Re: My opinions on Gnome Shell

[Julien Olivier <julo42 gmail com>]

> Email applications and instant messengers should only be a way for you
> to interact with your online presence, that is, you should only need
> them running to send an email or an IM, but not to "listen" to
> incoming emails or IMs. Once you have set your accounts, Gnome should
> start listening for those as soon as you start your PC and notify you
> as soon as any communications arrive, then only launch Evolution or
> Empathy if you actually want to open an interface in order to interact
> with them.
> 

This is here: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651347

> As for music players, I love what Ubuntu did: they integrated
> Rhythmbox and Banshee into the sound menu, so that you can keep
> listening to your music without having to keep an open window. If you
> open Banshee and then close it while it's not playing, it will close
> as expected. If you open Banshee, press play and then close the
> window, your music will keep playing even though there is no window.
> You can skip songs or stop the music usin the sound menu.
> 

Yes, except that there is no "sound menu" in gnome-shell.

> As for torrent apps and download managers, my opinion is that Gnome
> should have a progress indicator that hosts running operations waiting
> to complete: that is downloads, file operations, disc burning, and so
> on.
> 

I agree, but there is not such thing currently in gnome-shell.

> I'm not trying to start a discussion about how convenient these would
> be: my point is only that, in all those situations you mentioned,
> there are alternative solutions to minimizing; it only looks like the
> obvious one because we've been minimizing windows forever, but that
> doesn't mean it's necessarily the best one.
>  

No, it sounds right because it is what currently EXISTS in gnome-shell.
The solutions you described before are perfect solutions to this
problem, but none of them currently exist in gnome shell. As a real
current user of gnome shell, I would love to see a solution based on
what's currently already implemented: minimization. When new solutions
are developed, then - and only then - can minimization be declared
obsolete.


> It adds complexity. Some people (take my mom as an example) just can't
> tell the difference between closing a window and minimizing it. When
> they accidentally minimize a window they don't know where it has gone,
> they don't know that now it's in the taskbar. They just don't get the
> concept of a taskbar.
> 

If they knew how to launch the application the first time, I guess the
natural reaction to the window disappearing will to try to re-launch it,
which will result in displaying it again. You don't have to understand
the difference between closing and minimizing when things are well
designed.

> To get back to what they were doing, they will repeat the process they
> followed the first time: press the launcher, which will launch a brand
> new window of that application... without all the work they'd done.

Wrong: if the window has been (accidently) minimized, clicking the
launcher icon will just present the "lost" window. See, it's already
working almost perfectly.

>  Other times they will spot the app icon on the taskbar and press it,
> which will take them back to the existing window, but they simply DO
> NOT understand why they sometimes get back their window, and they
> sometimes get a new one.
> 

Again, no need to understand it: it will work perfectly whether they
understand it or not.

> This duplicity is, objectively, a problem for some people. I have seen
> it. Removing the minimize button solves the problem for them. I'm not
> saying helping them is worth bothering other users; I'm only saying
> that in some cases, having a minimize button DOES hurt some people.
> 

As I already said in another email, to avoid duplicity, just assign the
close button to "minimize" for applications that need it. Then, specify
it in the desktop file.