Re: Gnome objectives

[Alessandro Crismani <alessandro crismani gmail com>]

Il giorno gio, 25/11/2010 alle 12.53 +0530, dE . ha scritto:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Alessandro Crismani
> <alessandro crismani gmail com> wrote:
> > Il giorno mer, 24/11/2010 alle 20.17 +0530, dE . ha scritto:
> >> > Alt+Tab for window switching is definately better than anything else
> >> > out there. It groups similar windows yet make it clear which window
> >> is
> >> > on what workspace. Very nice.
> >>
> >> I find groping windows a big disadvantage, both in the activity menu
> >> and the alt-tab grouping and here I'll state why -
> >>
> >> Suppose there are 2 instances of iceweasel running , and I wanna
> >> quickly switch among them, what do I have to do, method 1 -
> >>
> >> alt tab, unfortunately I have to alt tab many times to get to
> >> iceweasel since I'm running a few applications around, to top that
> >> off, the 2 instances of that Iceweasle will be stated as 1, as a
> >> result, I have to wait on  iceweasel till it shows the different
> >> instances running, and then I have to grab a hold of the mouse click
> >> on the desired instance (I dont know nor wanna know the shortcut
> >> bindings, nor does 95% of the world).
> >
> > I also support the shell's Alt+Tab behaviour, even though sometimes I am
> > still confused by grouping. Despite this, switching apps from all
> > workspaces and showing only icons is *FAR* better than other available
> > solutions.
> The only difference between the classic alt-tab and the shell alt-tab
> is grouping, that apparently you don't like... so what's the
> advantage?
> 
> If you want to switch application from other workspaces, the classic
> task bar has the option to show all tasks running in all work spaces,
> the solution is already available for years. As compared to
> registering multiple alt-tabs a single click on the task bar is easier
> to perform if you're in touch with the mouse.

Well, I said that I prefer the shell's Alt+Tab over the classic Gnome's
one and over other solutions (e.g. all ones provided by KDE). If I say
that I prefer this, for its ability to show apps from all workspaces,
because it displays only icons (they are far more easy to recognize) and
because I don't have a 30 + list of icons with many open gvims and
terminals (here grouping comes to my aid), I don't get why you have to
tell me the others are better. No, I do not want a taskbar to switch
apps on every workspace, 30 + entries in a taskbar are a MAJOR PAIN, I
want the shell' Alt+Tab, so please stop suggesting what I should want!

> 
> > Adding more, I tried KDE icons only Alt+Tab switching for all
> > workspaces, and when I have many apps open (let's say four terminals and
> > four gvims) it gets far more confusing than grouping.
> > Finally, *I* think that if you want to use Alt+Tab you are willing to
> > learn shortcuts.
> 
> Ok, so if you've multiple windows opened in a single desktop only then
> grouping is useful. But the alternative and better solution to this is
> grouping similar applications together with the classic alt tab (if
> the user allows). That way you don't have to wait for the groups to
> appear.
> 
> All the alt tab behavior stated here can be implemented in the classic
> desktop So the main advantage of gnome shell doesn't lie here.

I don't get this for two reasons.
- First, are you suggesting to keep windows from the same application
near to each other in Alt+Tabbing. If so no, I will hate it, read
before, 30 + icons in alt tab, 10 being terminals and 10 being gvims are
a pain.
- Second, grouping is implemented in gnome shell, not in the classic
Gnome. Hence shell's Alt+Tab > Classic Alt+Tab, full stop.
Implementing that in classic Gnome? Big deal, the shell already has it.
> 
> > Regarding other aspects of the shell, I am more productive when using it
> > because it hides unnecessary windows from my view when I do not need
> > them.
> 
> Apparently I've not discovered this feature, can you please elaborate?
> 

Place all used windows on the same workspace, overview to switch between
them, no useless notifications, chat if needed is in the tray, I am not
distracted by anything else open everywhere else. I am not saying that
you should like it or understand it, it is more productive for me, it
might not be for you.

> > I place what I currently need in a workspace and use Alt+Tab or
> > the overview to switch between windows. While doing this I am not
> > distracted by shiny taskbars, urgent windows, popups or anything which
> > disrupt my task.
> 
> The shiny task bar can be auto hidden, but that activity bar cannot,
> why don't you get districted with that? furthermore it's placed on top
> which's a more visible position. And still it'll be easier to access
> the tasks than then shell way.

I do not want a taskbar. Other users do, they have good reasons, you
have good reasons, however I do not care. I do not use taskbars, either
like them. Again, they might be easier for users and for you, and I do
not mind people asking for them because they think taskbars are
necessary. What I mind is people suggesting ME I should use a taskbar. 

> 
> By popups you mean, if some of my daemons crashed, or the hard drive
> is crashing, the warning messages will be suppressed by Gnome shell.
> This behavior can also be mimicked in the classic gnome-desktop and
> KDE does this now, right away.

KDE has noisy notifications (copying files, downloading stuff,
messaging), at least for me, so has the old Gnome. It seems to me that
notifications in the shell are less obtrusive. You might be right saying
that the same thing could almost be achieved in other DEs, nonetheless
it is already done in the shell, I am happy with this.

> 
> > You might be right saying that some tasks require more
> > clicks to be accomplished, however I do not care as long as the shell
> > provides me the means to keep focused on what's on the current
> > workspace.
> But it can be done with the classic desktop also, after changing a
> small amount of code rather remaking the desktop from scratch.

Again, it's already done in the shell, so I use the shell and do not
care if it might be done in whatever other place.

> 
> > Before using the gnome shell, I was in and out of compiz Expo
> > view and clicking every two seconds on taskbars, losing control over
> > what I was doing.
> :D :D Clicking every 2 seconds on the task bar means changing a
> windows in every 2 seconds, can you do the same that fast in alt tab?
> And how will it be more convenient?

The main reason is that I do not need it, I was clicking mainly due to
distractions. I've already said that you have a point saying that
clicking on a taskbar is quicker for some tasks than using the shell.
The other fact is that those scenarios are not helpful to me.

> 
> > Now I can't and I am glad for that, it improved my
> > ways of getting things done. You might say that I could have removed
> > taskbars and disabled Expo before, than the options left for switching
> > windows would have been definitely worse than what the shell offers now.
> > Summarising, read this paragraph as: people think that less clicks
> > equals to better design, for me it's not always true.
> >
> > I am sorry if the shell is broken for you, however do consider that
> > other people (me) like it's behaviour, and do not find launchers on the
> > panel, taskbars, live previews Al+Tab or other existing solutions more
> > convenient.
> >
> 
> You can get the same convince by modifying the old desktop, or by
> adding a few code to it (which the gnome team can do easily).
> 
> If you're very much bound to the shortcuts, then the same can be
> implemented in Gnome 2.
> 
> Most of your problems lie around alt-tab, and that's not the major
> change in gnome, the major change is that tool box to the left which
> you need to access again and again, minimizing the whole desktop for
> it to launch every small application.
> 
> Till now I don't see any real reason for developing gnome-shell -- it
> appears to be a complete waist of effort. All enhancements that people
> are liking here can be easily done in the classic desktop.

Let me say this for the n-th time. They might be done in the classic
Gnome, they are here in the shell, hence I am using the shell.

> 
> If Gnome devs expect people to use alt-tab or other shortcuts, then
> only 5% of the people on earth will adopt it, rest 95% will stay away
> from Gnome. That's what I'm trying to explain -- Shell should be a
> sideways project like KDEs netbook interface. Then Gnome will be the
> only DE to have mandatory composting and we're still struggling with
> bad drivers on Linux. Also notice that multiple applications with
> composting enabled slows down the graphs major + the performance of
> things like Blender drops to half. Sadly there's no way to turn it
> off.
> 
> My concerns are if someone comes with a design with a classic desktop
> which refers to all the features of gnome shell, will the gnome team
> quit the idea of shell?

Please note that I am not questioning these point. I am not saying that
the shell is good for everyone, or that it will be good for everyone, I
would never be able to predict such a thing. So should you, who said
that the 95% of people won't like the shell? Maybe you're right or maybe
the shell will have a great future. I am not even questioning the
reasons why you don't like the shell and I think that if you don't like
it you should try ways to improve it. What you should do is offering
design ideas in line with the shell design
(http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design). Maybe you should stop on
bugzilla, there is concern about taskbars and apps switching (e.g.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635527).

What you shouldn't do is tell people that are happy with the shell why
they shouldn't be. If they are happy, they probably don't sympathise
with your offers for another kind of windows manager.

Cheers,
Alessandro
> >