> Nice strawman. I'm not talking about window decorations (but see below). I'm talking about interface hall of shame.
OP was referring to window decorations and that's why I was referring to them as well.
Moreover, Wayland does not change the way user interface is drawn so there will be no improvement (in terms of UX) in this regard. The thing that changes are who draws window decorations.
> Now back to the question of window decorations. Note that while in MacOS or Windows the programs which explicitly decided to use "something different" look out of place (things like ICQ or MS Office) but in Linux it happens with programs which don't try to do that, too (think Google's Chrome).
Google Chrome tries to do something different since it does not want to have regular window title to save space.
> Right. 1001th time where Linux punishes application developers "to empower users". In the end users don't feel all that empowered: they find out that they don't have access to their favorite applications and choose to use the other platform.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
> BTW you can do that in MacOS or Windows, too: since most application use standard functions to draw the decorations you can intercept appropriate functions and draw different decorations.
Which is not true for Linux which has half a dozen different toolkits. I regularly use 3 that I can identify. Intercepting calls to all of possible toolkits is hardly a possibility.
This is why doing window decorations on client side will lead to all windows having different decorations -- if we had a single toolkit, that could be avoided but that's often not the case on typical Linux system. If you say it's bad now, it'd be worse if even window decorations were drawn by the client.
> in this case the person who changes the status quo feels the pain, not Joe Average who just wants to use his computer, not twiddle bazillion options day and night.
Joe Average can use Ubuntu and stick to its default settings and default applications. I don't see your point here.