I don't really see the usecase for this. Surely this kind of user just maximises every window?
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
18 points (100.0% liked)
Gnome
1914 readers
10 users here now
The GNOME Project is a free and open source desktop and computing platform for open platforms like Linux that strives to be an easy and elegant way to use your computer. GNOME software is developed openly and ethically by both individual contributors and corporate partners, and is distributed under the GNU General Public License.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I want to try it if for no other reason than to better distinguish which window is in the foreground.
Also, I personally loathe maximizing windows, especially on widescreens. Most interfaces suck when maximized, and I’d much rather read and write stuff in a window that’s tall rather than wide. If I need to focus on one window, I’d prefer to move it to its own workspace or minimize others than maximize it.
If your eyesight isn't great, the current contrast difference between active and inactive windows may not be enough
Yay another extesion that is already broken on the current gnome version...
At this point why even advertise extension support
I installed the Fedora 39 beta and every extension I had was already updated and compatible. Not many people are even on Gnome 45 yet.
They've improved and standardised the extension system, making it easier for devs. Not sure why that bothers you so much.
Let me give you another analogy: You see an article about a Firefox extension, click in but it is also not supported.
Now lets say you are already annoyed your adblocker also doesn't work because Mozilla breaks extensions every few months.
Then someone commented:
I don't use adblock. (Or even the extension advertised) Most people use Chrome anyway. Not sure why that bothers you so much.
The thing is, Firefox has an extension API. It's a proper thing that they maintain, and make guarantees about. GNOME intentionally doesn't have an API, because if they did, the things extensions could do would be limited to what those APIs expose. Instead, they let extensions do whatever they want, patching the code of the shell directly. This comes at the cost of extensions needing to be updated for new shell versions, but it lets extensions be extremely powerful.
In fact, Firefox had this issue a few years back. They switched from a GNOME like system to the WebExtensions API, which is more limited and broke basically every extension if they didn't update. There are still some add-ons that can't be replicated because they need functionality the API doesn't expose.
That's not a good analogy.
A more apt analogy would be:
Firefox breaks extensions every other release in a way that's trivial to fix, but a bit annoying.
In an upcoming release, Mozilla warns that they're standardising the way extensions are done so that not only are they easier to make, but breakage in the future is uncommon, though extensions as they currently stand won't work.
They give you a port guide and time in advance to get everything sorted.
A beta build of Firefox comes out, 95% of extensions are already ported, but there are still a few (mainly ones that aren't actively maintained) haven't yet been ported.
Is it annoying if you're the kind of person who likes to be on the bleeding edge? Sure. But part of being on the bleeding edge is accepting that sometimes things are borked. If you can't live with a changed workflow, don't use beta software.