athelind: (Default)
You know, I've very quickly adapted to using a single monitor -- thanks in part to the quick-and-easy Desktop Switcher that Ubuntu has.

The whole system seems to be working much more smoothly than it has in a very long time.

After almost a full day of this, I've started to realize that all of my most blood-pressure-raising computer issues in the last few years have centered around my stubborn insistence at keeping the two-monitor set-up running.

Hell, if I recall correctly, that was what kept me from keeping that video card I got last year in the machine: it ran fine until I tried a second monitor.


athelind: (Default)
I'm getting used to one monitor, but so far, that's not the most annoying thing about the glitches in the Ubuntu display editors.

No, the most annoying thing is that, now that I'm only running one screen, all of the annoying little visual flourishes like expanding windows and transparent toolbars have activated -- and I CAN'T TURN THEM OFF.

It's taunting me.

athelind: (Default)
Well, over the last couple of weeks, I upgraded from Ubuntu 8.04 to 9.04, with a week or so at 8.10 just to make sure everything was stable.

Annoyingly, the jump to 9.X threw a wrench in my video drivers, and the setting software was cranky.

In the proces of trying to correct a minor glitch (that made Second Life almost unusable), I've once again completely cocked up my two-monitor browser settings. The second monitor refuses to set itself at the proper 1440x900 resolution -- it's turned into a 1024x768 monitor PANNING ACROSS a 1440x900 virtual screen.

That's worse than useless.

Once again, the only hints of help I can find online involve hand-editing the appropriate config files; meanwhile, finding useful information about just how to DO that elude me.

So, to hell with it. I'll just use one monitor, like everyone else does.

Ironically, I've got the replacement Eee working just fine under Eeebuntu.

athelind: (Default)
The default music player in GNOME/Ubuntu is Rhythmbox, which works in exactly the way I don't want: the "Music Library" model.

"Music Library" apps sift through your directories, find your music files, and use filenames and ID3 tags to organize them by Artist, Album, Title, Genre, and other parameters. Some "Library" apps will immediately start searching as soon as you install and open them. Rhythmbox is more well-behaved, and won't do that until you add a "folder" to its list.

However, as far as I can tell, it will only sort music and generate playlists according to those categories.

I have my music files, OGG and MP3, organized into directories. These directories are based on my own peculiar categorization: "Protest Songs." "Music for the End of the World". "Filk Songs." "Soundtrack for Mage: the Ascension." "TV Theme Music." "Soundtrack For My Unfinished Webcomic." Some songs fit into more than one category, and hence can be found in more than one directory.

Rhythmbox will not recognize my organization. Rhythmbox will let me dump the contents of a directory into a playlist, but will not let me change the order of the songs unless it's by Track Number, Title, Genre, Artist, Album or Time. If I add songs from another directory, it will only integrate them into my list. If I added all my music to its library, I would have a mess.

I certainly wouldn't have what I wanted to listen to.

I have more control over my CD player.

The Totem Media Player also comes with Ubuntu. Despite being primarily a video player, it allows me to make spontaneous mix lists with a minimum of hassle. Still, it's a kludge. I'd prefer dedicated music software that gave me more flexibility.

I know the "mix tape" is considered something of a street-level art form these days. Surely, there has to be some Linux-compatible software that lets you make them?

Suggestions requested.

March 2010

  12 3 4 56
78910 111213
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 222324252627


Page generated Mar. 24th, 2017 08:03 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios