I'm asking because I'm more of the "tiled window manager" and "I want my windows where I want them" type, and I can hardly imagine working with something like Gnome 3, Unity or Metro (hell, I have trouble working with Explorer)...but that doesn't mean that I'm resistant to learning the benefits of those system.
I was responding to the question, "What is the benefit of this style of window manager?". I never said anything about whether this should be the default in your OS.
You've talked about choices elsewhere in this thread - but you consistently miss the point that you. get. none. from. Windows. 8.
I'm not talking about whether this should be required. Look at all of my posts. Where's the one where I say, "and that's why everyone should have to use Metro"?
In fact, I'm not talking about Windows at all. This is what I was responding to:
I can hardly imagine working with something like Gnome 3, Unity or Metro
I realize now that I should have quoted that part, but really, even if I was talking about the benefits of Metro, that doesn't imply that I think forcing everyone to use it was a good idea.
Thanks for the straw man, but that's not what I was saying at all.
What I meant was that they're designed with that assumption (hence the choice of words, "the idea is..."). I agree that this assumption doesn't hold true for everyone.
Now if only OS designers would discover the same thing. It was modded up because the GP is complaining of the lack of choice being thrust upon users, not because he happens to think everyone should do it his way.
Whether Microsoft should force everyone to work this way has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was talking about why people might like this style of window manager.
Note that Unity and Gnome are no better than MS lately in this regard.
Since you're forced to use Unity or GNOME 3. If only there were other desktop environments..
Maybe because Windows' and Gnome 3's insistence on "one window to rule them all" shows that they haven't made this same discovery?
You're missing what I'm saying. Some people like this style of window manager. If you don't like it, use a different window manager that fits what you you like.
It's like with video players. Some people like media centers like XBMC, some people like minimal players like VLC. Are you going to go around complaining to everyone who likes VLC because it's hard to use your remote control, and there's no library, etc., or will you just accept that some people want a library and some people just want a player?
I would never argue that everyone should be forced to use VLC, and I also don't think other people should be forced to use GNOME 3. There are plenty of other desktop environments, and you should use the one you like.
And if you can't choose, that's a problem with your OS, not my DE.
Maybe you work this way. Maybe most people work this way. I don't. Having my music and IMs and email in the background does help me focus. Sorry my style of working is "wrong", but I never claimed you should do it.
Seriously, is it that hard to understand that not everyone works the same way?
I should clarify, the OP asked about the style of DE (Windows 8, GNOME 3, Unity), and I'm answering from a GNOME 3 perspective. I've never used Windows 8.
Except that you don't get a choice if you need to run Windows apps on an up-to-date OS.
So complain to Microsoft, or get a better OS. If I like hardwood floors and you like carpet, why complain to me because your installer only knows how to install hardwood floors when you could just find a new installer?
And if you want a lack of distraction in any OS, all you have to do is close your unnecessary windows.
Yes, I'm doing it wrong. I'm so stupid. How dare I like a window manager that does something for me?
There are things in life that shouldn't require tradeoffs.
I'm just saying that a desktop OS shouldn't make that decision for you. A mobile OS, yes.
That's why you choose your OS. You want one that works your way, I want one that works my way. The OP was wondering what the benefits are, and the benefit is a lack of distraction. Whether you want your OS to do that isn't the point.
The idea is basically that if you want to use something like your browser, email, an IDE, etc., there's no reason to have multiple windows up, since they'll just distract you from what you're doing. Windows 7 and GNOME 3 (and possible others) have quick gestures for putting two windows on half of the screen each, but the idea is that generally you don't need more than that (although it would be nice if they had a way to handle it), and most things can just be left in a random place in the background (IMs, email, whatever you're not doing at this moment).
It's sort of the same idea as the Dark Room text editor (fullscreen, no toolbar, no styling) -- they're less options, but you'll focus better without them.
There are two large, very real problems with Google Drive. For starters Google has a long history of abandoning projects after they fail to gain users on them. This would be a huge problem with cloud storage like Google Drive.
They do tend to give you quite a bit of notice though. It may be a hassle, but it's not like it's impossible to download your stuff and upload it somewhere else.
The problem comes when the new hotness draws resources away from keeping one's favorite desktop environment patched with security updates and compatibility with new applications and hardware support frameworks.
And your solution to this is what? Require all software developers to maintain free software forever? These developers are leaving ${your favorite project} anyway, there's no point in complaining that they started a new one to replace it.
Not choices! I hate when I have the ability to replace something I hate with something I love. I'd be much happier with Linux if I was forced to use ${your favorite desktop environment}.
Can you also test for why the laws of physics are they way they are? Can you test for why there was a big bang in the first place?
I think you're confused about the scope of the Big Bang theory -- it attempts to explain what happened, not why. Whether the Big Bang was started by God, the machines, or something we're not aware of makes no difference.
I'm not interested in arguing about Creationism, I was just answering the question ("What's the difference between 'God created the universe' vs 'big bang created the universe'?")
What's the difference between "God created the universe" vs "big bang created the universe"?
One is testable and the other isn't -- obviously, we can't create another Big Bang, but we can test that, "If the Big Bang happened, the background radiation should look like X and the galaxies should act like Y, and there should be Z amounts of certain elements, etc.".
Not to mention that "God created the universe" is pretty vague. How? Which God? What can we learn from it?
Why is everyone heading to this "everything is a web app" model? A scripting languages embedded into an app is find but it should be used for quick mods and customization instead of core functionality, and should be layered on top of the application and not the base that the application is built from.
Because some people are more concerned about actually making things than meeting your standards of application development.
I think being abstracted away from the operating system is more important than assembly output or execution speed differences. I suspect a lot of Java programs feel slow because they're not using the power of their OS as well (virtual memory and various kinds of notifications, plus the fact that NIO isn't promoted very heavily).
Slashdot Mirror
How do we know we weren't just chasing a figment of our governments imagination [...]?
Simple: To have an imagination, you need a brain, and there's plenty of evidence that our government doesn't have one.
As far as I can tell, the "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly feature" seems to be fully wind-powered.
GIMP 2.10’s core will be 100% ported to GEGL, and all of the legacy pixel fiddling API for plug-ins is going to be deprecated.
I'd say read the article before assuming the authors of a major piece of software are idiots, but this is Slashdot..
I'm not trolling. I expressed an honest opinion about window managers, and everyone's attacking me as if I said they should be forced to use it.
If you read the question I responded to:
I'm asking because I'm more of the "tiled window manager" and "I want my windows where I want them" type, and I can hardly imagine working with something like Gnome 3, Unity or Metro (hell, I have trouble working with Explorer)...but that doesn't mean that I'm resistant to learning the benefits of those system.
I was responding to the question, "What is the benefit of this style of window manager?". I never said anything about whether this should be the default in your OS.
You've talked about choices elsewhere in this thread - but you consistently miss the point that you. get. none. from. Windows. 8.
I'm not talking about whether this should be required. Look at all of my posts. Where's the one where I say, "and that's why everyone should have to use Metro"?
In fact, I'm not talking about Windows at all. This is what I was responding to:
I can hardly imagine working with something like Gnome 3, Unity or Metro
I realize now that I should have quoted that part, but really, even if I was talking about the benefits of Metro, that doesn't imply that I think forcing everyone to use it was a good idea.
And if you can't choose, that's a problem with your OS, not my DE.
Yes, yes, everyone who works differently than you is wrong.
Hopefully when this guy said "The idea is basically that if you want to use something like your browser, email, an IDE, etc., there's no reason to have multiple windows up, since they'll just distract you from what you're doing.", he wasn't asserting something similarly bogus along the lines of "everybody who doesn't want to have their IDE be the only window up on the screen is wrong".
Thanks for the straw man, but that's not what I was saying at all.
What I meant was that they're designed with that assumption (hence the choice of words, "the idea is..."). I agree that this assumption doesn't hold true for everyone.
Now if only OS designers would discover the same thing. It was modded up because the GP is complaining of the lack of choice being thrust upon users, not because he happens to think everyone should do it his way.
Whether Microsoft should force everyone to work this way has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was talking about why people might like this style of window manager.
Note that Unity and Gnome are no better than MS lately in this regard.
Since you're forced to use Unity or GNOME 3. If only there were other desktop environments..
Maybe because Windows' and Gnome 3's insistence on "one window to rule them all" shows that they haven't made this same discovery?
You're missing what I'm saying. Some people like this style of window manager. If you don't like it, use a different window manager that fits what you you like.
It's like with video players. Some people like media centers like XBMC, some people like minimal players like VLC. Are you going to go around complaining to everyone who likes VLC because it's hard to use your remote control, and there's no library, etc., or will you just accept that some people want a library and some people just want a player?
I would never argue that everyone should be forced to use VLC, and I also don't think other people should be forced to use GNOME 3. There are plenty of other desktop environments, and you should use the one you like.
And if you can't choose, that's a problem with your OS, not my DE.
Maybe you work this way. Maybe most people work this way. I don't. Having my music and IMs and email in the background does help me focus. Sorry my style of working is "wrong", but I never claimed you should do it.
Seriously, is it that hard to understand that not everyone works the same way?
I should clarify, the OP asked about the style of DE (Windows 8, GNOME 3, Unity), and I'm answering from a GNOME 3 perspective. I've never used Windows 8.
Except that you don't get a choice if you need to run Windows apps on an up-to-date OS.
So complain to Microsoft, or get a better OS. If I like hardwood floors and you like carpet, why complain to me because your installer only knows how to install hardwood floors when you could just find a new installer?
And if you want a lack of distraction in any OS, all you have to do is close your unnecessary windows.
Yes, I'm doing it wrong. I'm so stupid. How dare I like a window manager that does something for me?
There are things in life that shouldn't require tradeoffs.
Good luck with that.
Yes, yes, everyone who works differently than you is wrong.
Congratulations on discovering that not everyone works the same way. Why was this voted up?
I'm just saying that a desktop OS shouldn't make that decision for you. A mobile OS, yes.
That's why you choose your OS. You want one that works your way, I want one that works my way. The OP was wondering what the benefits are, and the benefit is a lack of distraction. Whether you want your OS to do that isn't the point.
It is possible to easily have two windows, one filling each side of the screen. I use this all the time when I'm programming.
The idea is basically that if you want to use something like your browser, email, an IDE, etc., there's no reason to have multiple windows up, since they'll just distract you from what you're doing. Windows 7 and GNOME 3 (and possible others) have quick gestures for putting two windows on half of the screen each, but the idea is that generally you don't need more than that (although it would be nice if they had a way to handle it), and most things can just be left in a random place in the background (IMs, email, whatever you're not doing at this moment).
It's sort of the same idea as the Dark Room text editor (fullscreen, no toolbar, no styling) -- they're less options, but you'll focus better without them.
There are two large, very real problems with Google Drive. For starters Google has a long history of abandoning projects after they fail to gain users on them. This would be a huge problem with cloud storage like Google Drive.
They do tend to give you quite a bit of notice though. It may be a hassle, but it's not like it's impossible to download your stuff and upload it somewhere else.
The problem comes when the new hotness draws resources away from keeping one's favorite desktop environment patched with security updates and compatibility with new applications and hardware support frameworks.
And your solution to this is what? Require all software developers to maintain free software forever? These developers are leaving ${your favorite project} anyway, there's no point in complaining that they started a new one to replace it.
Not choices! I hate when I have the ability to replace something I hate with something I love. I'd be much happier with Linux if I was forced to use ${your favorite desktop environment}.
Can you also test for why the laws of physics are they way they are? Can you test for why there was a big bang in the first place?
I think you're confused about the scope of the Big Bang theory -- it attempts to explain what happened, not why. Whether the Big Bang was started by God, the machines, or something we're not aware of makes no difference.
I'm not interested in arguing about Creationism, I was just answering the question ("What's the difference between 'God created the universe' vs 'big bang created the universe'?")
What's the difference between "God created the universe" vs "big bang created the universe"?
One is testable and the other isn't -- obviously, we can't create another Big Bang, but we can test that, "If the Big Bang happened, the background radiation should look like X and the galaxies should act like Y, and there should be Z amounts of certain elements, etc.".
Not to mention that "God created the universe" is pretty vague. How? Which God? What can we learn from it?
Why is everyone heading to this "everything is a web app" model? A scripting languages embedded into an app is find but it should be used for quick mods and customization instead of core functionality, and should be layered on top of the application and not the base that the application is built from.
Because some people are more concerned about actually making things than meeting your standards of application development.
I think being abstracted away from the operating system is more important than assembly output or execution speed differences. I suspect a lot of Java programs feel slow because they're not using the power of their OS as well (virtual memory and various kinds of notifications, plus the fact that NIO isn't promoted very heavily).