gnome desktop backround

[Rob Brown-Bayliss]

Hi, using fc3 the gnome desktop back ground is crap, what ever image I
select is over written within seconds with some plain colours, either
blue or white.

--
Rob Brown-Bayliss


____________________________________
We act as though comfort and luxury
were the chief requirements of life,
when all that we need to make us
happy is something to be
enthusiastic about.
____________________________________

[thomas cameron]

On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 20:47 +1300, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
>  
>  Hi, using fc3 the gnome desktop back ground is crap, what ever image I
>  select is over written within seconds with some plain colours, either
>  blue or white. 
Hi Rob -

How are you changing your background image?  On my FC3 system, I right-
click on the desktop and choose Change Desktop Background from the
context menu.  Is that what you are doing?  How was your system built?
Is it a fresh install of FC3 or upgrade from earlier version?  Can you
provide a little more information?

Also - can you please post to the list in plain text instead of HTML?
There are several list members who prefer plain text for a number of
reasons.

Cheers,
Thomas

[Tim]

On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 20:47 +1300, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
>  
>  Hi, using fc3 the gnome desktop back ground is crap, what ever image I
>  select is over written within seconds with some plain colours, either
>  blue or white.
>  
>  --
>  Rob Brown-Bayliss
>  
>  
>  
>  ___________________________________
>  
>  We act as though comfort and luxury
>  were the chief requirements of
>  life,
>  when all that we need to make us
>  happy is something to be
>  enthusiastic about. 
>  ___________________________________
>  
>  
>  -- 
>  fedora-list mailing list
>  fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list 
-- 

Please do not post in html
Why? http://www.tmpco.com/textvshtml.html
Thank you

OT: HTML email (was: gnome desktop backround)

[Sean]

On Tue, December 7, 2004 3:48 am, Timothy Payne said:

>  Please do not post in html
>  Why? http://www.tmpco.com/textvshtml.html
>  Thank you
>  
Hey Timothy,

HTML permits scripts (Java and Java scripts)
HTML permits tag images
HTML can set cookies that other sites might inspect
HTML facilitates 'active content', goodness what does active imply.
 - HTML doesn't require the use of these things and all of them
   can be configured away by the recipient.

HTML is not a universal WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)
HTML and the 'equivalent' text of a MIME message may not be equal
HTML can Carry mixed character sets unnoticed by the sender
 - Why are any of these a concern?

HTML permits volatile external content references
 - In fact many plain text messages provide links to external content,
   in fact *your* plain text message included a URL to external content!
   This "reason" doesn't pass the smell test.

HTML can carry text that is problematic to index / search
 - Huh?  The entire web is based on HTML and google indexes it just fine

HTML facilitates spammers
HTML facilitates spyware
HTML rich content hobbles off line interaction.
 - How?  I receive HTML email from family members, no problem.

HTML facilitates virus payloads (at work some of must use WindowZ)
 - Sucks, but is not the senders problem, its yours and your companies.
   In fact, viruses infected files can be attached to plain text
   messages just as easily, a properly configured client won't be
   at risk in either case.

HTML permits you to get fired by triggering pornographic references
 "censorware" to catch employees trying to access "bad" sites
 that corporate filters trigger, i.e. trigger HTTP proxy
 (porn, hate sites, hacking sites, etc)
  -  This is just laughable

HTML messages are 2 to 50+ times larger than the equivalent text
 - This seems like the only issue that has any real weight behind it
   and since the list is voluntary....  If this is such a big problem
   why doesn't RedHat filter HTML email rather than putting up with all
   the bandwidth consumed talking about it?   In fact, why respond
   on-list asking people to stop posting in HTML if this is the issue?

I don't particularily like HTML messages, but the reasons you cite don't
really stand up to inspection.   In fact, a counter argument could be made
that HTML messages could include content using colour and images to
explain solutions much better!.

Cheers,
Sean

OT: HTML email (was: gnome desktop backround)

[Jon Haugsand]

* seanlkml(a)sympatico.ca
>  HTML is not a universal WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)
>  HTML and the 'equivalent' text of a MIME message may not be equal
>  HTML can Carry mixed character sets unnoticed by the sender
>   - Why are any of these a concern? 
Because the message is read differently by different readers.

>  
>  HTML permits volatile external content references
>   - In fact many plain text messages provide links to external content,
>     in fact *your* plain text message included a URL to external content!
>     This "reason" doesn't pass the smell test.
>  
>  HTML can carry text that is problematic to index / search
>   - Huh?  The entire web is based on HTML and google indexes it just fine 
Local search becomes problematic.  _My_ local search at least.  My
email agent doesn't like html.


>  HTML facilitates spammers
>  HTML facilitates spyware
>  HTML rich content hobbles off line interaction.
>   - How?  I receive HTML email from family members, no problem. 
Why is this an an issue?


>  
>  HTML facilitates virus payloads (at work some of must use WindowZ)
>   - Sucks, but is not the senders problem, its yours and your companies.
>     In fact, viruses infected files can be attached to plain text
>     messages just as easily, a properly configured client won't be
>     at risk in either case.
>  
>  HTML permits you to get fired by triggering pornographic references
>   "censorware" to catch employees trying to access "bad" sites
>   that corporate filters trigger, i.e. trigger HTTP proxy
>   (porn, hate sites, hacking sites, etc)
>    -  This is just laughable 
It is not.  If html is banned in serious email, mailing lists and on
the Usenet news, you could just filter out _all_ html and therefore
illegal content without the risk.

>  
>  HTML messages are 2 to 50+ times larger than the equivalent text
>   - This seems like the only issue that has any real weight behind it
>     and since the list is voluntary....  If this is such a big problem
>     why doesn't RedHat filter HTML email rather than putting up with all
>     the bandwidth consumed talking about it?   In fact, why respond
>     on-list asking people to stop posting in HTML if this is the issue? 
Good idea.

-- 
Jon Haugsand
  Dept. of Informatics, Univ. of Oslo, Norway, mailto:[e-mail]
  http://www.ifi.uio.no/~jonhaug/, Phone: [phone]

OT: HTML email (was: gnome desktop backround)

[Sean]

On Tue, December 7, 2004 4:56 am, Jon Haugsand said:

> > HTML is not a universal WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)
> > HTML and the 'equivalent' text of a MIME message may not be equal
> > HTML can Carry mixed character sets unnoticed by the sender
> >  - Why are any of these a concern?
>
>  Because the message is read differently by different readers. 
Yes, and my email reader may wrap text messages at different widths
than yours does.   What does it matter?

>  Local search becomes problematic.  _My_ local search at least.  My
>  email agent doesn't like html. 
Surely this isn't an insurmountable problem?

> > HTML facilitates spammers
> > HTML facilitates spyware
> > HTML rich content hobbles off line interaction.
> >  - How?  I receive HTML email from family members, no problem.
>
>  Why is this an an issue? 
I really don't know. That's why I asked how these points can be valid,
having seen no evidence of them myself even though many family members
choose to use HTML email.

>  It is not.  If html is banned in serious email, mailing lists and on
>  the Usenet news, you could just filter out _all_ html and therefore
>  illegal content without the risk.
>  
Surely someone could still send you "illegal content" in a text message?  
Proper filters can do the same job you're looking for with or without HTML
email messages.

Sean

OT: HTML email (was: gnome desktop backround)

[Tim]

First of all you left off what was above and below what you posted.
The page was not made for this list, it was an explanation of why we
do not read unknown HTML mail at my company. 


On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 04:43 -0500, Sean wrote:
>  On Tue, December 7, 2004 3:48 am, Timothy Payne said:
>  
>  > Please do not post in html
>  > Why? http://www.tmpco.com/textvshtml.html
>  > Thank you
>  >
>  
>  Hey Timothy,
>  
>  HTML permits scripts (Java and Java scripts)
>  HTML permits tag images
>  HTML can set cookies that other sites might inspect
>  HTML facilitates 'active content', goodness what does active imply.
>   - HTML doesn't require the use of these things and all of them
>     can be configured away by the recipient. 
Permits is not the same as require, and
judging by this list many people
can't even configure their mailer to send text only.  So for the average
computer user this applies.

>  HTML is not a universal WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)
>  HTML and the 'equivalent' text of a MIME message may not be equal
>  HTML can Carry mixed character sets unnoticed by the sender
>   - Why are any of these a concern? 
Because what you read or send may not show up as
it was intended.

>  HTML permits volatile external content references
>   - In fact many plain text messages provide links to external content,
>     in fact *your* plain text message included a URL to external content!
>     This "reason" doesn't pass the smell test. 
You don't think
someone can add code to an HTML message to fetch outside data?
My link had to be clicked on, it was not coded into the message to
display when opened.

HTML can carry text that is problematic to index / search
>   - Huh?  The entire web is based on HTML and google indexes it just
> fine 
Yes, Google indexes text, and the pages with the best text are ranked higher,
second is links.  And I'm sure they have spent millions doing that, because that
is their business.
>  HTML facilitates spammers
>  HTML facilitates spyware
>  HTML rich content hobbles off line interaction.
>   - How?  I receive HTML email from family members, no problem. 
Like I said you left
off important items from the page.
I said if you don't know the sender delete the message.
>  HTML facilitates virus payloads (at work some of must use WindowZ)
>   - Sucks, but is not the senders problem, its yours and your companies.
>     In fact, viruses infected files can be attached to plain text
>     messages just as easily, a properly configured client won't be
>     at risk in either case. 
It's not what's attached to the email, it's
what is coded inside.
>  
>  HTML permits you to get fired by triggering pornographic references
>   "censorware" to catch employees trying to access "bad" sites
>   that corporate filters trigger, i.e. trigger HTTP proxy
>   (porn, hate sites, hacking sites, etc)
>    -  This is just laughable 
You don't think an HTML email can make a call to
another site for data?
>  HTML messages are 2 to 50+ times larger than the equivalent text
>   - This seems like the only issue that has any real weight behind it
>     and since the list is voluntary....  If this is such a big problem
>     why doesn't RedHat filter HTML email rather than putting up with all
>     the bandwidth consumed talking about it?   In fact, why respond
>     on-list asking people to stop posting in HTML if this is the issue? 
It is
customary to post to this list in plain text.  Just like the fact that
I remove my shoes when I enter the Buddhist Monastery I attend.  If I
did wear my shoes I would be reminded about it, but if I refused I would
not be kicked out or yelled at.
>  I don't particularily like HTML messages, but the reasons you
> cite don't
>  really stand up to inspection.   In fact, a counter argument could be made
>  that HTML messages could include content using colour and images to
>  explain solutions much better!.
>  
>  Cheers,
>  Sean
>   
Before posting what you disagree with, BTW you did not include the authors name,
I spoke with several people first.  One of which has a PhD and runs a computer research
lab
at a major University, and every one agreed with what was written.

These are my opinions, not of the author.

Tim...

OT: HTML email (was: gnome desktop backround)

[Sean]

On Tue, December 7, 2004 1:18 pm, Timothy Payne said:
>  First of all you left off what was above and below what you posted.
>  The page was not made for this list, it was an explanation of why we
>  do not read unknown HTML mail at my company. 
Huh?  I posted all the reasons given.  You posted it to someone on this
list so I took a look.   Here's what I skipped from above:

Thanks to Tom Mitchell
A few reasons NOT to read HTML email:
HTML provides a number of risks and non features that we wish to avoid.

Don't really see why you're upset that I omitted it.

> > HTML permits scripts (Java and Java scripts)
> > HTML permits tag images
> > HTML can set cookies that other sites might inspect
> > HTML facilitates 'active content', goodness what does active imply.
> >  - HTML doesn't require the use of these things and all of them
> >    can be configured away by the recipient.
>
>  Permits is not the same as require, and judging by this list many people
>  can't even configure their mailer to send text only.  So for the average
>  computer user this applies. 
But it's not the average computer users that are complaining, and there's
been no reported abuses on this list do to these features that i'm aware
of.

> > HTML is not a universal WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)
> > HTML and the 'equivalent' text of a MIME message may not be equal
> > HTML can Carry mixed character sets unnoticed by the sender
> >  - Why are any of these a concern?
>  Because what you read or send may not show up as it was intended. 
As I mentioned elsewhere, text only messages may be displayed in a
different font or word wrapped in a different way.   The meaning is not
lost.   If this criticism was all that important the Web wouldn't be as
successful as it is (ie. if HTML is good enough for web pages, its good
enough for email)  I get email from people all the time in HTML and have
*never* had this issue.  I think you might be over estimating this as a
problem.

> > HTML permits volatile external content references
> >  - In fact many plain text messages provide links to external content,
> >    in fact *your* plain text message included a URL to external content!
> >    This "reason" doesn't pass the smell test.
>  You don't think someone can add code to an HTML message to fetch outside
>  data?  My link had to be clicked on, it was not coded into the message to
>  display when opened. 
In fact in my email client no outside links are followed unless explicitly
clicked on.   This is a recipient problem, not a sender problem.  Again,
you're punishing good users of HTML for the sins of the spammers.

>  HTML can carry text that is problematic to index / search
> >  - Huh?  The entire web is based on HTML and google indexes it just fine
>  Yes, Google indexes text, and the pages with the best text are ranked
>  higher, second is links.  And I'm sure they have spent millions doing
>  that, because that is their business. 
The point was that HTML does not inhibit indexing or scanning by anyone.  
Software has evolved.

> > HTML facilitates spammers
> > HTML facilitates spyware
> > HTML rich content hobbles off line interaction.
> >  - How?  I receive HTML email from family members, no problem.
>  Like I said you left off important items from the page.
>  I said if you don't know the sender delete the message. 
Well I left off *your* remedy because its not one I use personally and it
wasn't a reason but a solution.   I receive HTML all the time and have
absolutely none of these problems that you think exist because of HTML.

> > HTML facilitates virus payloads (at work some of must use
> WindowZ)
> >  - Sucks, but is not the senders problem, its yours and your companies.
> >    In fact, viruses infected files can be attached to plain text
> >    messages just as easily, a properly configured client won't be
> >    at risk in either case.
>  It's not what's attached to the email, it's what is coded inside. 
So make sure your client does the right thing.  Mine does.   Go ahead and
send me something you think will wreck my system, I promise to open it up
and take a look :o)

> >
> > HTML permits you to get fired by triggering pornographic references
> >  "censorware" to catch employees trying to access "bad" sites
> >  that corporate filters trigger, i.e. trigger HTTP proxy
> >  (porn, hate sites, hacking sites, etc)
> >   -  This is just laughable 
>  You don't think an HTML email can make a call to another site for
> data? 
Only if the client lets it.   You're attacking the problem at the wrong end.

> > HTML messages are 2 to 50+ times larger than the equivalent text
> >  - This seems like the only issue that has any real weight behind it
> >    and since the list is voluntary....  If this is such a big problem
> >    why doesn't RedHat filter HTML email rather than putting up with all
> >    the bandwidth consumed talking about it?   In fact, why respond
> >    on-list asking people to stop posting in HTML if this is the issue? 
>  It is customary to post to this list in plain text.  Just like the
> fact
>  that  remove my shoes when I enter the Buddhist Monastery I attend.  If I
>  did wear my shoes I would be reminded about it, but if I refused I would
>  not be kicked out or yelled at. 
Well we're discussing if this custom is still in place for appropriate
reasons.

> > I don't particularily like HTML messages, but the reasons you
> cite don't
> > really stand up to inspection.   In fact, a counter argument could be
> > made
> > that HTML messages could include content using colour and images to
> > explain solutions much better!.
> > 
>  Before posting what you disagree with, BTW you did not include the
> authors
>  name, I spoke with several people first.  One of which has a PhD and runs
>  a computer research lab at a major University, and every one agreed with
>  what was written. 
Fine.   They may well be true in certain circumstances.   But I still
think your solution to the problem is wrong.   It should not be to outlaw
all HTML email it should be to solve the core issues with the clients that
permit abuse.


>  These are my opinions, not of the author.
>  
No problem.  I still don't think the solution is to ban HTML.

Cheers,
Sean

OT: HTML email (was: gnome desktop backround)

[John Summerfield]

On Wednesday 08 December 2004 04:09, Sean wrote:
>   HTML is good enough for web pages, its good
>  enough for email 
HTML is _the_ internet standard for web pages. It's _not_ a standard for 
email.

There is a very simple rule for asking questions on this list (or any others):
Send your email in a format that the highest number of potential respondants 
will read.

I don't recall anyone saying that they _expect_ people to email to them in 
HTML, but a good number of people say that HTML is undesirable or 
unacceptable.

_I_ require that email is rendered apprpriately by the email client I've 
chosen for reasons that seem good to me.

When I remind people to post no HTML, I do so because I cannot read their mail 
without skipping over the HTML myself.

Your questions are not that important to me.

What my email client does with plain text is quite irrelevant: I can customise 
my GUI browser to display in a font and size that suit me, it recognises 
imbedded links so I can click on them, but those links are recognised because 
they look like links, not because some (possibly invalid) markup language 
says they are links.

Here are some potential HTML nasties. I don't pretend that these apply 
specifically to email sent to this list, but email clients set to render HTML 
from one source likely do so from all.

web bugs.
These are little (one-pixel) images included in email. If you open the 
document, the image automatically loads and the link a) validates your email 
(spam) and b) indicates you're "read" the email (think estranged party's

lawyer).

mismatched quotes
Quoting characters include "", '' and <>.
Typically, a programmer assignes a "big enough" space to store legal strings 
and maybe some fudge factor to allow for something longer. Then the 
programmer writes a loop to copy until he finds a matching quote.

If the string is "carefully crafted," the program copies more then the 
programmer allowed for and writes on other stuff. The result is a "buffer 
overflow," and this is how many viruses can infect your computer.

It's not just HTML tags, of course, that can exhibit this kind of problem: 
email headers can too, and as I recall metamail had just this problem a few 
years ago (on Linux no less).

Corrupted files
These can be images (see web bugs) or attachments. Something in the file is 
invalid, either accidentally or "carefully crafted" with the result that 
programs that don't validate the data can crash or do worse things.

There are many things that can go wrong, and Broken Windows is notoriously 
prone to these problems, but Linux (and the BSD family) are not immune to 
these.

Turning off HTML rendering if you can is one way to avoid some of these 
problems.

kmail has HTML off by default and  I do not intend to change it.



-- 

Cheers
John Summerfield
tourist pics: http://environmental.disaster.cds.merseine.nu/

OT: HTML email (was: gnome desktop backround)

[Sean]

On Wed, December 8, 2004 3:44 am, John Summerfield said:
>  On Wednesday 08 December 2004 04:09, Sean wrote:
> >  HTML is good enough for web pages, its good
> > enough for email
>
>  HTML is _the_ internet standard for web pages. It's _not_ a standard for
>  email.
>  
Lots of people use HTML email.  The point I was making was that the notion
that it's unworthy because it might be rendered slightly differently in
one browser over another doesn't hold water.   If it's good enough to
handle content rendering for the web obviously its every bit good enough
to handle content rendering in email.

>  There is a very simple rule for asking questions on this list
>  (or any others):
>  Send your email in a format that the highest number of potential
>  respondants will read. 
Well that's not a bad argument.

>  I don't recall anyone saying that they _expect_ people to email
> to them in
>  HTML, but a good number of people say that HTML is undesirable or
>  unacceptable. 
People say a lot of things.

>  _I_ require that email is rendered apprpriately by the email client
> I've
>  chosen for reasons that seem good to me. 
You're certainly entitled.

>  When I remind people to post no HTML, I do so because I cannot read
> their
>  mail without skipping over the HTML myself. 
That's fine, you're not required to read every message.   Myself I skip
every message with a subject line that doesn't start in a vowel.

>  Your questions are not that important to me. 
Now you're just tryin to hurt my feelins.

>  What my email client does with plain text is quite irrelevant: I can
>  customise
>  my GUI browser to display in a font and size that suit me, it recognises
>  imbedded links so I can click on them, but those links are recognised
>  because
>  they look like links, not because some (possibly invalid) markup language
>  says they are links.
>  
*shrug*.   How hard would it be, if you really felt strongly, to use a
script that stripped the HTML tags out and converted it them to text.   
Instead you impose your own personal preference on oodles of others.

>  Here are some potential HTML nasties. I don't pretend that these
> apply
>  specifically to email sent to this list, but email clients set to render
>  HTML from one source likely do so from all.
>
>  [... snip list of bugs ...]
>
>  Turning off HTML rendering if you can is one way to avoid some of these
>  problems. 
Then fix the clients instead of trying to fix a world full of naughty people.

>  kmail has HTML off by default and  I do not intend to change it.
>  
Bravo.


Cheers,
Sean

OT: HTML email (was: gnome desktop backround)

[John Summerfield]

On Thursday 09 December 2004 09:39, Sean wrote:
>  How hard would it be, if you really felt strongly, to use a
>  script that stripped the HTML tags out and converted it them to text. 
Your
questions are not that important to me.

-- 

Cheers
John Summerfield
tourist pics: http://environmental.disaster.cds.merseine.nu/