GNOME Client-Side Decorations (CSD) discussion

[steve_v]

I don't like CSD, and I will probably never like it. Window titlebars are there to contain window controls, and those window controls should be consistent across all applications.
Leaving it up to individual app devs to decide what goes there just makes a mess.
The "only contains a window title and a close button" argument is rubbish too. My titlebars contain 7 buttons, all of which I use frequently, and take up minimal screen space.
CSM would also break features that are actually useful like window tabbing (kwin coolness), for no benefit whatsoever. Thank Dog it's only gnome that insists on this crazy behaviour.

This whole "convergence" thing is pretty silly IMO. If you want a touch UI, build a touch UI instead of degrading an existing mouse & keyboard setup. If you want Windoze, use Windoze.
I really can't stand GNOME any more, and this ongoing "change all the UI, make it more touchy, hide all the buttons" stupidity is one of the reasons for that.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

putting a smiley after an insult doesn't make it ok

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a ****

Anyway, it was a request rather than an insult...

Are you seriously suggesting that the GNOME developers should stop innovating just because it makes other people's themes look bad?

Why is the gtk-nocsd package not good enough?

[Wheelerof4te]

The "only contains a window title and a close button" argument is rubbish too. My titlebars contain 7 buttons, all of which I use frequently, and take up minimal screen space.

Hmmm, why do you think that? If you use 7 buttons, then it's just you, getting used to your workflow. I, for one, couldn't use that as I find it useless to keep more than 3 buttons. Out of curiosity, what do all those buttons do?

This whole "convergence" thing is pretty silly IMO. If you want a touch UI, build a touch UI instead of degrading an existing mouse & keyboard setup.

AFAIK, everyone does it. It's part of marketing and average end-user convinience. Falling behind such major developments in modern UI will make Linux desktop obsolete, since more than 85% of users still have Windows. You can't cherry pick the changes, they come naturally according to unwritten laws of the market.

[steve_v]

Out of curiosity, what do all those buttons do?

all desktops, keep above, keep below, shade, minimise, maximise/restore, close. You don't have to like my setup, my point is that CSD makes my setup impossible in favour of what the application developer likes.

Falling behind such major developments in modern UI will make Linux desktop obsolete, since more than 85% of users still have Windows.

A concept I also find pretty ridiculous. This is as bad as all those "Linux needs more lusers" arguments. Why does the "Linux desktop" have to compete with Windows again?
Just because everyone else is going something, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Wheelerof4te]

You don't have to like my setup, my point is that CSD makes my setup impossible

That's fair enough, but not everyone wants or needs your setup. Honestly, most people don't and that's why I mentioned abhorred "the market" argument. It's a reality, and we mustn't run from realities now, must we?
Who are those "lusers" you speak of? Are ordinary people "lusers" to you? Developers can't think like that, if they want to have actual users for things they develop.

Why does the "Linux desktop" have to compete with Windows again?

Because it needs to stay relevant, and not be further marginalized than it already is, that's why.

[steve_v]

Your entire argument appears to still be hinging on the "GNU/Linux needs to appeal to the masses" point (and you haven't explained why). I say it doesn't, so I expect we will have to agree to disagree.
I like my non-mainstream OS just how it is, and I still don't see why it should play follow-the-leader or compete for market-share with the very operating systems I left to get here.

[Wheelerof4te]

Your entire argument appears to still be hinging on the "GNU/Linux needs to appeal to the masses" point (and you haven't explained why)

Allow me to explain.
It is true that GNU/Linux has always been a kind of "go-to" place for people that are looking for something different. For those that want to get away from corporate misshaps, lock-ins, limitations and all that. By it's very nature, Linux is open and free for use and modifications, and even some big players have recognized that.
It is one of it's great strengths, there is no arguing about that. Linux in the server market has become a household name because of it's simplicity and openness. Even more so because of it's time-tested standards used by almost everyone. Tradditional LAMP stack has not changed much over the years.

Enter the Linux Desktop. What do we have on the Desktop side? Division, lack of unity, forks and forks of forks, constant whinging, arguments and hundreds of in-house distributions that exist simply for the sake of existing. Irrational segregation of all users into techy and non-techy, accompanied by avoidance of simple solutions for all kinds of problems that commercial OSes don't have. Such as standard packaging solution for all Linux distributions (progress is being made, but as with every other endevour in Linux-land, this too has sparked division), simple installation, user-friendly and well documented GUI, standard set of API/ABI, and so on.
I am perplexed by arguments made by some of users of this forum on excluding Average Joe/Joanne from using Debian, or any kind of Linux distro. I also don't understand the need for Linux to stay below 5% market share, in order to keep these users out. It's nonsense, Linux has to find a way to include people of all backgrounds, and to have proper documentation on most relevant issues. That documentation has to be readibly available even for the most attention-deficieted user.
That's why I will always support an unification effort, an effort to bring Linux to the masses. I'm a Linux Intergrationist, I would like to see Linux projects come together to make something useful or good looking, such as CSD. Even so, knowing the Linux community, there are many who will rather make and advocate a fork, rather than contribute to the existing projects.
"Why would you waste so much effort just to fork something new, instead of making 1/100th of such effort just to learn to use and maintain it?" is the ultimate unanswered question.

[bw123]

I am perplexed by arguments made by some of users of this forum on excluding Average Joe/Joanne from using Debian, or any kind of Linux distro...

I don't see why you are perplexed, there are decades of history to explain why people feel that way. Average Joe and Joanna are sheep that get fleeced by big business.

It's simple: Let's make linux desktop just as crappy as the others so it can't innovate. The way we do this is develop apps that need common standards. That way linux devs are kept busy implementing our requirements, rather than developing alternatives. It's a business threat neutralized.

Yes, people are that diabolical when there are real dollars at stake. If an idiot like me could imagine it, a team of MBAs should have no trouble.

[Wheelerof4te]

Let's make linux desktop just as crappy as the others so it can't innovate. The way we do this is develop apps that need common standards. That way linux devs are kept busy implementing our requirements, rather than developing alternatives. It's a business threat neutralized.

Whose requirements are that? Bussiness threat from who? Microsoft, who is focusing more and more on adopting Linux for it's own services. Microsoft who is releasing it's software for Linux. Who is even building Linux into it's very own OS? Microsoft who has taken much of Linux's own UI design for Windows 10? Nonsense, IMO.
If the others are "crappy", why are they so successful?
Lack of common standards is what made Linux Desktop irrelevant and common standards are what made Linux on servers predominant. I don't know why you think setting standards will break alternatives? There is a simple market concept called competition. If one DE isn't popular, it will not survive the test of time. It won't be used by anyone. As such, it must be abolished, instead of dragging other projects into a standstill. The same goes for features that block the further development of major projects.
Also, your pesimism is questionable. Linux is in much better shape today than it was 5 years ago.
EDIT:

Average Joe and Joanna are sheep that get fleeced by big business.

Why don't we show them the way, then? Let the "sheep" learn the right path. But, with that attitude, they won't. Ever.

[bw123]

There is a simple market concept called competition. If one DE isn't popular, it will not survive the test of time. It won't be used by anyone.

Now you're really being silly. You're living in a theoretical fairytale. The real world does not work that way, it's a myth.

The reason a product survives and thrives is because it beats or eliminates the competition. It's not because it is "popular" or even a good product.

If you turn linux into this, it won't survive, you can't win. It will just get swallowed up like thousands of other good products in "the marketplace."

[Wheelerof4te]

Linux is doing fine in the bussiness sector. Linux Desktop is not. There are attempts to fix this, including the one we are discussing here. If you are afraid of change, nothing will look right.
I am not some naive guy who does not understand the laws of the market. I am trying to convince you here that a bit of collaboration between different projects goes a long way. Coming together will only make Linux stronger. None could ignore it. And more people will be interesed.
When they do get interesed, and they see something beautiful, modern and sleek, they will try it. Now, tell me, is that is bad for you? Or, will you then be able to enjoy more apps being native on Linux? More games being made for Linux, because lots of people are using it?

[steve_v]

Such as standard packaging solution for all Linux distributions (progress is being made, but as with every other endevour in Linux-land, this too has sparked division)

Please, no. We have a standard packaging system, it's called "make". The only people who really want a "standard" binary package are those who want to run proprietary non-free software.

I also don't understand the need for Linux to stay below 5% market share

I don't understand the need for Linux to get above 5% market share. In fact I don't see why we should care about "market share" at all, it's not like anyone gets paid per-installation.
You keep talking about this "market" thing, as if GNU/Linux was some commercial OS that had to attract sales. I don't get it.

Linux has to find a way to include people of all backgrounds

That's why we have many distros...

and to have proper documentation on most relevant issues.

"man" works for me. If you want to write some manpages, I'm all for that.

That's why I will always support an unification effort, an effort to bring Linux to the masses.

I don't care if "the masses" use Linux or not, but I'll fight any attempt to curtail the "divisive" diversity of GNU/Linux. Diversity is what got us this far.
If you get every distro using the same init, the same libc, the same UI, and the same package format, what's left to differentiate them? Different default colour schemes?
Shall we just have "One Linux"? Or should we produce a "Home" and "Pro" edition too? Yuck.

"Why would you waste so much effort just to fork something new, instead of making 1/100th of such effort just to learn to use and maintain it?" is the ultimate unanswered question.

The answer is the same as it has always been: "Because you don't like the direction it's headed in".

Linux is doing fine in the bussiness sector. Linux Desktop is not.

This is a problem? Why is this a problem?

Coming together will only make Linux stronger. None could ignore it. And more people will be interesed.
When they do get interesed, and they see something beautiful, modern and sleek, they will try it. Now, tell me, is that is bad for you? Or, will you then be able to enjoy more apps being native on Linux?

More non-free apps? No thanks.
More malware, adware and crapware? No thanks.
More uninformed users who have no idea how the systems work, and push for clicky buttons to do everything instead of learning? No thanks.
More commercial interest in GNU/Linux, and all the garbage that brings with it? No. Just No.

I like my chaotic bazaar, with it's cute, free, homebaked goods just how it is. The less the interference from big commercial software vendors the better.
Diversity keeps users and developers free to innovate, and to write and use software however they wish. "Standards" do the opposite.
If those standards are driven by commercial interests, it's not GNU /Linux any more.

[debiman]

Why is the gtk-nocsd package not good enough?

again you have misinterpreted what i wrote.
you seem to have pegged me down as someone who passionately hates gnome.
truth is, i don't give a ****.
stop whinging yourself.

PS:
wow, the f-word didn't get asterisked! i'm pumped!

[steve_v]

wow, the f-word didn't get asterisked! i'm pumped!

Seems to be a bit hit-and-miss, I get about a 60/40 uncensored/censored ratio. I do have a reasonable sample size here, as I tend to ignore profanity filters and just say type what I would say.

[oswaldkelso]

Are you seriously suggesting that the GNOME developers should stop innovating just because it makes other people's themes look bad?

No most definitely not. I am however suggesting they look up the meaning of the word innovate. Because they're not innovating just trying to control the free software space. If the word innovating was swapped out for dominating from your statement they would see what others think they mean. It's a control grab and having to install yet another piece of unwanted software to undo their "innovation" is just not good enough in a real free software community.