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 key point we keep coming back to with this work is that, if we do add a new kind of window management to GNOME, it needs to be good enough to be the default. We don’t want to add yet another manual opt-in tool that doesn’t solve the problems the majority of people face.
In the end, this is an open platform and if they make something I don’t like, I’ll just use something else. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t voice what I see as a misstep forward taking gnome further from the kind of interface that made it so successful.
But they also say that the classic “floating” window state would still be one of the three options. In this case, this would effectively allow users to keep the “standard” behavior if they want.
Not going against Gnome here, but against your last sentence.
As long as they give the user the ability to opt out/in, what’s the harm in introducing it?
Pretty sure systemd did this with a lot of things and started removing things they just didn’t like. Can’t find the website I wanted to link, but it included a lot of reasons why systemd isn’t good (for example, binary logging. Why ?) “You can always opt out” doesn’t work in the real world ; people don’t care enough to switch. Why do you think google is the biggest search engine ? Mainly because it’s the default everywhere.
In this context I guess it doesn’t matter (and I couldn’t see myself using gnome, even if it has some good polish), it’s just that “you can always opt out” leaves a bad taste on my tongue.
it’s fundamentally trying to solve a problem I don’t want solved.
It’s trying to solve a problem that does not exist IMHO.
Their use cases are children and old people, which are users that probably use a single app at the time anyway.
It’s not true to say their use cases are just “children and old people”; they’re saying that while it’s more of a obstacle to ease-of-use in those groups, all users have to manually relocate poorly placed application windows.
If the OS can remove the need to do that, it improves workflow.
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.
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 ?
@cx0der
I really like this. Gnome could be just settling and following what other DEs already do, but instead it is inovating. This type of move will always piss off people that already have a set way of organizing themselves, but I am really interesting in testing new stuff. Can’t wait it see it implemented
