You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Re
https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Disks
gnome-disk-utility
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-disk-utility/
Why was menu removed from Disks?
On Mint 19 xfce, my gnome-disk-utility is missing upper-left menu. I was able to restore it with Window Manager.
Question: was this an xfce-team decision? gnome-team decision? Or mint-team decision?
Last edited by johnywhy (2018-08-07 22:40:01)
arch xfce x86_64
Offline
Is gnome-disk-utility an actual Xfce component in the first place, lol?
Regards,
MDM
Offline
no need to be sarcastic.
gnome-disk-utility is gnome, but i don't know if hiding title-bar icons is gnome, gnome-disk-utility, Mint, or xfce.
do you know the answer in the first place, lol?
Last edited by johnywhy (2018-08-08 00:36:52)
arch xfce x86_64
Offline
The inclusion of non-Xfce utility (like gnome-disk-utility) would be a decision made by the distribution maintainers. If it's not installed in the default distro layout, it is most likely installable from the distro's repositories.
Please remember to mark your thread [SOLVED] to make it easier for others to find
--- How To Ask For Help | FAQ | Developer Wiki | Community | Contribute ---
Online
Thx ToZ. But the question wasn't about inclusion of the tool.
The question is about the config of the app's menu (which is a general xfce setting).
THX
ps, i often get 'bad http referrer' when posting to this forum. Not seeing the problem elsewhere. Could be a browser issue. I have to restart the browser to post.
Bad HTTP_REFERER. You were referred to this page from an unauthorized source. If the problem persists please make sure that 'Base URL' is correctly set in Admin/Options and that you are visiting the forum by navigating to that URL. More information regarding the referrer check can be found in the FluxBB documentation.
Last edited by johnywhy (2018-08-08 03:24:31)
arch xfce x86_64
Offline
johnywhy, I've just checked that on Mint 19 in VM and you're right, they completely removed "Menu" from the button layout which is a big mistake, because that way every application that uses GNOME-style client side decorations (CSD), so for example "Disks", is lacking the important menu item.
So answering your "Which team removed (...) menu?" question - Mint team did that and you definitely should report that issue to the Mint devs. They should fix that.
Offline
reported, thx
https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=275169
i heard that gnome is phasing out that menu?
Last edited by johnywhy (2018-08-09 13:37:43)
arch xfce x86_64
Offline
johnywhy, who knows what GNOME is actually doing. That's beyond understanding sometimes. But that forum is probably not the best place to ask.
EDIT: s/that/this
Last edited by Spass (2018-08-09 18:00:45)
Offline
I think the mint forum is a good place to post about mint issues. No? This seems to be a mint issue.
Thx
arch xfce x86_64
Offline
I meant this Xfce forum is not the best place to ask about the future GNOME plans, regarding your "i heard that gnome is phasing out that menu?" question. And I agree, Mint forum is a good place to discuss your issue with the menu in Mint 19 Xfce.
Offline
no need to be sarcastic.
Sarcastic? I asked a question that I didn't know the answer to. That's honest, not sarcastic. The "lol" was a reflection of the fact that I was laughing - because I assumed the answer to my question was, "No, of course not." But, again, that was just a guess on my part.
do you know the answer in the first place, lol?
Did I know? No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have asked. You did see the question mark, I'd guess?
Thx ToZ. But the question wasn't about inclusion of the tool.
The question is about the config of the app's menu (which is a general xfce setting).
Hmm...
Why was menu removed from Disks?
Question: was this an xfce-team decision? gnome-team decision? Or mint-team decision?
Now if you want sarcasm, I could probably come up with something here, lol. But I won't, both to be polite and because I hope you can see the difference by this point in time. I thought ToZ, by typing
The inclusion of non-Xfce utility (like gnome-disk-utility) would be a decision made by the distribution maintainers.
did answer your stated questions.
By doing so, he also answered mine ("...non-Xfce utility..."). He's a kind, helpful, person (and that's not sarcasm, either).
We should always remember that this is not exactly the best medium for communication, in terms of fully and completely understanding the other person. The ordinary clues that are broadcast back and forth during face-to-face communication are lacking. We often try, via use of abbreviations and/or "smileys," to help with that - but it doesn't always work. Therefore, we should probably give the other person the benefit of the doubt.
And, yes, I'm including myself in the above "we." I'm not the best at it, either, it seems.
From what I've been able to figure out, Xfce provides what one (generally) really needs in a desktop environment and related components. But it is a bit sparse. My guess is that some of that is due to the relatively small size of its developer team, but that some of it is also due to the fact that they intentionally leave it up to the individual distro developers/maintainers to add what those people feel their specific users would be interested in having as pre-installed defaults.
Have a nice day,
MDM
Last edited by MountainDewManiac (2018-08-11 09:43:36)
Offline
I asked a question that I didn't know the answer to. That's honest, not sarcastic.
ok, cool, i misunderstood.
The "lol" was a reflection of the fact that I was laughing - because I assumed the answer to my question was, "No, of course not."
I believe that, asking a question while laughing because you assume the answer is obvious, is considered "sarcasm".
ToZ wrote:The inclusion of non-Xfce utility (like gnome-disk-utility) would be a decision made by the distribution maintainers.
did answer your stated questions.
The question was, which team removed that UL menu: xfce, gnome, or mint team. This doesn't answer that question. That's not a criticism of ToZ-- Toz rocks!
arch xfce x86_64
Offline
Pages: 1
[ Generated in 0.010 seconds, 7 queries executed - Memory usage: 573.09 KiB (Peak: 589.94 KiB) ]