That's not a usage scenario, it's a particular (and arguably hackish) way to implement notifications. GNOME 3 has an excellent notification system that doesn't take up a whole slice of screen while not in use.
It would be too mentally jarring to have the screen switch to a task switcher then having to think for a moment which item you want to view than simply glancing at a different part of the screen to get the info you want.
You can't see the content of other windows in the task bar, if the window was visible without switching that what the hell does Gnome Shell vs a taskbar to do with it, if you need to quickly switch applications while typing... alt-tab was the best way to do it before, and continues to be it.
Try dragging the terminal window onto the desktop (or any of the other desktops to the right). Though I personally rebind terminal to Super-T, I'm going to be typing into that new window anyway.
You don't click the corner, you slide the cursor into it and right back out, it's easier because you have the whole screen for switching instead of a strip of [ Termin... ][ Firefo... ] at the flick of your wrist (if using a mouse), something you'd have to do with a taskbar as well.
Window menu or Alt-F9 but oddly enough I haven't actually felt any desire to.
Can I run my cpu and weather applet on top bar?
Sure.
What about having more than one window open on the desktop?
What about it?
What if I want to see all that running while not leaving my libraoffice out of view or closed?
It sounds like you want a list of running apps while typing up documents and I fail to see the usage scenario. You are either switching apps, closing apps or running a new app (because whatever isn't running)... Are you routinely writing down all the running apps or something?
Can I move my cursor over the icons and get a shrunken preview?
The dash gives you thumbnails of all the windows. Having the whole screen for switching windows turns out to be much more efficient than using a small strip of the screen. It makes sense too, since you can never both switch and use applications.
It is not a resistant to change.
Of course it is, you are trying to work as if on Windows 95 (where the window management scaled up to five windows and GPU interface acceleration meant faster line drawing) instead of trying to use the interface on it's own merits. If you answered any of the above with "I shouldn't have to adapt my workflow, doesn't matter why I want to do two incompatible things at the same time", then you most certainly are resistant to change.
Even windows 1.0 made it easier to find things.
Non-overlapping windows would do that, yes. But DOS made it even easier: only one thing was running at a time, can't get lost with that.
That makes us angry as we dont want linux to fade away but kde and gnome killed it on the desktop.
So your "questions" were apparently only a thinly veiled rant. Oh well.
I think he means associating a program not in the menu/dash whatever tree. Which is cks] not possible in Nautilus 3.2.1. My personal biggest GNOME 3 WTF moment was that printer sharing is gone. Second is probably the decimation of the appearance options, I felt it was a good balance between too little and too much but those are at least right there in the tweak tool.
You want a pony. You didn't say so, but if you can make assumptions unfounded by anything I said so can I.
I want a plain old car, simple, reliable, powerful enough to do just about all common tasks. For hassle free operation you periodically perform maintenance (software updates) and don't poke around under the hood. Most accessories, even one's that aren't vendor approved (app store) won't affect your car's operation (operating system is properly layered, software that doesn't poke around the file system or kernel space can be safely installed and removed without a trace). Certain accessories might make your car susceptible to theft, but they don't otherwise affect performance (software that needs free access to user data can snag it, but you can still remove it without a trace if you notice). If you want a hotrod you open your toolbox and the hood and are on your own (actually, you are better off, if your distro of choice barfs all over itself you merely need to reinstall).
The reason I want this is very simple, it ensures a wide range of hardware that I have the option to mess with. The alternative is Apple (or someone much like them) locking it down without that option and people will buy it as that is what they believe they want (among other things, because people like you are telling them that). People know to not poke around under the hood if they want to keep the warranty, if a properly engineered OS ever becomes popular, people will know what they can and can't do if they don't want to spend half of their computer price on malware removal.
Actually they do want computers, they just don't want the problems historically associated with computers. Predictably they over-steered and gave away almost all control over them (centrally administered computers). What should have happened is computers that are maintenance free by default, but can accept various levels of unsupported software with very explicit user intervention all the way up to full manual (and I mean as a feature, not jailbreaking or rooting). This will likely correct itself when people try to do all of their computing on such restricted platforms, but it will be a lot more painful than it needed to be.
Fortunately that last bit has never been upheld in court.
It was upheld, overturned in appeal, but initially upheld nonetheless. But that revolved mostly around technical details of copyright law, I doubt it would have worked if the protections were as elaborate as with current generation consoles. They might be able to sue you, but if legislation would clearly and unquestionably favor interoperability you'd have a good chance of dismissing, instead of going trough several court battles with an uncertain outcome.
There is no reason to differentiate failsafe, as it doesn't include all safe designs, only a specific subset. They happen to not be used in production but are nonetheless presented as the current safety standard by many advocates.
You can avoid it, by making a passively cooled reactor that simply cannot melt (due to the laws of physics, not due to some magic "can't fail" engineering, but these designs are problematic themselves due to other factors.
1. Engineering is the use of physics towards a goal. So yes, it is engineering.
2. That's what failsafe designs do, they come to the desired state upon power (generally) failure.
My point to the OP above was that we don;t really need new ideas - we just need to start using the ideas we already have that have just been shelved for non-scientific reasons.
And now you are talking new tech. Ideas, even ones that aren't fantastic, aren't proven technology.
Failsafe meaning that in the case of a catastrophic failure there is no meltdown. Though you asked who is talking about new technology and that's who does it, people trying to gloss over the problems of the state of proven art.
We don't need to invent anything new, just refine well-understood designs and processes.
That is deploying new technology as well, with all the potential problems that entails.
Running software not vetted (and sold) by the manufacturer (read games) sounds like it would fit. But everything else seems to be thrown out of the window where copyright is involved. "No, you can't copy the snipped of code that is required for a cartridge to work in your printer even though the manufacturer intentionally crippled it that way, that's stealing!"
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a usage scenario, it's a particular (and arguably hackish) way to implement notifications. GNOME 3 has an excellent notification system that doesn't take up a whole slice of screen while not in use.
...though I personally tend to separate creation vs. lookup into desktops and switch with Super+ if I'm going to do a lot of back and forth.
You can't see the content of other windows in the task bar, if the window was visible without switching that what the hell does Gnome Shell vs a taskbar to do with it, if you need to quickly switch applications while typing... alt-tab was the best way to do it before, and continues to be it.
In the US you are either rich, don't have health care resources to speak of... or is determined by bureaucrats without oversight.
Alt-~ is immensely faster than any method that involves picking your terminals out of a list containing all open windows.
Try dragging the terminal window onto the desktop (or any of the other desktops to the right). Though I personally rebind terminal to Super-T, I'm going to be typing into that new window anyway.
You don't click the corner, you slide the cursor into it and right back out, it's easier because you have the whole screen for switching instead of a strip of [ Termin... ][ Firefo... ] at the flick of your wrist (if using a mouse), something you'd have to do with a taskbar as well.
I don't the the bottom left corner does anything...
There is nothing "intuitive" about minimizing a window.
Window menu or Alt-F9 but oddly enough I haven't actually felt any desire to.
Sure.
What about it?
It sounds like you want a list of running apps while typing up documents and I fail to see the usage scenario. You are either switching apps, closing apps or running a new app (because whatever isn't running)... Are you routinely writing down all the running apps or something?
The dash gives you thumbnails of all the windows. Having the whole screen for switching windows turns out to be much more efficient than using a small strip of the screen. It makes sense too, since you can never both switch and use applications.
Of course it is, you are trying to work as if on Windows 95 (where the window management scaled up to five windows and GPU interface acceleration meant faster line drawing) instead of trying to use the interface on it's own merits. If you answered any of the above with "I shouldn't have to adapt my workflow, doesn't matter why I want to do two incompatible things at the same time", then you most certainly are resistant to change.
Non-overlapping windows would do that, yes. But DOS made it even easier: only one thing was running at a time, can't get lost with that.
So your "questions" were apparently only a thinly veiled rant. Oh well.
I think he means associating a program not in the menu/dash whatever tree. Which is cks] not possible in Nautilus 3.2.1. My personal biggest GNOME 3 WTF moment was that printer sharing is gone. Second is probably the decimation of the appearance options, I felt it was a good balance between too little and too much but those are at least right there in the tweak tool.
Yes, no one uses GNOME 3. Apparently No One is the only Linux Journal reader.
In unrelated news, my desktop's hard drive just failed 15 minutes ago. Fuck.
Logarithmic scale.
You want a pony. You didn't say so, but if you can make assumptions unfounded by anything I said so can I.
I want a plain old car, simple, reliable, powerful enough to do just about all common tasks. For hassle free operation you periodically perform maintenance (software updates) and don't poke around under the hood. Most accessories, even one's that aren't vendor approved (app store) won't affect your car's operation (operating system is properly layered, software that doesn't poke around the file system or kernel space can be safely installed and removed without a trace). Certain accessories might make your car susceptible to theft, but they don't otherwise affect performance (software that needs free access to user data can snag it, but you can still remove it without a trace if you notice). If you want a hotrod you open your toolbox and the hood and are on your own (actually, you are better off, if your distro of choice barfs all over itself you merely need to reinstall).
The reason I want this is very simple, it ensures a wide range of hardware that I have the option to mess with. The alternative is Apple (or someone much like them) locking it down without that option and people will buy it as that is what they believe they want (among other things, because people like you are telling them that). People know to not poke around under the hood if they want to keep the warranty, if a properly engineered OS ever becomes popular, people will know what they can and can't do if they don't want to spend half of their computer price on malware removal.
I don't think one year should count as a long term investment though... Make it 20 or so.
It would be plenty to have shareholders limitedly liable. Right now they tend to profit, so looking the other way is a natural choice.
That's kinda circular.
Actually they do want computers, they just don't want the problems historically associated with computers. Predictably they over-steered and gave away almost all control over them (centrally administered computers). What should have happened is computers that are maintenance free by default, but can accept various levels of unsupported software with very explicit user intervention all the way up to full manual (and I mean as a feature, not jailbreaking or rooting). This will likely correct itself when people try to do all of their computing on such restricted platforms, but it will be a lot more painful than it needed to be.
It was upheld, overturned in appeal, but initially upheld nonetheless. But that revolved mostly around technical details of copyright law, I doubt it would have worked if the protections were as elaborate as with current generation consoles. They might be able to sue you, but if legislation would clearly and unquestionably favor interoperability you'd have a good chance of dismissing, instead of going trough several court battles with an uncertain outcome.
There is no reason to differentiate failsafe, as it doesn't include all safe designs, only a specific subset. They happen to not be used in production but are nonetheless presented as the current safety standard by many advocates.
And now you are talking new tech. Ideas, even ones that aren't fantastic, aren't proven technology.
That is deploying new technology as well, with all the potential problems that entails.
Running software not vetted (and sold) by the manufacturer (read games) sounds like it would fit. But everything else seems to be thrown out of the window where copyright is involved. "No, you can't copy the snipped of code that is required for a cartridge to work in your printer even though the manufacturer intentionally crippled it that way, that's stealing!"