- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
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. It’s Linux, if GNOME no longer fits your needs, you can always switch to another desktop. There are lots to choose from!
Which don’t mean that we cannot criticize GNOME while discussing 😉
I can agree that there could be a problem with too many windows on a desktop but the solution they propose is the worst possible one.
For a user it make no sense that when you add a window to the desktop (say open a terminal) all the other window move to other places (or you switch to another workspace entirely)
Aside the fact that usually I (and people in general) remember where a window is, the big problem is that I positioned the applications as I need and I want them to stay there because I need them that way, even when I add another one. It is my problem where to put the new window, and I will probably put it where I need it.
Put it that way: it would be a good idea if in a IDE every time you open a new panel, all the already open panels change their arrangement ?
It is just another case of “we know better than the user what the user needs” from the GNOME developers (remember when they remove the advanced option of the printers because “users would be confused” ?)
Which don’t mean that we cannot criticize GNOME while discussing 😉
No, but I think one should try something first and then criticise. Sometimes new stuff just has a learning curve because it is different to what you are used to, but after learning it, it turns out that you actually like it better.
Aside the fact that usually I (and people in general) remember where a window is, the big problem is that I positioned the applications as I need and I want them to stay there because I need them that way, even when I add another one. It is my problem where to put the new window, and I will probably put it where I need it.
That’s the approach with floating window managers. But some people like window managers that do window arrangement for them, i. e. tiling window managers. GNOME seems to try to combine elements of both approaches into one new idea. ;)
Personally I actually hate having to manually re-arrange my windows. If a window manager managed to do this for me in an intuitive way, working on my PC would be more pleasant for me. That’s why I think that I might like GNOME’s new idea.
Other projects, like Windows 11 or Cosmic desktop also experiment with overhauling window management. Windows 11 includes several different tiling layouts that you can select manually and Cosmic includes auto tiling functionality. GNOME’s proposal just seems to go a bit further, similar to how GNOME workspaces are one step ahead of virtual desktops on Windows, since GNOME’s workspaces are dynamic, whereas on Windows you have to manually add and remove them.
It is just another case of “we know better than the user what the user needs” from the GNOME developers
No, it is just another case of GNOME trying to improve the user experience on regular computers.
(remember when they remove the advanced option of the printers because “users would be confused” ?)
I would argue that there shouldn’t be two settings menus for printers. There should be one that is able to do all common tasks. So I agree with the decision to remove one of them, but I disagree with not offering essential settings (e. g. Sound Juicer lost the ability to specify compression ratio).
No, but I think one should try something first and then criticise. Sometimes new stuff just has a learning curve because it is different to what you are used to, but after learning it, it turns out that you actually like it better.
Maybe, but then you should convince me that what I am going to try can be potentially better than what I already have. And the idea behind what GNOME are going to do is not that good. Then this is my idea, no problem if someone like it. btw, I am not a GNOME user anyway, so I could just say “who cares” 😀
Personally I actually hate having to manually re-arrange my windows. If a window manager managed to do this for me in an intuitive way, working on my PC would be more pleasant for me. That’s why I think that I might like GNOME’s new idea.
That’s fine. But to me the problem is that I normally put my windows how I need them (and I suppose I am not the only one) so a window manager that thinks it know better is a no start for me. Now, I accept if a window manager put a new window is a empty area, but the idea to move the other windows is just awful to me.
No, it is just another case of GNOME trying to improve the user experience on regular computers.
Problem is they are using the wrong users groups to make their decisions. They are saying that since older people and kids may be confused from the current behaviour then they must change it for everyone. I see two big problems here:
- they are underestimating one of their users group (the kids) which are much more smarter with a PC then they seem to think
- the other users group probably has not the problem since they already use just one app at the time
I would argue that there shouldn’t be two settings menus for printers. There should be one that is able to do all common tasks. So I agree with the decision to remove one of them, but I disagree with not offering essential settings (e. g. Sound Juicer lost the ability to specify compression ratio).
I would argue that I’d like that my OS allow me to use all the features of my hardware. I would have understood that they moved the least common used options to another dialog (to be open with a button or any other solutions, it does not matter) but I not accept that they just remove it “because users could be confused”. Fine, someone could be confused, but what about the users that are not confused and need to use the feature ?
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.
