Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Desktop Icons For The GNOME Shell Are Back With Beta Extension

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Desktop Icons For The GNOME Shell Are Back With Beta Extension

    Phoronix: Desktop Icons For The GNOME Shell Are Back With Beta Extension

    For those of you that have missed the ability to have desktop icons on the GNOME Shell desktop since the support was dropped from Nautilus, it's now sort of back thanks to GNOME developer Carlos Soriano...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...Icons-Ext-Beta

  • #2
    I've like having icons on the desktop, because it is convenient since its what I am used to have. I've always had this.

    However, I am questioning whether it is a good idea. Does icons/shortcuts really belong on the desktop?
    Was it ever really a good idea? Or just something that we like because we are used to it?

    I've seen so many cluttered desktops with the whole desktop plastered full of icons.
    The desktop is bad for organizing stuff too. It is much better to keep files in your home directory. Shortcuts to applications can be elsewhere such as in the dock.

    Comment


    • #3
      i prefer using nemo, thank you very much

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
        I've like having icons on the desktop, because it is convenient since its what I am used to have. I've always had this.

        However, I am questioning whether it is a good idea. Does icons/shortcuts really belong on the desktop?
        Was it ever really a good idea? Or just something that we like because we are used to it?

        I've seen so many cluttered desktops with the whole desktop plastered full of icons.
        The desktop is bad for organizing stuff too. It is much better to keep files in your home directory. Shortcuts to applications can be elsewhere such as in the dock.
        I've worked with totally trashed Desktops for many years, too. The icons are always hidden behind some windows and organization is mostly bare. I always thought things have to be this way, but i ended up working without desktop icons for about 2 years now. I don't miss them anymore, I get the point.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          I've like having icons on the desktop, because it is convenient since its what I am used to have. I've always had this.

          However, I am questioning whether it is a good idea. Does icons/shortcuts really belong on the desktop?
          Was it ever really a good idea? Or just something that we like because we are used to it?

          I've seen so many cluttered desktops with the whole desktop plastered full of icons.
          The desktop is bad for organizing stuff too. It is much better to keep files in your home directory. Shortcuts to applications can be elsewhere such as in the dock.
          You need to see the desktop as a desk. That's what the whole metaphor stands for. I see the file manager as a drawer where everything goes that has found it's place. Applications go into the application launcher and whatever is on the desktop itself are programs and documents I'm currently working on, to be sorted into their folders later when I'm finished with them.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by uid313 View Post
            I've like having icons on the desktop, because it is convenient since its what I am used to have. I've always had this.

            However, I am questioning whether it is a good idea. Does icons/shortcuts really belong on the desktop?
            Was it ever really a good idea? Or just something that we like because we are used to it?

            I've seen so many cluttered desktops with the whole desktop plastered full of icons.
            The desktop is bad for organizing stuff too. It is much better to keep files in your home directory. Shortcuts to applications can be elsewhere such as in the dock.
            You pose good questions, and I would say it's typically just a matter of being used to it. Overall, I'd say desktop icons are somewhat inefficient, especially in Windows where you usually have to minimize programs to access the desktop. However, I think desktop icons are ideal when you want to simplify what the user can/should do. For example, a library PC would only need a handful of desktop icons and a Start menu would otherwise been unnecessary. Or if you have a system dedicated to gaming, having all of your games laid out in front of you on the desktop is a good idea because it's not like you're going to play more than one game at a time.
            When it comes to Linux and its easy-access to multiple workspaces, I have some programs with desktop icons. These are programs I use often enough where I don't feel like finding them in a menu, but not frequently enough where I'd rather run them via a keyboard shortcut (like a terminal, for example). These are also programs where I'd want a clean slate, where I don't want to be minimizing anything. So for example, I have my IDE on the desktop, because I don't run it every day, I want it to be maximized, and I want to always be in the front on its workspace.
            Last edited by schmidtbag; 08-22-2018, 12:04 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by WolfpackN64 View Post

              You need to see the desktop as a desk. That's what the whole metaphor stands for. I see the file manager as a drawer where everything goes that has found it's place. Applications go into the application launcher and whatever is on the desktop itself are programs and documents I'm currently working on, to be sorted into their folders later when I'm finished with them.
              But at least you keep it organized (like I do). Some people have desktops full icons, which in real-life would mean that your desk is full of stuff you don't even remember and you can hardly reach for your mouse.

              So to solve this problem: wouldn't it be better if there was a compromise? Like, you can keep desktop icons but there's a limit as to how many? That'll help keep things organized, but doesn't totally ditch the icons either.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by WolfpackN64 View Post
                You need to see the desktop as a desk. That's what the whole metaphor stands for. I see the file manager as a drawer where everything goes that has found it's place. Applications go into the application launcher and whatever is on the desktop itself are programs and documents I'm currently working on, to be sorted into their folders later when I'm finished with them.
                Good point. However I've seen many people have the desktop literally full of icons.
                Some have more than a hundred icons on their desktop.
                The icons can stay there indefinitely. There is nothing that encourages the user to move an icon from the desktop into the drawer (file manager).

                Perhaps it would make more sense if the desktop only had shortcuts to Documents, Pictures, Videos and Music directory in the home directory, nothing else.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
                  you can keep desktop icons but there's a limit as to how many? That'll help keep things organized, but doesn't totally ditch the icons either.
                  Sounds very much like a dock

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I haven't looked at my desktop in years. Glad it's available for others as an extension though.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X