Separate activity for each desktop in 4.5?
catcott at blueyonder.co.uk
Sun Aug 15 14:42:41 UTC 2010
On Sunday 15 August 2010 15:15:26 Basil Chupin wrote:
> On 15/08/2010 23:24, Reinhold Rumberger wrote:
> > On Sunday 15 August 2010, Basil Chupin wrote:
> >> On 15/08/2010 22:17, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 15, 2010 08:15:04 am Ric Moore did opine:
> >>>> On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 22:13 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>>>> Thank you Reinhold, it works, unforch it sets all 8 screens
> >>>>> alike. I was hoping I could finally separate them& use a
> >>>>> different image per screen.
> >>>> I just did that Gene. Each screen has a separate wall paper.
> >>>> You just have to do it one screen at a time, in each one. Ric
> >>> I did that Ric, set screen one to the wallpaper from my
> >>> /usr/pix tree, then switched to screen 2, and changed it. All
> >>> 8 were changed. So there must be another checkbox I've missed.
> >>> Someplace...
> >> As much as I hate to burst the bubble....but this absolute desire
> >> to have a different wallpaper for each desktop is nothing but a
> >> phobia simply because you think that you *must* have a different
> >> wallpaper for each desktop or your life is a total miserable
> >> failure.
> > While I agree that this isn't a major feature, the underlying design
> > decision was stupid and short-sighted.
> From another perspective, it can also be argued that the additional
> coding necessary to produce a different wallpaper for each different
> desktop is also "stupid and short-sighted" and bloats the program.
> > Also, there are some people
> > around with rather bad eyesight for whom this feature is rather
> > crucial.
> My eyesight hasn't been perfect since the age of 8 years. Nevertheless I
> can manage enough to tell the difference as to which desktop I am
> Besides, one can run as many applications on a single desktop as one can
> manage, right?
> Having a different desktop is nothing but a nicety, correct?
> For example, Windows XP came with the one desktop and yet you could run
> as many applications as you wanted that your RAM could handle.
> Then someone came up with the "Tweak" which gave you 4 desktops - and
> everybody went *WILD*! Gosh! *4* Desktops!
> The only problem was that it didn't magically increase your RAM, and all
> applications still had to run in the available RAM - that is, the same
> you could run on a single desktop.
> You can run all your apps on one single desktop in Kubuntu (or even
> *buntu), right?
> So, what's the argument? :-)
No argument but if I'm working between two apps sometimes it's quicker to
switch desktops rather than Alt-Tab on just one - and only if you have just
the two apps active, more than that and the required one may not be made
My expectation was that activities and desktops could be linked eg desktops 1
& 2 with activity 1, desktop 3 with activity 2 etc where each activity was a
folder so that it displayed folders/files appropriate to the desktop being
No argument re wallpapers - they can be the same/all different as the user
More information about the kubuntu-users