- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- linux@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- linux@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
every time gnome tries to do things, it gets further away from the gnome i loved…
whilst there is a lot of interesting thinking here, it’s fundamentally trying to solve a problem I don’t want solved. I don’t want the pile of papers on my desk to never overlap, it’s already overlapping and hiding each other based on where my brain knows they are. It’s a mess, but it’s a mess my brain knows. it’s a structural mess.
leave my windows alone!
It may not be of interest to you personally, but the growing popularity of tiling window managers means there’s a lot of demand for this type of feature.
As long as they give the user the ability to opt out/in, what’s the harm in introducing it?
The year of the KDE desktop is finally upon us
If a new window doesn’t fit (e.g. because it wants to be maximized) it moves to its own workspace.
The worst possible thing, as expected from Gnome by now. That’s why I still use Unity7.
I don’t get why most comments here are so negative. It’s Linux, if GNOME no longer fits your needs, you can always switch to another desktop. There are lots to choose from!
I am actually excited to see how these ideas will work in practice. I’ll complain after I’ve used it, if it really doesn’t work well. But until then I am quite positive about it. If no one tried to innovate, we would still be stuck without electricity afterall …
Personally I have yet to encounter window management that doesn’t annoy me in one way or the other. I would be happy, if GNOME developers actually managed to come up with a better way of managing windows, similar to how GNOME’s dynamic workspaces changed how I use virtual desktops.
I don’t get why most comments here are so negative
Because I loved it and I don’t love it for some time now. Their experiment has brought me something I strongly dislike.
if GNOME no longer fits your needs, you can always switch to another desktop
And I did, but the squeaky wheel still gets the shit.
Because I loved it and I don’t love it for some time now.
For me it’s the opposite. I actually wasn’t too happy with GNOME 2 and all the problems it had with panel applets. It stored absolute pixels for their position on the panel (instead of relative positions, like Xfce does) and almost every time you plugged your laptop into a display with a different resolution, all your applets got randomly rearranged.
Then Ubuntu switched to Unity and I actually loved it, even though I didn’t understand (I was much younger back then) why I could no longer add eyes to my panel and why I couldn’t rearrange panels anymore. 😅 The locally integrated menu in later versions was great and I always loved the macOS-like look of the top panel for some reason.
GNOME Shell certainly was a huge learning curve and completely different to GNOME 2 and early versions were rough. But once Canonical made clear that it didn’t want to adopt Wayland and instead develop their own incompatible display server, I switched to GNOME Shell. Since I got used to it, I actually don’t mind it much and nowadays it has a very polished and professional feel to it.
I also think it is great that GNOME apps are convergent and work on mobile phones as well as on desktops. Makes the app availability for Linux phones better and reduces the amount of manpower required.
Mosaic actually sounds pretty nice. Personally I don’t think it should be on by default but I really like the experimentation on this subject.
MacOS tries to solve the problem a different way with Stage Manager, and it does take some time to get used to but overall it’s very nice to use.
This is probably going to make me sound like a curmudgeon, but:
While most of us are used to this system and its quirks, that doesn’t mean it’s without problems. This is especially apparent when you do user research with people who are new to computing…
I don’t understand this thinking (1), and worse, the workflow described seems like it will just make things more confusing (2).
(1) Most tools humans have developed are not especially intuitive - you usually need someone to teach you at least the basics, and then you need to practice. Consider a driving a car, operating a sewing machine, a microwave… Even something “simple” like a hammer has features that need to be explained (“turn it around, and you can use the claw on the back to remove nails”).
(2) This seems like it just introduces more inconsistency. Right now, a new window opens on top, and you move it and size it however you need. This works for all windows. With the model described, windows sometimes float next to each other (but the arrangement is random), some times tile, and other times will open on a new workspace. And the tiling features get even more confusing - dragging one window over another causes them to tile, but what if I actually just want them to overlap?
I feel like this is just going to annoy anyone used to the current system and still require a learning curve for anyone new to computing.
I’ve used gnome 2 and 3, Unity, KDE 3, 4, and 5, and am on gnome 44 now - I actually think the current world is pretty good. I’d much rather see quarter tiling and gesture customization than a whole new window management paradigm.
Exactly, I don’t get how these people are supposed to be UI UX experts but don’t understand that inconsistent behaviour is a very fast way to confuse and break user trust.
Very excited to see where this will go. I don’t use gnome, but if it manages to become the perfect mix of TWM and the traditional floating layout, then this could be huge
