On Desktop GUI Minimalism

This is what my desktop looks like: https://i.imgur.com/Mo9ku4W.png https://i.imgur.com/pq3fwBk.png

I use Kitty for my terminal, i3 for my window manager, vifm for my file manager, vim/neovim for my editor and Firefox. All of my virtual desktops handle different things, like watching movies, doing AI projects, web work, game development, graphics work, etc.

You can do all of this stuff in Windows or on a Mac, but I'm using minimal resources with a highly streamlined workflow. Everything that I can script, I script. I also use Zsh with quite a few plugins so the terminal itself isn't so important. I use Kitty because it's fast, can render graphics, is well documented and has a ton of features.

I always see with surprise these claims about the so-called "fractional scaling", which is something I have never encountered on Linux.

This "fractional scaling" might be a problem of Wayland and/or Gnome, but it certainly it is not a problem of Linux or of X Window System.

In any non-stupid graphics environment you need just to set an appropriate value for the dots-per-inch parameter, which will inform all applications about the physical size of the pixels on your monitor (allowing the rendering algorithms to scale arbitrarily any graphic elements).

Any non-stupid application must specify the size of the fonts in typographic points, not in pixels. When this is done, the fonts will be rendered at the same size on any monitor, but beautifully on a 4k monitor and uglier on a Full HD monitor.

The resolution of a Full HD monitor is extremely low in comparison with printed paper, so the fonts rendered on it are greatly distorted in comparison with their true outlines. A 4k monitor is much better, but at normal desktop sizes it is still inferior to printed paper, so for big monitors even better resolutions are needed to recreate the same experience that has been available for hundreds of years when reading printed books. A 4k monitor can match the retina resolution only for very small screens or for desktop monitors seen from a great distance, much greater than a normal work distance.

Similarly, any non-stupid drawing applications must not specify any dimensions in pixels, but in proper length units or in units relative to the dimensions of the screen or of the windows, and then the sizes will be the same everywhere, but all graphical elements will be more beautiful on a 4k monitor.

This was already elementary knowledge more than 30 years ago, and recommended since the most ancient versions of X Window System and MS Windows. I do not even know when this modern "fractional scaling" junk problem has appeared and who is guilty of it.

I have switched to using only 4k monitors with my desktops and laptops, on all of which I use Linux (with XFCE), about a decade ago, and during all this time I never had any kind of scaling problems, except with several professional (!!) applications written in Java by incompetent programmers, which not only ignore the system settings, so they show pixel-sized windows and fonts, but they also do not have any option for choosing another font or at least another font size (so much for the "run anywhere" claim of Java).

Now try 2 screens with different pixel densities. Also, it is pretty dumb to call out apps like that — popular frameworks either support that workflow or not. I should not be programming font rendering in my todo list app, that is outside the scope of such a project.

I find it kind of funny that they see Mate and Caja as a good basis for something minimalist. I just transitioned off Caja to a homegrown "file manager" that is so basic it makes Caja seem like a swiss army knife. Largely because of all my virtual desktops only one uses floating windows, and don't need many features for it, but the features I care about I want to be able to tune exactly how I want them, and it was easier to write something from scratch than "fixing" Caja. And by "fixing" Caja I mean tuning the "spatial" aspects that it seems most desktop environments have lost interest in.

On the minimalist side, we're all bikeshedding, and the biggest challenge is that there are more theories about what a nice interface should be like than there are users...

For me, I look back to the Amiga for this. Most actual work happened on individual screens, which match neatly to mostly tiled virtual desktops set up for individual tasks.

It was mostly on the Workbench we used floating windows, and while we had "sort-of" spatial, in that the position of windows were remembered if you chose, the if you chose (by choosing "snapshot") part meant you were free to move folder around knowing they'd be back where they should be when you opened them again. To me it's always been annoying that the attempts at spatial on Linux all took it to the extreme of remembering every change, which to me was always the biggest wart of these systems.

I absolutely like expanding screen size, and can't deal with peoples tendency to opt for tiny little laptops, but at the same time, I don't need all that much physical screen space for most things because everything happens on separate "screens"/virtual desktops the way it used to back on my Amiga.