GNOME Shell Merges Its New Horizontal Workspaces

[blackiwid]

I figured it on my own… and I am merely a Gnome user.

The problem is Gnome is for noobs and advanced users, but "hackers" and geeks don't use this desktop, they use tiling wms. Like myself, which by itself is totally fine. Yet the noob user especially if he is maybe a bit older will not stumble over that features, I have to sometimes explain my father how to send a picture over email (webmail) on the phone or upload it to some picture upload site.

So he will not understand that feature, and when I use gnome on his computer twice for 10 mins in a year I maybe if I am lucky remember Ctrl - l and I kind of remember that type feature, now that you are saying it, but not after 6 months not using it.

So maybe they could add a message if you press Ctrl-l which obviously is a wrong way of doing that task that has only disadvantages to just start typing, that they give you a message "do you know that you can just type the path without first typing Ctrl - L" and then "ok don'-t show me again or just ok" such small things would make the desktop better usable for the small demographic of users.

Because currently it's not usable for real powerusers (geeks/hackers) and not usable for Noobs only for somewhere in the middle audience that is to lazy to customize a tiling wm to their needs but also clever enough to be able to use this desktop with 1000 hidden options like this.

Sorry maybe that sounds to aggressive, I am no gnome hater, gnome did there welcome screen thing so they try to help users with such messages, but here would be a good way to support them, it could even be a toggable option like "high contrast" "help messages" or something. So that you could activate it for noobs or distros targeted to noobs could enable it by default.

I think the overlap between power users and gnome is not that great so you have either people that fall over their own shoes and never find that or people that don't use gnome but tiling wms...

Also was gnome not meant to be usable by phones also do they use then another file manager or are people just supposed to write in nautilus too? they need at least a key to pull down the soft-keyboard so you don't get around a gesture / button for those users.

[finalzone]

Actually, the vertical scrolling of the Nova launcher or HTC Sense on Android feels much more natural to me than the iOS left-to-right.

Difference is Nova is a third party launcher and HTC Sense come built-in. Samsung used to have vertical scrolling for apps grid on the Touchwizbefore switching to left to right since Samsung Experience now revamped as One UI. Basically, it is a matter of getting used to once looking at the changes done on a redesigned interface.

In Gnome, I don't know since I don't use Activities Overview or workspaces, but scrolling is usually top-down on mice and touchpads so my guess is it might be confusing for some users that scrolling vertically result in a horizontal movement. On Android or iOS, it's easy to swipe left-to-right so the intent matches the result more closely.

The topic is about the horizontal workspace where swiping left-to-right or vice versa applied. The scrolling behaviour of the mouse without using say Super key remains unchanged.

[reavertm]

I other news, G*OME project stealing and relicensing code without author's permission.

https://www.altusintel.com/public-yy1j52/

Very unethical if you ask me.
This may have been response to https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comme...ments_view_all which was knee-jerk reaction of xscrensaver author to Debian devs wanting to remove "you are using outdated and insecure version" notification message instead of upgrading xscrensaver. Or perhaps gnome-screensaver copied BSD licensed code earlier.
Regardless, stealing BSD code and putting GPL stamp on it is very unethical in my book, no matter what you think about xscreensaver author's social skills.

[deve]

Any reason why they changed it? Most people on desktop and even tablets have horizontal monitors, so now you have wasted space on left/right side and also you have less space for application icons. It doesn't seem reasonable for me.

[matsukan]

I just wonder is Canonical and Gnome are going to achieve something what is already has done by the Cairo--dock-project ... Seems to that project is more or less dead but code base is hosted by the launchpad now days.

And results is something Apple like desktop ... Of course that needs more graphics from from GTK toolkit but is could be done ...

[reavertm]

reavertm There’s no copyright infringement. Zawinski is just being Zawinski.

Copyright owner sure has different opinion on that matter. G*OME developer Jon McCann is shameless in his deplorable ethics:

https://twitter.com/jonmccann/status...283088897?s=20

Just shrugs off the notion that taking someone else MIT-licensed code, relicensing it, removing original copyright and applying *own* copyright, is unethical. But hey, everyone has its own standards I guess. Look, I get it, G*OME has never been very original in first place, still some basic ethics are expected from The Standard Desktop.

[blackiwid]

Just shrugs off the notion that taking someone else MIT-licensed code, relicensing it, removing original copyright and applying *own* copyright, is unethical.

You understand that licenses are a legal tool to tell others what to do and not to do with the source code. So if he violated no clause in the license and broke no law, which is what I assume is what happend, then there was everything legal and also therefor moralically ok. I mean he did not build a baby-murder machine with it, so what's the immorality? Maybe you could argue about some "good manners" but good or bad manners are no question of moral.

So you say to me that it's ok if somebody uses such a bsd like lisence and puts the code in a proprietary program and don't gives back any changes of it, and people explizitly use the bsd license to allow that (otherwise there is no logical reason to not use gpl instead) and the gpl is the solution that nobody can take your stuff and relisence it, so they at the same time disagree to disallow relicensing as 3rd party but get pissed when somebody does it legally?

Sorry that is next level schizophrenic. The solution would be to put his source under the gpl but wait that somebody did costfree for him already

[reavertm]

You understand that licenses are a legal tool to tell others what to do and not to do with the source code. So if he violated no clause in the license and broke no law, which is what I assume is what happend, then there was everything legal and also therefor moralically ok. I mean he did not build a baby-murder machine with it, so what's the immorality? Maybe you could argue about some "good manners" but good or bad manners are no question of moral.

So you say to me that it's ok if somebody uses such a bsd like lisence and puts the code in a proprietary program and don't gives back any changes of it, and people explizitly use the bsd license to allow that (otherwise there is no logical reason to not use gpl instead) and the gpl is the solution that nobody can take your stuff and relisence it, so they at the same time disagree to disallow relicensing as 3rd party but get pissed when somebody does it legally?

Sorry that is next level schizophrenic. The solution would be to put his source under the gpl but wait that somebody did costfree for him already

Hang on, are you saying that removing:
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." (snippet from MIT license) to replace it with GPL while not holding copyright, is not a violation of it?
I can destroy evidence that I stole something and it makes my hands suddenly clean? I admit I don't get your point otherwise.

[blackiwid]

Hang on, are you saying that removing:
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." (snippet from MIT license) to replace it with GPL while not holding copyright, is not a violation of it?
I can destroy evidence that I stole something and it makes my hands suddenly clean? I admit I don't get your point otherwise.

If your claim in true that a crime happened, again it does not matter that something unmoralic happened then it's easy to file a law suit for fraud or copyright infringement. If you or others have the proof for it, it should be easy to go through with it.

Because I hear wining instead of a law suit I assume all was legal, and when I the 2nd time say I assume that includes a admission that I could be wrong which you ignored the first time and probably will do again.

I just find logical conclusion of what you are saying if I miss a part that contradicts my logic I am happy to learn the detail that wrongs my logic. It's not about who has the strange opinion, you made claims, I tried to find the logic in it, it's your job to make me see the details that is wrong with my logic by offer enough detail, because I can only go from what you have said, if you left out important details it's not my fault.

That's another problem with you making that about moral, moral has a lot to do with emotions, I give a shit about emotions at least in this case I am not very invested either way, well maybe that I like gpl more than bsd could be a small bias but that makes me not totally partisan. When we bring it down to law, it has nothing to do with emotions and it's about facts and pretty easy just show the evidence for a crime and I root for your law suit.

[blackiwid]

Now I looked into it a bit, the copyright might been removed by the wish of the author there is no clear information about it, but it sounds a plausible explanation, the theory is and he did ask for that in the past that programs using it had security problems and he wanted not his name involved in that. There is even a citing that "his security argument was wrong" so this discussion is happening, which makes the argument about removing copyright which is the bigger accusation likely invalid.

Then we have the question about relicensing, and if you take parts from a program in a new program and make significant changes you are allowed to relicense it, so a lawyer would have to decide if significant enough chances were made.

So it seems at least that it's way less one sided and nuanced than you suggest.