From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954971389E2 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:23:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 546ABE0913; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:23:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.5]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40798E08FB for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=wstn.localnet) by smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XtDHW-0000GE-DT for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:23:38 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:23:37 +0000 Message-ID: <41677415.Lj6QcRDQCj@wstn> Organization: Society for Retired Gentlefolk User-Agent: KMail/4.12.5 (Linux/3.16.5-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <54744FCE.8090800@gmail.com> References: <546EE70C.2050506@yourstruly.sx> <54742d25.a576c20a.4d91.2ae4@mx.google.com> <54744FCE.8090800@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-smarthost01c-IP: [82.69.80.10] X-Archives-Salt: 157d357a-cfac-4773-9844-bfc0021f65f0 X-Archives-Hash: 457d4445e2f98a206b5081704995452b On Tuesday 25 November 2014 11:45:50 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 25/11/2014 09:15, Gevisz wrote: > >> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was > >> > >> > logical, ergonomic and saved screen space. > > > > Only now, I have realized that, logically, it was possible > > to rearrange all the elements of Unity in such a way that > > it was logical, ergonomic, saved space, and moreover kept > > the window frame close button at its usual place, but > > it was not possible with the Unity configuration anyway. > > This is incorrect. Sorry Alan, but it isn't. Read what you quote again. He said "only now, I have realised that ..." > Unity has always been able to reposition the window control buttons, > right from the first release. > > Perhaps you just didn't know how or where to change it. > Doesn't mean it was not possible to change it. As above. :-) -- Rgds Peter.