwm" to your
boot options; remarkable...
tclfan:
Mr. JPeters,
Thank you for your constructive response, and your appreciation of spelling according to rules of ancient Greek, from which that word is derived...
As I mentioned I used to be a developer myself (mainframe systems and mostly Assembler, etc.), but now I am just a HUMBLE USER, and I should be ashamed of this, taking your response as a measure...
Taking from here with no desire whatsoever to get into any polemics, I just want to stress that what decides success of a system is not just whether it is good for developers but more whether is is good for end user, and the better it is to the end user by default, without modification of system configuration. That is how TCL was created in the first place and I greatly appreciate that, rather than making this easy for developers but more difficult for end user. I am confident that the TCL creator would understand this important strategy. I want TCL success and I am disappointed that from a straight way to such success it suddenly made a bad turn. If the TCL creator happens to read these posts, I hope some steps will be done to improve the interface at some point. I am not the only one who posted disappointment with the new interface and I am not saying it should go back to JWM. All I am saying is that this new FLWM (or whatever it is called) is quite ugly and non-intuitive. Perhaps another one shoud be considered.
Excuse me my passion to pursue perfection...
Very humble user.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version