3 ms·

I'm stoked for "mosaic tiling": > a new window management mode which combines the best parts of tiling and floating https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2023/07/2

I'm stoked for "mosaic tiling": > a new window management mode which combines the best parts of tiling and floating https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2023/07/26/rethinking-window-management/ https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2023/07/26/rethinking-windo...

kkfx 2y ago
Honestly I'm not at all convinced, it seems to be another try to push childish stuff in modern systems... Yes, widgets based GUIs are designed with a specific aspect ratio and size in mind, DocUIs tend to be designed with an aspect ratio but scale well enough (think about web-apps, not just Emacs buffers). The lack of integration is only solvable with the classic model "the OS is an application, there is a single unique environment for anything", so all apps are written as part of the sole system/framework from the most lower level to the highest end-user programming. Something perfectly possible, actually done in the past, with very nice results, see just for instance https://youtu.be/RQKlgza_HgE https://youtu.be/RQKlgza_HgE to not go too much back in history toward Xerox Smalltalk workstations. but also something commercial big player do dislike, since in this model you can only pay the programmer, not the program/service so no giants only competition... Text and relative text rendering is the most flexible and integrable tool we have so far, and the web itself is a good proof and show as well the limits of trying not giving power to the end user. On "modern desktops", honestly Ubuntu Unity was a thing because the side bar was just a quick launcher with some icons, something usual on a good place since we have larger and larger monitor with less and less vertical space, and the top bar was as small as fluxbox at al. Gnome SHell tried the narcissistic way, forcing people to see animations just for common windows switching witch surely have a kind of WOW effects for the kids, but far less interesting to work all day. Ubuntu also pushed the HUD, or a way to replace the apps menu with a CLI search&narrow style, witch was essentially the same principle than dash and quicklaunchers in general AND the Emacs M-x model. However in Emacs anyone can craft a function in a snap and run it through M-x, in modern desktops it's a hard, long thing with much boilerplate. Just to create a .desktop, witch is a kind of functions skeleton in the Emacs model, you need a dedicated file only for that, put in a specific place, than the code somewhere else etc. People do like seen beautiful gardens, but do want quick things, so the path of regulate the world in advance all modern system try is a failure in advance.
- zzo38computer 2y ago
  > The lack of integration is only solvable with the classic model "the OS is an application, there is a single unique environment for anything", so all apps are written as part of the sole system/framework from the most lower level to the highest end-user programming. This is one reason why I wanted to design an operating system, although I also wanted to change many things from what other systems do, although there are also some similarities to features of other systems. My ideas do involve better integrations between parts of the system (although different parts can still be individually reimplemented and replaced), and my ideas involve both low-level and high-level programming. > Gnome SHell tried the narcissistic way, forcing people to see animations just for common windows switching witch surely have a kind of WOW effects for the kids, but far less interesting to work all day. Sometimes animations may be helpful if objects are moving around on the screen and you want to easily see where they are moving to, but a lot of the animations are worthless and I would rather not see them. If an option is added to allow disabling all animations (and to adjust their speed), then that will be a good idea. > However in Emacs anyone can craft a function in a snap and run it through M-x, in modern desktops it's a hard, long thing with much boilerplate. It does look like a good idea, if anyone can craft a function and run it (which is also an idea of what I might intend in my operating system design). I don't use a desktop environment on my computer and do not use .desktop, although some programs do.
zzo38computer 2y ago
It is a interesting idea, although there may be some problems too. Maybe it will help, though. Note that X window system already has the ability for programs to specify a minimim and maximum size hint, aspect ratio, and other things. This isn't new (maybe in Wayland it is new, but in X it isn't new since it is already there).

kkfx 2y ago

Honestly I'm not at all convinced, it seems to be another try to push childish stuff in modern systems... Yes, widgets based GUIs are designed with a specific aspect ratio and size in mind, DocUIs tend to be designed with an aspect ratio but scale well enough (think about web-apps, not just Emacs buffers). The lack of integration is only solvable with the classic model "the OS is an application, there is a single unique environment for anything", so all apps are written as part of the sole system/framework from the most lower level to the highest end-user programming. Something perfectly possible, actually done in the past, with very nice results, see just for instance https://youtu.be/RQKlgza_HgE https://youtu.be/RQKlgza_HgE to not go too much back in history toward Xerox Smalltalk workstations. but also something commercial big player do dislike, since in this model you can only pay the programmer, not the program/service so no giants only competition... Text and relative text rendering is the most flexible and integrable tool we have so far, and the web itself is a good proof and show as well the limits of trying not giving power to the end user. On "modern desktops", honestly Ubuntu Unity was a thing because the side bar was just a quick launcher with some icons, something usual on a good place since we have larger and larger monitor with less and less vertical space, and the top bar was as small as fluxbox at al. Gnome SHell tried the narcissistic way, forcing people to see animations just for common windows switching witch surely have a kind of WOW effects for the kids, but far less interesting to work all day. Ubuntu also pushed the HUD, or a way to replace the apps menu with a CLI search&narrow style, witch was essentially the same principle than dash and quicklaunchers in general AND the Emacs M-x model. However in Emacs anyone can craft a function in a snap and run it through M-x, in modern desktops it's a hard, long thing with much boilerplate. Just to create a .desktop, witch is a kind of functions skeleton in the Emacs model, you need a dedicated file only for that, put in a specific place, than the code somewhere else etc. People do like seen beautiful gardens, but do want quick things, so the path of regulate the world in advance all modern system try is a failure in advance.

zzo38computer 2y ago
> The lack of integration is only solvable with the classic model "the OS is an application, there is a single unique environment for anything", so all apps are written as part of the sole system/framework from the most lower level to the highest end-user programming. This is one reason why I wanted to design an operating system, although I also wanted to change many things from what other systems do, although there are also some similarities to features of other systems. My ideas do involve better integrations between parts of the system (although different parts can still be individually reimplemented and replaced), and my ideas involve both low-level and high-level programming. > Gnome SHell tried the narcissistic way, forcing people to see animations just for common windows switching witch surely have a kind of WOW effects for the kids, but far less interesting to work all day. Sometimes animations may be helpful if objects are moving around on the screen and you want to easily see where they are moving to, but a lot of the animations are worthless and I would rather not see them. If an option is added to allow disabling all animations (and to adjust their speed), then that will be a good idea. > However in Emacs anyone can craft a function in a snap and run it through M-x, in modern desktops it's a hard, long thing with much boilerplate. It does look like a good idea, if anyone can craft a function and run it (which is also an idea of what I might intend in my operating system design). I don't use a desktop environment on my computer and do not use .desktop, although some programs do.

zzo38computer 2y ago

It is a interesting idea, although there may be some problems too. Maybe it will help, though. Note that X window system already has the ability for programs to specify a minimim and maximum size hint, aspect ratio, and other things. This isn't new (maybe in Wayland it is new, but in X it isn't new since it is already there).