3 ms·

> My personal opinion, unrelated to any project, is that traditional multi-window is a very fragile legacy design paradigm that doesn't make any sense That's a

by duped 1y ago

> My personal opinion, unrelated to any project, is that traditional multi-window is a very fragile legacy design paradigm that doesn't make any sense That's all well and fine, no one is forcing you to build or use software this way. But there are domains where this is the predominant UX design and it's proven to be robust for decades. Reading between the lines a bit and from browsing some mailing list posts/gh issues, it seems like Wayland developers have a deeply held arrogance towards application developers that are surprised to find out the applications they have been developing for years are "wrong." The truth is that GUI software on Linux is already a minefield (which is why most people don't bother to support it) and making it less-like-Windows is not going to make it easier for people to port their desktop applications. I get the desire for targeting things-not-like-Windows (tiling WMs, VR, tablet/mobiles, etc)... but those aren't desktop applications. It seems crazy to me that there's so much feedback from desktop application developers that is being ignored or dismissed.

arghwhat 1y ago
> That's all well and fine, no one is forcing you to build or use software this way. But there are domains where this is the predominant UX design and it's proven to be robust for decades. Nothing about it is robust, it just exists. It has been around for decades, sure, but it also has not been common or popular for at least a decade or two now. It primarily exists in old applications still rocking their original, unchanged UI. I have sympathy for existing applications, but I strongly believe it would be entirely inappropriate for a new application to be written with such UI - it was never a good idea, nor did it ever work well. It was just an idea that we have moved on from. > It seems crazy to me that there's so much feedback Not specific ot Wayland, but there is always absurd amounts of "feedback" to any high profile projects, which unfortunately means that most of it is useless noise, hit-and-run tantrums over the mildest inconvenience, and "ideas for solutions" by people who spent less than 5 minutes trying to understand the problem. This in turn means that it can sometimes be harder than it should be for good feedback to make it through.

by duped 1y ago

arghwhat 1y ago

> That's all well and fine, no one is forcing you to build or use software this way. But there are domains where this is the predominant UX design and it's proven to be robust for decades. Nothing about it is robust, it just exists. It has been around for decades, sure, but it also has not been common or popular for at least a decade or two now. It primarily exists in old applications still rocking their original, unchanged UI. I have sympathy for existing applications, but I strongly believe it would be entirely inappropriate for a new application to be written with such UI - it was never a good idea, nor did it ever work well. It was just an idea that we have moved on from. > It seems crazy to me that there's so much feedback Not specific ot Wayland, but there is always absurd amounts of "feedback" to any high profile projects, which unfortunately means that most of it is useless noise, hit-and-run tantrums over the mildest inconvenience, and "ideas for solutions" by people who spent less than 5 minutes trying to understand the problem. This in turn means that it can sometimes be harder than it should be for good feedback to make it through.