61–70 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Gnome3 for me is perfect. I think tastes are tastes but gnome 3 gives me the function as well aesthetics. The zoom out functionality to show all windows open is essential given i have a lot of windows open at the same time. Alt-tab icons are a huge cognitive load.
We had all this with Gnome 2, although you had to apt-get install it.
Anyone think that ubuntu around 2011, final days of Gnome 2, really had perfected the desktop UI experience, before all the forays into wanton novelty for noveltys sake made it the confusing mess it became later? To think that a linux distro had the almost ideal desktop UI realised and then squandered it all away, seems puzzling now.
I still use Ubuntu Mate today, closest I've found to the earlier peak and still supported.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PulseAudio was the last straw that pushed me to get a Mac. When I switched to Ubuntu, wifi worked, sleep (and more to the point, wake) on my T42 worked, and audio worked. Each release after that something would break, and but you couldn't really work around PulseAudio very well.
PipeWire (from the guy behind Gstreamer) is coming. Seems like it won't be anything like PulseAudio. The future seems exciting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PipeWire
I'm curious is anyone else feels like I do about these things. I've used linux off and on over the years, various distros, various GUIs, sometimes KDE based, sometimes Gnome, sometimes others. I've never noticed any differences that seem substantive. It just seems like a random walk around the usual gui design space. Which I think makes sense as there isn't really a whole lot to do there. Is it just me? Do other peop…
Web browser. Check
They're the same
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PulseAudio was the last straw that pushed me to get a Mac. When I switched to Ubuntu, wifi worked, sleep (and more to the point, wake) on my T42 worked, and audio worked. Each release after that something would break, and but you couldn't really work around PulseAudio very well.
PipeWire (from the guy behind Gstreamer) is coming. Seems like it won't be anything like PulseAudio. The future seems exciting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PipeWire
(Yes, obviously at least one person reading this will still have intractable issues with PulseAudio, but there are exceptions to every rule. By and large it just works and has been a great solution for Linux for close to a decade now.)
Anyone think that ubuntu around 2011, final days of Gnome 2, really had perfected the desktop UI experience, before all the forays into wanton novelty for noveltys sake made it the confusing mess it became later? To think that a linux distro had the almost ideal desktop UI realised and then squandered it all away, seems puzzling now.
If I recall correctly it didn't have a dock. Everyone seems to have settled on the dock being the best paradigm for managing open apps, and launching favorites, for most users. You might disagree, but the ux people at Apple, Microsoft, Google, Gnome, and KDE seem to think it's the best approach for the vast majority of users.
Perhaps by "dock" you are referring to using an icon-based taskbar rather than one that also contains the window title? That's not what most people mean by a dock.
[1] https://cdn.windowsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/win...
[2] https://kde.org/announcements/plasma/5/5.21.0/plasma-dark.we...
[3] I don't think it would be fair at all to call ChromeOS's taskbar a dock. The icons are centered like a dock, but they're in a full-width bar that also contains many other buttons and indicators. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/A_screenshot_...
[4] https://www.gnome.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/overview.pn...
Anyone think that ubuntu around 2011, final days of Gnome 2, really had perfected the desktop UI experience, before all the forays into wanton novelty for noveltys sake made it the confusing mess it became later? To think that a linux distro had the almost ideal desktop UI realised and then squandered it all away, seems puzzling now.
1. I've forgone the bottom bar entirely in favor of merging everything into an icon-only taskbar at the top. But it's still got all the same features as the traditional Gnome 2 desktop (including the iconic 4-panel workspace indicator).
2. I have an "expose" feature at the top left of the screen which imitates the one really nice to have feature from modern Gnome. By hitting the hot corner with my cursor, I can show all the windows on my desktop, allowing easy switching. KDE can do this out of the box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I recall correctly it didn't have a dock. Everyone seems to have settled on the dock being the best paradigm for managing open apps, and launching favorites, for most users. You might disagree, but the ux people at Apple, Microsoft, Google, Gnome, and KDE seem to think it's the best approach for the vast majority of users.
Not Microsoft[1], not KDE[2], and not Google [3]. Gnome's "dock" is only visible when you go into the "expose" mode at the top left corner [4], making its behavior very different from an Apple style dock. To be honest I have no idea what you're talking about. The only org that has "settled" on a dock being the best paradigm is Apple, and that's simply what they've done for decades. It's hard to imagine them reconside…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not Microsoft[1], not KDE[2], and not Google [3]. Gnome's "dock" is only visible when you go into the "expose" mode at the top left corner [4], making its behavior very different from an Apple style dock. To be honest I have no idea what you're talking about. The only org that has "settled" on a dock being the best paradigm is Apple, and that's simply what they've done for decades. It's hard to imagine them reconside…
Read my other comment in this thread. The Windows taskbar he almost the exact same behavior as the Mac OS dock.
The macOS dock distinguishes itself aesthetically precisely by not being a taskbar with other functions and features. Every other taskbar implementation, even the ones that use icons (an approach that predates the Apple dock), sees it as important to not waste space and provide indicators and useful widgets on the same bar.
The "dock" approach is distinct in that it contains only large friendly application buttons, and doesn't use the full width of the screen. The thin taskbars common to other operating systems which also frequently use icons to switch applications shouldn't be considered docks, if for no other reason than that they predate Apple's approach. As you pointed out in your other comment, clicking on one of the icons doesn't even do the same thing in Windows as on macOS, and the task switcher part of the taskbar is the most comparable thing between taskbars and Apple's dock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read my other comment in this thread. The Windows taskbar he almost the exact same behavior as the Mac OS dock.
Windows invented the taskbar, so far as I know, and their initial implementation only showed the icons: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Windows_1_Bar... The macOS dock distinguishes itself aesthetically precisely by not being a taskbar with other functions and features. Every other taskbar implementation, even the ones that use icons (an approach that predates the Apple dock), sees it as important to n…
Maybe, though it was probably inspired by a merger of the dock, which was not introduced by Apple but by NeXT in NeXTstep 1.0 (well, before 1.0, really), and the graphical shell menu/status bar in MacOS which MacOS had long before it had a dock, which it didn't get until OSX; the Windows task bar approximately merges those functions (but doesn't also serve as an application menu bar the way the MacOS one does.)
