Hello, MX Team...
In my thread there are a few posts which have crossed over each other, so I'll address a couple of them in here simultaneously. To do that I'll probably have to keep remarks fairly brief. (I hate that because then misunderstandings can happen.)
Before I begin - so no-one misunderstands the direction I'm coming from - I love MX.
Lurv it! After a lot of searching through distros, I find that MX has got really great potential. As a User, I rate it alongside only a couple of other distros for looks, usability, completeness and performance. (I also like the way it can be applied with or without systemd. For me,
without.)
Richb...
#10 Post by richb » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:25 pm
I was referring to thumbnail cache which I assumed you meant by icon cache.
That's fine. Since my "view" of "O/S" originated from Windows usage I may not consider how my lingo is "read" by Linuxers. Perhaps I'll take a leaf out of Gant's book, and
'...think in "MX"...', or (alternatively) just
'...use the force...'.
For me, "icons" are the little symbols used all over the software User-space (by the system) whereas the little representations of photos and pictures are little pics (although they appear as icons. How the system manages icons - storage, in particular - is what I am interesting in understanding (at the moment). @clicktician has put me onto some concepts. (Here post#8, if you are interested
... http://www.mxlinux.org/forum/viewtopic. ... eea85d4e64 ...and in fehlix's answer, quoted below from his post.)
fehlix...
#11 Post by fehlix » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:25 pm
boombaby wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:54 pm
... the Net about that "update-icon-caches"
@boombaby,
Not sure what problem space you want to discover or to solve here.
In MX Linux the installation or removel process of applcations and/or themes
does cover the automatic regeneration or removel of the corresponding run-time icons-caches.
So you would not find a managment interface for a user, as the system takes care about it on it's own.
If you are linux-tinkerer you mind find some nice cli helper to do further tinkering.
fehlix, see, that's why I look. "Run-time" icon-caches? Elsewhere I have learned that icon-caches are created for each theme - and you've indicated they are "run-time". Are they static or adjustable (in some way - link-list maybe)? In Win2K, for instance, there was a single, fixed icon-cache. If it was too small - for ALL the icons - then it crashed. Once I adjusted it - stable again.
As I stated previously (in post #9 ) since I recently made a customized theme in MX (because that appears to be the only way to make the mouse cursor larger) I am now worried about the way the icon-cache works (under the customized theme, which I can't find anyway, alongside the other themes, in the subspace created for it, by the "system"). See?
Now I'd like to address m_pav...
#12 Post by m_pav » Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:33 pm
@boombaby, the very thing you are looking for was provided for a closed source system where a single entity controlled all and every aspect of what would be presented to their users and by and large, most of all that it did was modify existing registry keys for the single controlling database on which the system was designed to run. This made it relatively easy to construct such a tool, however, only the tiniest portion of windows users ever used the tool and you can be very certain it did nothing to enhance the user base numbers.
My experience in Support-work tells me that many Users want to "tinker". For a lot they get themselves in trouble because they tinker till it "tanks", then they call me. And, I'll bet, they call you - like "me" do now.
Truth be known, most people are happy to keep the standard base look with a minor tweak here or there and leave the system to manage itself.
Bit of juxtaposition of the former. There are some people who only want to use their system as a means to an end - to produce docs, send emails, browse, download stuff, etc. I've found that most people want to adjust their system for looks and music etc. A surprising number want more - to adjust "capability" in some way. However, many Users are "scared" they'll break it, and stop themselves (when they really want to). When they are shown how to use their system, they do. Linux is SO complex (and it's GREAT for that) that the User space needs to be NEAT, CLEAN and SIMPLE. THAT'S where I am coming from.
I'd like to think the antiX and MX teamwork will continue to shine for a long time.
Me too. I want them to shine big. Both are great distros. I've seen a couple of distros of good quality fall right out of favour because the support didn't happen. People walk.
...AntiX for providing the best light distro ever and being the single handed best option
Ahh; yes. Antix IS great. Puppy is another. How they did that (originally) and stick it so easily inside a matchbox is a wonder. [I had Barry Kauler as my Lecturer for a short time. Not surprised at what he came up with.] Same with GUI-based Damn Small Linux fitting onto the head of a pin. Truely amazing!
The best way to fall in love with your system is to get into the nitty gritty and learn how to make the changes yourself.
Disagree. That approach can be good (even brilliant) for some. For others, they may tear their hair out trying to find answers. (I figure I've lost enough hair.) Anyway, what is "support" for, if they constantly rule a line under your effort, and give you the cold shoulder. (Seen that too.) Bet you have too.
Should that ever happen, I have only one piece of advice, KISS.
By "KISS" i "assume" you mean "Keep It Simple, Sweetheart"? Because if you mean the "other" then that's a problem. I wouldn't be feelin' the lurv.
Now, if there was a System Utility that I could go to, to adjust System "stuff" (within proper, restricted, technical limits) then I don't need to bother you about this. [That comment is not meant to be a flame just so you can come back to attack me because you feel I'm attacking you. I'm not. It's just a (thought-provoking) comment.] Yes; I know about all the places I can do stuff, as ChrisUK and chrispop99 mentioned here
.... http://www.mxlinux.org/forum/viewtopic. ... eea85d4e64 ...but that's not an "integrated" "thing". It's messy. It's confusing. It misses out on some worthwhile targets. [Again; not a flame, a (thought-provoking) comment.]
Anyway. Sorry to have kept this so brief about such matters, but I hope you get my drift.
Regards,
boombaby
_