4 ms·

Generally I dedicate a drive to Linux and a separate drive to Windows, using a full disk option for Linux install. So, you are right, I'm unlikely to see a lot

Generally I dedicate a drive to Linux and a separate drive to Windows, using a full disk option for Linux install. So, you are right, I'm unlikely to see a lot of the issues you mention. I rsync my home directory, at least the subdirectories that matter to me, to my NAS and have scripts to do the inverse on a new config. A lot of what is important to me is either in my Dropbox directory, or in git(hub|lab) repositories. I don't have much else that concerns me generally on my local system. I appreciate what Pop has done above/beyond Gnome, and looking forward to Cosmos, even if it may be a while.

lproven 2y ago
OK. But as a general design principle, it's vital to understand what people actually do with your product, as opposed to what you intended them to do. See the concept of "Chesterton's fence". > I appreciate what Pop has done above/beyond Gnome As it happens, as far as GNOME goes, I agree with you! I like GUIs. I like WIMPs. I am adept at managing my own windows, apps, and files, thanks. I like a desktop that makes it easy for me to manage it as I wish. GNOME is not. GNOME is a desktop inspired by smartphones and tablets, and it hides window management and app switching as much as possible. No buttons for minimise/maximise. No visual list of windows or apps, unless summoned with a keystroke or a mysterious ambiguous keyword ("Activities") now replaced with an inscrutable symbol. GNOME is a desktop for people who don't manage windows and who live in a few maximised ones all the time. I do not, so I don't want that. Pop tries to take that and turn it into a tiling environment, with smart automatic window placement. I don't want that -- I know where I want my windows, thanks -- but I appreciate that they tried and I think as a result it's better than GNOME which tries to make the whole issue go away. But I tried it, and I wouldn't use it from choice.

lproven 2y ago

OK. But as a general design principle, it's vital to understand what people actually do with your product, as opposed to what you intended them to do. See the concept of "Chesterton's fence". > I appreciate what Pop has done above/beyond Gnome As it happens, as far as GNOME goes, I agree with you! I like GUIs. I like WIMPs. I am adept at managing my own windows, apps, and files, thanks. I like a desktop that makes it easy for me to manage it as I wish. GNOME is not. GNOME is a desktop inspired by smartphones and tablets, and it hides window management and app switching as much as possible. No buttons for minimise/maximise. No visual list of windows or apps, unless summoned with a keystroke or a mysterious ambiguous keyword ("Activities") now replaced with an inscrutable symbol. GNOME is a desktop for people who don't manage windows and who live in a few maximised ones all the time. I do not, so I don't want that. Pop tries to take that and turn it into a tiling environment, with smart automatic window placement. I don't want that -- I know where I want my windows, thanks -- but I appreciate that they tried and I think as a result it's better than GNOME which tries to make the whole issue go away. But I tried it, and I wouldn't use it from choice.