Version: (using KDE Devel) Installed from: Compiled sources OS: Linux I think it isn´t a Discussion about needing or not - it is a Must-Have-Feature for full Usability. Please take a look at this Bug too - maybe then you are understanding exactly what i mean : http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4229 Sure i know that you can use kmenu Editor for that but it is necessary to activate another Programm just to move as example a Game fron Debian->Games to Games...
Sorry, i forgot to write : IMHO it is possible under Win to do it in both Ways. At the Startmenu or at the Explorer. Best way was maybe to handle the entrys as Shortcuts like in Win.
Created attachment 8307 [details] Explorer example to move the entrys At the Explorer
Created attachment 8308 [details] Example which is missed under KDE The Startmenu way
> it is a Must-Have-Feature for full Usability. Sure? How does adding the possibility of accidental changing your menu increase usability? So it would not only need another Kiosk/lock-down check but also a GUI option to disable it for some users. > possible under Win to do it in both Ways. At the Startmenu or at the Explorer. Under KDE is the menu structure not (only) defined by directory and file structure (it's called "vFolder"). The "only" is some backward-compatibility which will disappear in KDE 4. Did you notice that to apply changes to the KDE menu system it takes some time to reparse all relevant files (up to lets assume 3 seconds). Do you want that delay for every single change in a "in-menu editor" rather than once when saving all changes at once in the "external" menu editor? Moving position of three items in the menu would cause you to wait 9 seconds then. Do you really want that?
Hi Stephan. Sure! These questions do not arise in large concerns when using Windows also. Naturally there must be the possibility to block this administratively for certain users. Nobody can move 3 entries with one Hand and one Mouse at the same Time. BTW - if the structure of the menu is so slowly it has to be improved. ;O) The best Way is to handle the Entry´s like Shortcuts on the Desktop.
Sigh! Hard-to-solve bugs/feature-request always seem to cause a response from people saying: "You do not really want to have that feature." In the name of everyone who voted for this bug and its predecessor 4229 which has been closed by being picky about the wording of the subject: Yes - we definitely want that feature - like it or not. And - because I know the other usual responses (among the more famous ones "write it yourself"): It's of course OK if there is nobody who works on it - no one is payed to do that after all - but please don't keep closing bug after bug for more than dubious reasons. If this bug is closed I can assure you now that I will file a bug "Saving changes in the menu editor is too slow". Please don't make me do that and just accept finally that everyone who has voted for this bug wants a _fast_ and _in-place_ way to edit their K menu. A very valid feature request IMO. And I certainly will put my votes whereever the discussion about this feature is taken.
i've tried this feature on a windows box here, it's not easy to accidently rearrange the menu. the performance concerns are real, but up to the user and perhaps solvable. i'm confirming this wishlist item, but have no timeline for its implementation at this point. patches, as always, welcome =) that said, i'd like to suggest to rgpublic and redlabour that you're already annoying me with your editorializing. as the kicker maintainer, i'd like to note that a friendlier approach that doesn't involve threats or chastisement would be preferred. i've read over bug BR#4229 and a lot of the comments there (not necessarily yours) were WAY out of line. if this bug turns into another BR#4229 i will close this one and refile a new bug that is free from such "commentary". please don't waste your (or my) time adding anything to this BR that isn't new, substantive and insightful. as it is, i've already received 7 emails from this BR as i'm CC'd on each change to it. this comment will make 8. let's see if we can avoid 9, ok? =)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18605 ***