Re: Viewports and gnome 2

[Gaute Lindkvist <lindkvis stud ntnu no>]

First. Have you read the earlier discussions on this topic? It covers just
about everything you mention. I'll summarize here. Second. Please shorten
or split up your arguments as it is almost impossible to reply to without
quoting just about all of your e-mail.

The only thing that we'll loose by going to workspaces only is the ability
to have one window overlap several viewports.

> I got sick of having to raise 15 windows to get to the window I wanted to
> work and decided to give specific windows a specific viewport of their
> own. I have a huge (180x82 text) Eterm in one view running pine with
> various monitors and other mail related programs running. I've got my
> browser dedicated to another viewport. terms open to various machine I
> administer are open in another viewport, etc. Everything is all nicely
> laid out and I never have to dig through windows to find what I currently
> need to work on, just click the viewport I want to go to in the pager or
> navigate to the next window via edge flipping in a nice 2D plane.

This is totally possible with Workspaces. Even edge-flipping.

> The proponents of removing viewports in gnome 2 and going solely to
> workspaces are overlooking a few things that I find very important. First,
> I think of workspaces as a one dimensional, linked list of desktops. They
> can go to the previous or next workspace but there isn't a 2 dimensional
> link between them.

This is just because the implementations you've seen so far doesn't do
this. Workspaces can be put up in a todimensional grid just like
Viewports.

> Sometimes, I'll deliberately straddle a window between two viewports
> so I can see if it's updates while I'm doing some work in/jumping back and
> forth between those two viewports. I completely lose this functionality in
> a workspaces only environment.
>

No you wouldn't. It is perfectly implementable in a Workspaces-only
environment.

> This still doesn't
> consider all of the extra bloat and work required to make EVERY app out
> there support text boxes with scroll bars in case someone decides to use
> it in a way that most others might not. This is like saying every console
> app should have to know how to manipulate the screen/display on all
> architectures rather than having a library they all have in common that
> can do the work in one place rather than to constantly have to duplicate
> functionality. Isn't one of the big selling points of gnome 2 it's
> shared component architecture? At the same time, some are suggesting that
> some code shouldn't be shared.
>

I'm not sure how to reply to this. All apps NEED to do this already. If an
app doesn't support text-boxes with scrollbars and instead NEED several
viewports to work. The app would leave out 95% of all users.

Secondly. This isn't bloat. It is a necessity. Are you suggesting that the
gnome-terminal shouldn't have scrollbars because it could just rely on
several viewports?

> Apparently, the powers that be decided that it was too "confusing" to have
> both viewports and workspaces so one had to be removed. While I've
> displayed that I'm a very strong viewport user, I don't have any use for
> multiple workspaces.

Why not? Do you REALLY need to have one window overlap several viewports?
Keep in mind that moving the app between workspaces, using the keyboard or
edge-flipping is still usable.

In addition, this is just a few applets. If enough people really need
viewports they just have to create their own applet. The rest of GNOME
(including Sawfish) still support viewports.

> I'm all in
> favor of keeping the desktop system as it was in gnome 1.x but if it
> really is "too confusing", I don't understand why it shouldn't remain a
> configurable option at a minimum.

Because it was a configurable option, and it WAS confusing. GNOME had TWO
almost completely overlapping features that seriously confused newbies.
It even confused me, and a couple of my coworkers, and we are rather
experienced users.

> Is it really gnome's goal to try to
> alienate older users in order to try to attract new users? Do not most
> projects/political parties/companies/etc which decide to persue new
> waters and forget their core base end up ringing their death knell? Is
> the grass really greener on the other side?

No, GNOME 2 is trying to be something simple, usable and powerful..
but not just a combination of all the features that have ever existed on
any desktop-system.

> To wrap up, the functionality of viewports is beyond critical for me -
> it's a showstopper. None of the other toys in gnome 2 can persuade me to
> adopt it in favor of gnome 1.x if I can't continue to be as productive as
> I was before (viewports mean that much to my productivity).

I still don't see why. You mentioned that some OTHERS liked one insanely
wide gnome-terminal on several viewports, but you didn't state your
intention.
If GNOME 2 is supposed to satisfy everyones old habits, there would have
to be a lot of extra emacs-like and vi-like features. There would have to
be configuration-options for everything. It would become insanely big and
bloated, and it would end up satisfying NOONE.

> As long as
> gnome 2 lacks the feature(s) of gnome 1 that I need, I will remain with
> gnome 1 (or possibly switch to a fork of it or another manager which
> supports my needs should gnome 1 EOL and no longer function in the
> future).

Are you aware of the amount of features that are asked for in this manner?
Why should exactly YOU be satisfied, but not others?

To summarize:
- Workspaces in GNOME could have just about everything you list as a
necessity. The only thing missing would be windows overlapping several
viewports.
If this is that much of a deal to you. Implement a new pager and taskbar.

Gaute