4 ms·
> everyone is equally competent and motivated at everything and these developers are wasting their time and should be making sure app icons are consistent. Cor
by tuxie_ 4y ago
> everyone is equally competent and motivated at everything and these developers are wasting their time and should be making sure app icons are consistent.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I feel like you are downplaying the importance of the UX, and that's kind of my point. We talk about "making sure app icons are consistent" like it's a demeaning thing to do.
I don't think they should be making anything but what they want to work on. I do wonder, however, what's the use case for what they are building because, honestly, my first reaction was "wow, impressive", followed by "I remember compiz doing this 15 years ago and it didn't stick".
And finally, I was piggybacking on this post to talk about the more general issue of Linux desktops never looking as sharp as the proprietary options.
Sorry, I don't mean to criticize the devs' work, it was more of a general though about the "state of Linux on the desktop".
- oblak 4y agoWas anyone else doing OpenGL desktop rendering at the time? Yes, almost no one cared for the wobbling windows, virtual desktops being rendered on a cube, etc. Me included. True. But I have to ask: did none of it result in anything useful? I, for one, think having the ability to zoom out can be useful. I literally cannot browse without the ability to zoom in/out a web page. I feel that we've barely scratched the service with GUI in general, not just desktop Linux. MacOS and Windows desktop environments used to be better than what was available on *nix but that is no longer the case. I say that as someone who dislikes KDE and absolutely hates Gnome 2, including its countless derivatives.