OS 12.3, Gnome, Desktop Background "Pick a Color" Missing

[Hans]

I installed OS 12.3 and found that I can not configure the Desktop
Background colour (36388B)to match the colours of my other systems (OS
12.2 Gnome, Xfce and Gentoo).

The Applet as on OS 12.2 and Xfce and all previous versions of OpenSuse
Gnome: "System Setting-> Background-> Colors & Gradients -> Pick a
Color-> Custom (+)" is missing.

Now there are only 15 crappy MS$ 8 or Ipad style Gothic colours
available as plain background colours .

Am I missing something?

[Malcolm]

Hi
Yup, gsettings or dconf-editor?

gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.background primary-color '#00000036388B'

--
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
openSUSE 12.3 (x86_64) Kernel 3.7.10-1.1-desktop
up 4:07, 3 users, load average: 0.09, 0.07, 0.05
CPU Intel® i5 CPU M5...@2.40GHz | GPU Intel® Ironlake Mobile

[Wayne Callahan]

Hans wrote:

> I installed OS 12.3 and found that I can not configure the Desktop
> Background colour (36388B)to match the colours of my other systems (OS
> 12.2 Gnome, Xfce and Gentoo).

lol :)

> Am I missing something?

Shift back to KDE. it seems usable, Gnome is a total crap.

[Hans]

Never used KDE. Has to much FlimFlam and can't run in 1GB RAM on my old
Laptop.

I switched the laptop to Gentoo with Gnome 2, complied fully optimised
for the i686 mobile processor and laptop hardware. Took 38 hours to
compile and runs like a F1 racecar.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Hans wrote:

> On 28/03/13 05:17, Wayne Callahan wrote:
>> Hans wrote:
>>
>>> I installed OS 12.3 and found that I can not configure the Desktop
>>> Background colour (36388B)to match the colours of my other systems (OS
>>> 12.2 Gnome, Xfce and Gentoo).
>>
>> lol :)
>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> Shift back to KDE. it seems usable, Gnome is a total crap.
>>
>
> Never used KDE. Has to much FlimFlam and can't run in 1GB RAM on my old
> Laptop.

Bullshit. It even runs on a 256MB (old) laptop
It is not a speed daemon, but definately useable

[Hans]

Tried KDE, was dead slow, always accessing the swap partition. Open
Offcie was practically useless. I installed Gnome2 because a.) my wife
is used to it, (no learning curve) b.) has a about the same memory
footprint as Xfce.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Hans wrote:

> On 01/04/13 09:02, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Hans wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/03/13 05:17, Wayne Callahan wrote:
>>>> Hans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I installed OS 12.3 and found that I can not configure the Desktop
>>>>> Background colour (36388B)to match the colours of my other systems (OS
>>>>> 12.2 Gnome, Xfce and Gentoo).
>>>>
>>>> lol :)
>>>>
>>>>> Am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> Shift back to KDE. it seems usable, Gnome is a total crap.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Never used KDE. Has to much FlimFlam and can't run in 1GB RAM on my old
>>> Laptop.
>>
>> Bullshit. It even runs on a 256MB (old) laptop
>> It is not a speed daemon, but definately useable
>>
> Tried KDE, was dead slow

Simply disable the eye candy

[Wayne Callahan]

Hans wrote:

>> Shift back to KDE. it seems usable, Gnome is a total crap.
>>
>
> Never used KDE. Has to much FlimFlam and can't run in 1GB RAM on my old
> Laptop.
>
> I switched the laptop to Gentoo with Gnome 2, complied fully optimised for
> the i686 mobile processor and laptop hardware. Took 38 hours to compile
> and runs like a F1 racecar.

Well, it can. I run os123 KDE on a 512MB with wobbly windows right
now as we speak!!

Also, you may run win98/office97 on a 100MHz old Pentium, that is ways
faster than any other windows/office you buy today. THis is true also
for old Linuxes, ie Slackware etc

[Wayne Callahan]

houghi wrote:

> Hans wrote:
>> Never used KDE. Has to much FlimFlam and can't run in 1GB RAM on my old
>> Laptop.
>

> Then why use Gnome? If my machine was slow, I would go with LXDE or
> Windowmaker. I might even not be using openSUSE as they are not very well
> known for the ideal distro for low end and older machines.

Good point. Suse got microsofted right now addering to UEFI and "secure
boot" shit. This is why you couldnt reboot to grub2 after installing os123!
Funny huh?

Well you could, by booting others and reconfig some things, but as a new
opensuse user you are lost.

I would eventually move to a clean GNU Linux distribution. Any suggestions?

[Wayne Callahan]

houghi wrote:

> I never bothered with it, because my hardware is up to date and my
> software always worked. Did so since 5.4 or so.

Idiot, is not about footprints and old hardware, but NEW hardware.

Also, you dont know your UEFI shit. Everything you just said is WRONG!!

[Aragorn]

On Monday 01 April 2013 14:49, houghi conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.suse...

> Wayne Callahan wrote:
>
>> [...] Suse got microsofted right now addering to UEFI and "secure
>> boot" shit. [...]
>
> The UEFI shit is depending on your hardware. Blame them and if you
> have old hardware, it isn't there.

It isn't only old hardware which comes without UEFI. Professional-grade
motherboards from Tyan, Supermicro and others also still come with a
legacy BIOS, because those are components which are not tied in with the
Microsoft hegemony.

Of course, those who are stupid enough to buy a "Designed for Microsoft
® Windows 8" computer are stuck with UEFI [*], but then that's their
choice. Nobody says that you have to buy a Windows computer to run
GNU/Linux on, right?


[*] On x86-64, UEFI does allow that Secure Boot be disabled, /and/ it
also has a legacy BIOS compatibility mode. Only those who are
married to Microsoft Windows will have difficulty installing any
GNU/Linux distribution on such a machine.

--
= Aragorn =
GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[Peter Köhlmann]

Wayne Callahan wrote:

> houghi wrote:
>
>> I never bothered with it, because my hardware is up to date and my
>> software always worked. Did so since 5.4 or so.
>
> Idiot, is not about footprints and old hardware, but NEW hardware.

You have such a way with words...

> Also, you dont know your UEFI shit. Everything you just said is WRONG!!

No, it isn't. But you seem to know Jack Shit

[Peter Köhlmann]

Aragorn wrote:

> On Monday 01 April 2013 14:49, houghi conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.suse...
>
>> Wayne Callahan wrote:
>>
>>> [...] Suse got microsofted right now addering to UEFI and "secure
>>> boot" shit. [...]
>>
>> The UEFI shit is depending on your hardware. Blame them and if you
>> have old hardware, it isn't there.
>
> It isn't only old hardware which comes without UEFI. Professional-grade
> motherboards from Tyan, Supermicro and others also still come with a
> legacy BIOS, because those are components which are not tied in with the
> Microsoft hegemony.
>
> Of course, those who are stupid enough to buy a "Designed for Microsoft
> ® Windows 8" computer are stuck with UEFI [*], but then that's their
> choice. Nobody says that you have to buy a Windows computer to run
> GNU/Linux on, right?
>

UEFI has little to do with MS or Win8.
It has lots to do with being able to boot from drives larger than 2 TBytes,
because that isn't possible with the old BIOS mode. To boot from such drives
you absolutely *need* UEFI. The "secure boot" idiocy is something else
entirely, although it too needs UEFI

[Happy Oyster]

The systems are overburdened with "stylistic" programming and 99 percent
of graphics crap.
--

Crowd-funding is for money, crowd-publishing is for mankind.

http://www.supermanpost.com/

[Wayne Callahan]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> Also, you dont know your UEFI shit. Everything you just said is WRONG!!
>
> No, it isn't. But you seem to know Jack Shit

Idiot, another one, they always walk in pairs

[Wayne Callahan]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> UEFI has little to do with MS or Win8.
> It has lots to do with being able to boot from drives larger than 2
> TBytes, because that isn't possible with the old BIOS mode. To boot from
> such drives you absolutely *need* UEFI. The "secure boot" idiocy is
> something else entirely, although it too needs UEFI

You somehow contradict yourself, first part of your thesis with your
latter part.

Yes, is not only the 2Tb but also, driver signing as I understood. Once
your UEFI enabled OS dont have or know the key (the Master key Microsoft
gave to all Linux) you wont be able to run drivers of any kind. So you
need to disable Secure Boot and enable Legacy OS in your BIOS. This is true
for new hardware motherboard, ie HP with updated BIOS

From wikipedia

"Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, attacked the proposal for
supporting Red Hat's desire to “deep-throat” Microsoft and participate
in their “dick-sucking” for supporting their regime"

[Peter Köhlmann]

Wayne Callahan wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> UEFI has little to do with MS or Win8.
>> It has lots to do with being able to boot from drives larger than 2
>> TBytes, because that isn't possible with the old BIOS mode. To boot from
>> such drives you absolutely *need* UEFI. The "secure boot" idiocy is
>> something else entirely, although it too needs UEFI
>
> You somehow contradict yourself, first part of your thesis with your
> latter part.

Nope, you are unable to correctly google

> Yes, is not only the 2Tb but also, driver signing as I understood. Once
> your UEFI enabled OS dont have or know the key (the Master key Microsoft
> gave to all Linux) you wont be able to run drivers of any kind.

You are mingling UEFI and secure boot here.
Secure boot is possible with UEFI, but not necessary
And on x86 hardware you can switch it off, running only the UEFI part.

[Malcolm]

On Mon 01 Apr 2013 04:44:44 PM CDT, Wayne Callahan wrote:

>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> UEFI has little to do with MS or Win8.
>> It has lots to do with being able to boot from drives larger than 2
>> TBytes, because that isn't possible with the old BIOS mode. To boot
>> from such drives you absolutely *need* UEFI. The "secure boot"
>> idiocy is something else entirely, although it too needs UEFI
>
>You somehow contradict yourself, first part of your thesis with your
>latter part.
>
>Yes, is not only the 2Tb but also, driver signing as I understood.
>Once your UEFI enabled OS dont have or know the key (the Master key
>Microsoft gave to all Linux) you wont be able to run drivers of any
>kind. So you need to disable Secure Boot and enable Legacy OS in your
>BIOS. This is true for new hardware motherboard, ie HP with updated
>BIOS
>

Hi
You can still boot both windows 8 and linux via UEFI in unsecure mode.

You can sign your own keys...
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:UEFI

--
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
openSUSE 12.3 (x86_64) Kernel 3.7.10-1.1-desktop

up 0:22, 4 users, load average: 0.24, 0.80, 0.47

[Wayne Callahan]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> Yes, is not only the 2Tb but also, driver signing as I understood. Once
>> your UEFI enabled OS dont have or know the key (the Master key Microsoft
>> gave to all Linux) you wont be able to run drivers of any kind.
>
> You are mingling UEFI and secure boot here.
> Secure boot is possible with UEFI, but not necessary And on x86 hardware
> you can switch it off, running only the UEFI part.

Imbecile, you came with no any new information here!

Once you run your "only" the UEFI part you buy into the signing driver part.
IDIOT, buy a brain!!!

[Aragorn]

On Monday 01 April 2013 18:44, Wayne Callahan conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.suse...

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> UEFI has little to do with MS or Win8.
>> It has lots to do with being able to boot from drives larger than 2
>> TBytes, because that isn't possible with the old BIOS mode. To boot
>> from such drives you absolutely *need* UEFI. The "secure boot" idiocy
>> is something else entirely, although it too needs UEFI
>
> You somehow contradict yourself, first part of your thesis with your
> latter part.
>
> Yes, is not only the 2Tb but also, driver signing as I understood.

That's a function of the Secure Boot feature, but not of UEFI itself,
albeit that Secure Boot is of course a feature /of/ the UEFI. One that
can be disabled - that is to say, on x86, because one cannot disable it
on ARM - but UEFI support itself need not be included in the operating
system on x86 because UEFI on x86 does have a legacy BIOS mode. ARM
does not have that because ARM processors do not have a real mode.

> Once your UEFI enabled OS dont have or know the key (the Master key

> Microsoft gave to all Linux) [...

Microsoft gave nothing to nobody. They are _selling_ a license key for
a one-time fee, and several distributions (such as RedHat) have
purchased such a key.

> ...] you wont be able to run drivers of any kind.

Or kernels of any kind.

> So you need to disable Secure Boot and enable Legacy OS in your
> BIOS.

If the kernel has UEFI support - and all modern kernels do - then you do
not need to enable legacy BIOS support. You can use UEFI without the
Secure Boot feature.

> This is true for new hardware motherboard, ie HP with updated
> BIOS
>
> From wikipedia
>
> "Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, attacked the proposal for
> supporting Red Hat's desire to “deep-throat” Microsoft and
> participate in their “dick-sucking” for supporting their regime"

I agree with Linus.

[Aragorn]

On Monday 01 April 2013 19:02, Wayne Callahan conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.suse...

No, you do not. A UEFI offers three operation modes (on x86) for
booting the machine:

- UEFI boot with Secure Boot enabled;
- UEFI boot with Secure Boot disabled; and
- legacy BIOS emulation

> IDIOT, buy a brain!!!

Physician, ...

[Wayne Callahan]

Aragorn wrote:

> No, you do not. A UEFI offers three operation modes (on x86) for booting
> the machine:
>
> - UEFI boot with Secure Boot enabled;
> - UEFI boot with Secure Boot disabled; and - legacy BIOS emulation

Asshat, you cant do that since your motherboard BIOS cant handle that.

Not even the newer one. You need BIOS update from manufacturer. Cant
you fucking read!!?

[Wayne Callahan]

Aragorn wrote:

> If the kernel has UEFI support - and all modern kernels do - then you do
> not need to enable legacy BIOS support. You can use UEFI without the
> Secure Boot feature.

UEFI is not only about the 2TB partition/disks, but also signed kernel/drivers

What are you fucking retarded?

[Aragorn]

On Monday 01 April 2013 19:24, Wayne Callahan conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.suse...

> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> If the kernel has UEFI support - and all modern kernels do - then you
>> do not need to enable legacy BIOS support. You can use UEFI without
>> the Secure Boot feature.
>
> UEFI is not only about the 2TB partition/disks, but also signed
> kernel/drivers

No, that is Secure Boot, which is a feature of UEFI, and one that can be
disabled.

> What are you fucking retarded?

No, but _you_ certainly seem to be behaving yourself as if you are.

Here, cretin, educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFI

[Aragorn]

On Monday 01 April 2013 19:21, Wayne Callahan conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.suse...

I have provided a link for your edification elsewhere in this thread.
Considering your abundant rudeness towards everyone trying to educate
you, you may consider yourself plonked.

[Wayne Callahan]

Aragorn wrote:

>> UEFI is not only about the 2TB partition/disks, but also signed
>> kernel/drivers
>
> No, that is Secure Boot, which is a feature of UEFI, and one that can be
> disabled.

So it is not an UEFI but a feature of it :)

Any other cases of mental retardation in your family? Lock the door!!

What other part of UEFI is not a feature of it? Is the 2TB a feature, or
what is it?

Are you calling Mr Linus an idiot, telling today 01.04.13, that

"Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, attacked the proposal for
supporting Red Hat's desire to “deep-throat” Microsoft and participate in

their “dick-sucking” for supporting their regime.[60]"

and the Spanish free software development group Hispalinux

On March 26 2013, the Spanish free software development group Hispalinux
filed a formal complaint with the European Commission, contesting that
Microsoft's secure boot requirements on OEM systems were "obstructive" and
anti-competitive.[61]

[Wayne Callahan]

Aragorn wrote:

> consider yourself plonke

Too late, I plonked you first. So, try again.

[Peter Köhlmann]

You really are a cretin
You are rude, extremely stupid and totally unable to understand even very
simple things

[Wayne Callahan]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> Too late, I plonked you first. So, try again.
>
> You really are a cretin You are rude, extremely stupid and totally
> unable to understand even very simple things

You calling me all that, and rude, lol. I came here with valuable
information, morons like you never understand.

Stupidity got pretty amazing this days. Thanks!