Day: Status Icons and GNOME
GNOME 3 currently shows status icons in the bottom-left corner of the screen, in a tray that slides in and out. We know that this isn’t a good solution. The tray gets in the way and it generally feels quite awkward. There’s a general consensus that we don’t want to continue with this UI for the upcoming version of GNOME 3."
Posted Sep 1, 2017 17:48 UTC (Fri)
by nickbp (guest, #63605)
[Link] (10 responses)
From GNOME 3.26, we are therefore planning not to show status icons in GNOME Shell by default. We feel that, long-term, this change will enable us to provide a better experience for our users (I’ll go into some detail about this in the rest of the post). We also feel that the consequences of the change won’t be as dramatic as they would have been in the past. [...] If you want or need to continue using status icons, you should feel free to use the TopIcons GNOME Shell extension.
Posted Sep 1, 2017 19:13 UTC (Fri)
by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375)
[Link] (9 responses)
Why not swallow TopIcons wholesale into GNOME main? Are the licences incompatible?!?
K3n.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 7:53 UTC (Sat)
by Sylos (guest, #109852)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 15:56 UTC (Sat)
by adam820 (subscriber, #101353)
[Link] (7 responses)
> Having reviewed how applications are using status icons, we are confident that the majority of applications that use status icons will not be impacted by the decision not to display them by default. In many cases applications won’t have to make any changes, and if changes are required we have hopefully contacted you already.
It's possible that they're already working with the upstream applications that you're already deemed impossible to work with, and fixes will be provided. And if not, please take the initiative of getting in touch with someone and letting them know of your concern about X, Y, or Z applications.
For some reason, if Apple were to up and remove the system tray in their next macOS update, it would be lauded as "brave, bold, and forward-thinking", but even a well-written and clearly-explained article isn't enough to stop the dog pile for G3.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 19:37 UTC (Sat)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 20:49 UTC (Sat)
by ken (subscriber, #625)
[Link]
I would love to hear what dropbox response was when they got contacted about the removal of the api.
------
Posted Sep 2, 2017 20:53 UTC (Sat)
by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628)
[Link] (4 responses)
GNOME wants consistent behavior across the stack. Consolidating to a single notification system that is also cross desktop and re-educating developers to use it is the goal. Of course there are legacy software that is going to keep using it and that is where TopIcons comes in to provide that experience, and arguably a better experience. While such things will cause temporary pain, once apps port over to the new system things will look a lot better.
Posted Sep 3, 2017 4:02 UTC (Sun)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
I still have to struggle through Gnome's tantrums at work, though. I deeply resent your attitude towards users as a result.
I know that if I treated my users the same way then my company would have gone bankrupt long ago.
Posted Sep 4, 2017 8:53 UTC (Mon)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link]
Posted Sep 3, 2017 5:13 UTC (Sun)
by ErikF (subscriber, #118131)
[Link] (1 responses)
If in the future GNOME is able to achieve near-universality then maybe breaking compatibility can be done. Until then, I'd rather have notification icons as a supported feature that works half-decently, even if it's disabled by default.
Posted Sep 3, 2017 17:38 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
I won't go *near* Gnome. Just my personal preference, you can do what you like, but if you put Gnome on my personal machine you'll get shot ... :-)
MS forced everyone down the MS route ... it's AWFUL and although there are linatics who think that's a good idea, trust me, it's NOT.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 1, 2017 19:11 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (48 responses)
I started reading fully expecting that if a GNOME blog post starts with something like: "We know that this isn’t a good solution. The tray gets in the way and it generally feels quite awkward", then it will end in removing this "something" by the end of the post. I was not surprised at all this time.
Posted Sep 1, 2017 21:04 UTC (Fri)
by johncktx (guest, #113610)
[Link] (18 responses)
Gnome can't be taken seriously at all these days. Hopefully Gnome 3 stops its charade soon and, as gracefully as they can muster, just wind the failed project down and use it as a teaching method for how not to develop a desktop and/or respond to criticism. I once thought it might be able to be salvaged, but those days are long since gone.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 22:27 UTC (Sat)
by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628)
[Link] (16 responses)
GNOME doesn't believe in sacred cows, and yes, the work we do can be disruptive culturally. It's why I stay on this project for nearly 20 years and enjoy being part of the GNOME community as there is always fresh ideas to work on.
Posted Sep 3, 2017 0:00 UTC (Sun)
by dirtyepic (guest, #30178)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Sep 3, 2017 1:38 UTC (Sun)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 4, 2017 2:45 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Posted Sep 8, 2017 1:40 UTC (Fri)
by efitton (guest, #93063)
[Link]
Posted Sep 6, 2017 12:51 UTC (Wed)
by jani (subscriber, #74547)
[Link] (4 responses)
Since when has it been okay to tell people what to do, unless you're paying them to do what you want?
The GNOME folks seem to have strong opinions about where they want to take the project, and aren't afraid to make it happen, even if the changes are disruptive. The world is full of projects like that, open source or not. Arguably you need people and projects with strong vision to improve the way we work. Indeed some of the more interesting and disruptive projects are lead by rather opinionated people. (Intentionally not naming any.) Some of the disruptive changes are going to make some users unhappy.
But the people doing the work are free to do so.
You are free to move on to something else. You are free to start or fork or contribute to a desktop environment project with a kernel-like no regressions policy.
Of course, there's also the option of complaining about the state of GNOME 3 on LWN, but isn't that subject growing a tad stale? GNOME 3 is something like six years old now, and there are no signs of it becoming irrelevant despite what you might think based on the comments on this article.
Posted Sep 7, 2017 16:58 UTC (Thu)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Let's rephrase that in gnomespeak[1], then:
“It's time to decide whether GNOME wants to be a useful desktop, a Linux desktop, or a GNOME desktop.”
Posted Sep 8, 2017 1:43 UTC (Fri)
by efitton (guest, #93063)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 8, 2017 11:55 UTC (Fri)
by ovitters (guest, #27950)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 8, 2017 20:09 UTC (Fri)
by efitton (guest, #93063)
[Link]
What I meant to say:
Obviously different people may have different opinions than me as to why GNOME is frequently a default and different people may have different opinions on the appropriateness of having an experimental and mainstream desktop.
Posted Sep 5, 2017 18:53 UTC (Tue)
by bandrami (guest, #94229)
[Link] (5 responses)
It's default in Fedora, RedHat, and their derivatives. Is it the default anywhere else? It's not default for Mint, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Arch, Slackware, Antergos, Manjaro, or Gentoo (to use distrowatch's hit counter as a proxy for userbase). It's one of four defaults for Debian. MATE, Unity, and Cinnamon (all of which are Gnome forks made by people who were unhappy with the direction Gnome has been going) seem to be doing a lot better than Gnome.
A decade ago, Gnome 2 really *was* the default in most distros, and Gnome 3 seems to have thrown that away.
Posted Sep 6, 2017 6:31 UTC (Wed)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 6, 2017 9:48 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Posted Sep 6, 2017 13:04 UTC (Wed)
by bandrami (guest, #94229)
[Link]
Posted Sep 6, 2017 9:54 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
That made me snicker. Thanks.
> MATE, Unity, and Cinnamon (all of which are Gnome forks made by people who were unhappy with the direction Gnome has been going)
Of those, only MATE is a legitimate "fork".
Cinnamon is all Gnome3 under the hood, only using a different shell to provide a G2-like UI.
Unity was an originally an incompatible fork of prerelease-G3, because (officially) Canonical wasn't willing to wait for G3 to be finished, and because they had specific UI requirements in mind -- not because G3's direction was inherently wrong. Even today, it's far closer to G3 than Cinnamon is.
Posted Sep 7, 2017 3:07 UTC (Thu)
by bandrami (guest, #94229)
[Link]
I definitely enjoyed it, too.
That said: a decade ago, choosing "desktop system" in the Debian installer got you Gnome. Now it gets you a choice of Gnome, the old version of Gnome by another name, the new version of Gnome hacked up to look more like the old version of Gnome, or a desktop that is basically the old version of Gnome but with a much greater willingness to use external components.
Ubuntu coming back into the fold will be a big plus for Gnome, but I still am amazed at how much installbase the team has been willing to give up here.
Posted Sep 6, 2017 18:43 UTC (Wed)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Posted Sep 3, 2017 16:30 UTC (Sun)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2017 21:31 UTC (Fri)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 20:58 UTC (Sat)
by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 23:57 UTC (Sat)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
> Another key design principle for GNOME is to put the user in control.
I LOL'd. This article's whole apologetic tone is precisely because it's giving users the shaft. If the GNOME project wanted to put the user in control, it would would first implement (and test!) a solution so this long article wouldn't have to exist. It would just be an entry in the release notes.
> In the next release, we will be introducing a new integration API for file synchronisation apps
Except... the reason you need the API is in *this* release, isn't it? (or am I misunderstanding "next"? Think there'll be unforeseen delays?)
> In GNOME we have two closely related goals: to provide application developers with a clear vision of how apps should be built [that's often changing] and to provide users with a simple, easy to understand and logical experience [with lots of caveats and workarounds].
This section's goal of clear APIs is laudable, but its opening sentence just hangs out there like newspeak. It's at odds with its section and, really, the article as a whole.
(To be clear: I like change. Well-managed change is wonderful. Alas, "Yank it and write some wiki pages for 3rd party devs" is not well-managed change.)
> Many applications today use status icons as a notifications system, despite the existence of the official notifications API, for example.
This part is implying that a number of 3rd party developers are lazy or stupid. Dunno about that... Are you *sure* you understand why they've been reluctant to use the official notifications API?
> We also feel that the consequences of the change won’t be as dramatic as they would have been in the past.
Haha, the GNOME project has been pretty bad at judging how dramatic changes would be in the past, hasn't it? I wonder if things have improved any... (I'll take the under on this one. I predict that GNOME devs will be surprised at how many people are actually affected by this, and how difficult the workarounds described in this article will be in real life. But I do hope I'm wrong!)
> we have actually been using status icons as a crutch for far too long -- that they have been used to fill gaps in our APIs, gaps which are now thankfully getting filled...
Can you picture Allan Day as a physical therapist? He says to his patient on crutches: "You know what? We've been using this crutch far too long." YANK. CRASH. "Don't worry, you'll adjust soon. Most of your leg will heal in a year or two and the rest was obsolete so you won't need it anyway."
Maybe stabilize a solution first, _then_ delete the problem?
But no, alas. This article seems to say that the gameplan is to delete now, think later, and write lots of English to explain about how any pain is actually for the user's own good.
Which, when read in the right tone of voice, is very amusing!
Posted Sep 2, 2017 17:35 UTC (Sat)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link] (24 responses)
Posted Sep 5, 2017 9:09 UTC (Tue)
by aigarius (subscriber, #7329)
[Link] (23 responses)
Posted Sep 5, 2017 9:13 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (21 responses)
Heck, even Android now has an API to do persistent indicators.
Yet GNOME somehow got it totally wrong.
Posted Sep 5, 2017 14:22 UTC (Tue)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link] (20 responses)
Add to this the fact, that many app developers consider status icons a way to enforce – and spread – the brand message, and that the icon images rarely follows design guidelines, and the thing becomes infuriating. (To wit: without bartender my work macbook has SIXTEEN status icons taking roughly one third of the top bar; of those I care only about three; four perhaps.)
Posted Sep 5, 2017 14:23 UTC (Tue)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link]
Posted Sep 5, 2017 18:52 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (18 responses)
I don't _want_ my icon tray to "scale". I'm fine with solution that allows me to have 2-5 indicators for applications chosen by me.
Posted Sep 6, 2017 9:46 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (17 responses)
And that's why virtual desktops were commonplace on X Windowing systems at least twenty years ago.
Gnome3 actually improves this paradigm with a dynamic stack-based approach.
> I don't _want_ my icon tray to "scale". I'm fine with solution that allows me to have 2-5 indicators for applications chosen by me.
That, by definition, is "scaling" compared to the overwhelming majority of desktops out there. (Note tha Linux is only a tiny fraction of those)
Posted Sep 6, 2017 11:55 UTC (Wed)
by ken (subscriber, #625)
[Link] (14 responses)
> And that's why virtual desktops were commonplace on X Windowing systems at least twenty years ago.
the dynamic approach is not some sort of universal improvement. I have no idea what problem this solves and it makes using it a pain as you no longer can place windows in the workspace you want as that one may not exist yet.
and the decision to then only have worspaces on the primary display ??? unbelievable! I thought it was a bug until someone pointed out its was done on purpose.
Posted Sep 6, 2017 12:15 UTC (Wed)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (6 responses)
There is an extension for solving the primary display issue.
Posted Sep 6, 2017 20:51 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (5 responses)
By the way, this works because my per-project workspaces tend to be realized through tmux sessions rather than X (or Wayland).
Posted Sep 7, 2017 6:44 UTC (Thu)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link] (4 responses)
I have six monitors at work, and am using two of them for "per-project" workspaces that are chained together (i.e. when I press <Super-1>, one monitor jumps to workspace 1 and another jumps to workspace 11; <Super-2> changes to workspaces 2 and 12; etc). The other monitors either have a single workspace assigned to them, or (for my web browser monitor) I create and destroy workspaces dynamically. The workspaces on my browser monitor don't have a keyboard shortcut, since there are typically dozens of browser windows open that monitor (each on their own workspace), so I have a program that finds the titles of all of my browser windows, displays them in a dmenu, and whisks me to the workspace holding that browser window. Pure productivity bliss, not counting the millions of hours getting my setup to be this awesome. (Using the i3 window manager, but I'm sure any other tiling WM would work).
But the reason this works so well is that i3 has barely changed its default behaviour since the project started almost a decade ago. The project is mostly adding new features (like workspace saving and configuration options) and fixing bugs.
Posted Sep 7, 2017 7:05 UTC (Thu)
by jem (subscriber, #24231)
[Link] (3 responses)
Tiling window managers are not for everyone. If you value portability in a laptop, then you'll have to compromise on screen size. With a small screen you end up switching between full screen windows.
Posted Sep 7, 2017 9:48 UTC (Thu)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 7, 2017 9:59 UTC (Thu)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link]
It's convenient for me because I can use almost all the same keybindings as on my workstation, although I do see that this is a less compelling argument for folks who only use a laptop---which seems to be more and more people nowadays.
Posted Sep 7, 2017 12:48 UTC (Thu)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Posted Sep 6, 2017 12:37 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
The dynamic approach maps to the way I've always worked -- one desktop per active project. I'm immeasurably more productive with it as it maps to my mental model better than static workspaces. This isn't just my wearing rose-colored glasses either; I'm forced to use a G2-based system at $dayjob, and it's like night and day vs my G3-based personal laptop.
So while I'm not going to claim that the G3 approach is necessarily better for everyone -- yet, for many folks, the G3 approach is vastly superior. (And for those who don't like it, it can be disabled in favor of a static set)
Posted Sep 6, 2017 13:33 UTC (Wed)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (5 responses)
On the contrary, that's one of the best features . I put a browser on the secondary (fixed) display and use the primary display workspaces for different types of work. These days you _always_ need a browser available and it's an incredible productivity-killer to have to jump back and forth between workspaces to use it. I can't work well without it anymore.
And of course, if you really don't want it you can disable it as has been pointed out: same with dynamic workspaces (I personally DO disable that and set a static number of workspaces).
Posted Sep 6, 2017 15:46 UTC (Wed)
by ken (subscriber, #625)
[Link] (4 responses)
no its not. its simply wrong. the correct way would be to have all display be part of the workspace and if you wanted to lock some application to be always visible on one display you would simply have an option in the window menu to set it to always display.
then you can have your way of working and everyone else has a sane default and most importantly no need to go in and change some global state for anybody.
Posted Sep 6, 2017 20:48 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Posted Sep 6, 2017 21:07 UTC (Wed)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Posted Sep 8, 2017 2:36 UTC (Fri)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (1 responses)
No. That's clearly the wrong way to do it. The way GNOME 3 does it is definitely superior.
One of the reasons people don't use multiple workspaces is that it's annoying to have to switch around between workspaces to find things, for cut and paste etc. Having a screen locked means that if you want things to stay always visible you just move things to that screen. This is trivially easy to use and easy to understand for even the least experienced desktop user. You don't even need documentation: it's obvious how it works immediately.
GNOME _does_ have an option in the window menu to set the window to always display, but asking people to figure out how to do it then making them do it every time they open the window is too complicated and annoying. If you learn enough to figure out how to pin a window to the screen, then you're certainly capable of figuring out how to disable the locked screen feature if you don't want it.
Posted Sep 15, 2017 5:24 UTC (Fri)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Posted Sep 6, 2017 17:34 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
> That, by definition, is "scaling" compared to the overwhelming majority of desktops out there. (Note tha Linux is only a tiny fraction of those)
Every, literally, every other desktop has some kind of tray/menubar indicators: Mac OS X, Android, Windows, iOS (though it's restricted there). Yet GNOME in its great wisdom decided that users don't need them. Facepalm.
Posted Sep 6, 2017 19:36 UTC (Wed)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link]
Posted Sep 7, 2017 16:40 UTC (Thu)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 20:55 UTC (Sat)
by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2017 22:12 UTC (Fri)
by adam820 (subscriber, #101353)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 0:09 UTC (Sat)
by hp (guest, #5220)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 8:24 UTC (Sat)
by Sylos (guest, #109852)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 16:00 UTC (Sat)
by adam820 (subscriber, #101353)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 22:00 UTC (Sat)
by luto (guest, #39314)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2017 22:20 UTC (Fri)
by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Sep 1, 2017 22:23 UTC (Fri)
by adam820 (subscriber, #101353)
[Link] (9 responses)
Maybe also drop them (G3 devs) a line and point them at this application as one that needs better system integration.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 9:36 UTC (Sat)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (4 responses)
gnome-shell[9055]: JS ERROR: TypeError: notificationDaemon._trayManager is undefined moveToTop@/home/jak/.local/share/gnomeshell/extensions/topIcons@adel.gadllah@gmail.com/extension.js:121:5
Neither does TopIcons Plus.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 20:47 UTC (Sat)
by jbicha (subscriber, #75043)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 21:00 UTC (Sat)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 21:14 UTC (Sat)
by jbicha (subscriber, #75043)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 22:30 UTC (Sat)
by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 21:29 UTC (Sat)
by ken (subscriber, #625)
[Link] (2 responses)
not sure what to do now.
At least after a restart of the computer the workspace grid now started to actually work. Well sort of work It still only managed one of the displays the other one is static.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 22:32 UTC (Sat)
by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 22:43 UTC (Sat)
by ken (subscriber, #625)
[Link]
Posted Sep 4, 2017 7:51 UTC (Mon)
by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
[Link]
I sent a comment on the Allan Day blogpost to alert about the Cryptkeeper applet.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 20:15 UTC (Sat)
by ocrete (subscriber, #107180)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 6:08 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (3 responses)
As a 10+ hours per day user of Gnome, I sure won't miss it.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 7:01 UTC (Sat)
by xtifr (guest, #143)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 8:21 UTC (Sat)
by Sylos (guest, #109852)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 6, 2017 19:43 UTC (Wed)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 8:26 UTC (Sat)
by callegar (guest, #16148)
[Link] (9 responses)
This also means that the developers of these things will need to implement a new Gnome way of doing things either dismissing the old one (i.e., forcing the change onto the users of other desktops too) or supporting both. As if the linux desktop was not fragmented enough.
Seen some of this when KDE dropped the xembed protocol for the system tray and then went back to provide the xembedsniproxy.
Hope that Ubuntu with its new gnome interface is going to stick with the indicators.
Also wonder why there is this common conception that once the weather indicator works, nothing else matters.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 17:53 UTC (Sat)
by patrakov (subscriber, #97174)
[Link] (1 responses)
Where Allan's theory of "we can talk to upstream" breaks is not open-source Linux apps, but Windows apps that the user attempts to run via Wine. Their authors just don't care.
Posted Sep 2, 2017 22:34 UTC (Sat)
by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 20:19 UTC (Sat)
by ocrete (subscriber, #107180)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 4, 2017 11:11 UTC (Mon)
by callegar (guest, #16148)
[Link]
I tend to disagree here. The status icon is generally not for checking whether the application is running or not (even if this too can be handy), but for: (i) recalling if you have configured yourself as contactable or non-contactable in the application; and (ii) initiating calls. Keeping the whole main window open for the latter task messes the desktop for no reason.
Posted Sep 6, 2017 18:00 UTC (Wed)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (1 responses)
I think its more user-friendly if there is some obvious user-visible place that shows these background processes. Take a look at the new design standards for Android 8 Oreo and how they require a user-visible notification line if you are going to run in the background, so the user can make informed decisions and is aware of the state of their system.
Posted Dec 18, 2017 22:43 UTC (Mon)
by immibis (guest, #105511)
[Link]
Posted Sep 3, 2017 19:51 UTC (Sun)
by CycoJ (guest, #70454)
[Link] (2 responses)
I never understood why things like dropbox, nextcloud ... need a freaking systray item, what information does it actually convey?! I've "mounted" (instead of properly mounting it), the drive? Similar to all the messaging apps, why do I need to see the status of each of these apps (instead of just going to the virtual desktop where it's open). Two of my favourites atm are davmail and keepass2, the only info that the davmail icon gives me is, that yes when I switch off networking I can't connect to the server anymore ...duh! Keepass2 is similar, the only thing it tells me is that keepass is running and if it's locked. I always notice if I try to get a password and the db is locked, so what is the information that is being conveyed here?
Posted Sep 3, 2017 23:29 UTC (Sun)
by mcortese (guest, #52099)
[Link] (1 responses)
Sure, some apps' status icons are pretty useless. But some do convey information, and when they do, they express a status, something that is not captured by the notification system which is for events. For instance, I agree that keepass2's status icon is stupid and serves no other purpose than taking up space. On the other hand, I find it a good idea for IM programs to show an icon with busy/away/dnd/... and to allow me to change it on the fly.
Getting rid of the whole concept (or hiding it behind an opt-in extension) just because some apps use it badly is like throwing away the proverbial baby.
A better option would be to let me choose which icons I want and which I don't. The ones I want shall go to the top-right corner, because that's where my eyes are trained to go to when I think about status (and no, I don't buy this thing about not mixing system and non-system icons, lest poor users get confused; if you really need to stress such distinction, a spacer or a vertical bar is enough).
Posted Sep 5, 2017 12:50 UTC (Tue)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2017 16:25 UTC (Sat)
by drreagan (guest, #118360)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2017 17:26 UTC (Sat)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (5 responses)
You have been told many times to stop these pathetic personal attacks. Red baiting a free-software development project? Really? You do this again, I will delete it.
Posted Sep 3, 2017 0:37 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
Jon - if you want to censor, go ahead. It's your website, we trust you, and it'll improve the place :-)
Cheers,
Posted Sep 3, 2017 2:59 UTC (Sun)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 3, 2017 9:15 UTC (Sun)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link]
Posted Sep 4, 2017 11:36 UTC (Mon)
by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 4, 2017 23:14 UTC (Mon)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Posted Sep 5, 2017 9:16 UTC (Tue)
by aigarius (subscriber, #7329)
[Link] (5 responses)
Applications need to be sandboxed, so shell would force them to close when application window is closed by the user. If you want to do something that has no window, maybe you should write it as a Gnome Shell extension instead.
Posted Sep 5, 2017 9:33 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (4 responses)
I have a couple of IM apps running and I want to be able to tell if they have any pending notifications. I also want to be able to see at a glance if my status is set correctly (away, invisible or active).
Then I have a VPN app and I want to be able to see if it's connected. I also have a Kerberos authenticator application that refreshes my tokens and allows me to switch profiles by clicking its icon and selecting the one I need.
And there are several more apps that I'm using more occasionally.
> If you want to do something that has no window, maybe you should write it as a Gnome Shell extension instead.
Yeah! Way to win users and developers.
Posted Sep 7, 2017 4:11 UTC (Thu)
by TRS-80 (guest, #1804)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 7, 2017 4:24 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
Before that I was using official http://web.mit.edu/macdev/KfM/KerberosClients/KerberosApp...
Posted Sep 7, 2017 6:30 UTC (Thu)
by TRS-80 (guest, #1804)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 7, 2017 7:11 UTC (Thu)
by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)
[Link]
Posted Sep 5, 2017 17:39 UTC (Tue)
by bandrami (guest, #94229)
[Link] (8 responses)
Similarly, I get that the Gnome team feels like devs and users have fundamentally misunderstood the notification system for the better part of two decades. The Gnome team wants to provide a way to display transient, time-critical information like "you just lost network connectivity" or "your battery is about to run out" or "you just received a chat message". The problem is, what 3rd party developers and users are much more interested in a way to display permanent heads-up information like "your wireless is still connected" or "your battery is charging" or "while you were out of the room you received at least one chat message". It's not uncommon to have impedance mismatch like that, but what does really seem limited to Gnome is that the team has now spent *years* banging their heads against this particularly wall hoping that eventually we users will see the light like they do. It's all the more puzzling because I can't for the life of me figure out what design principle made them decide this is the hill to die on, over and over and over again.
Posted Sep 5, 2017 21:01 UTC (Tue)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link]
Posted Sep 5, 2017 22:32 UTC (Tue)
by ms-tg (subscriber, #89231)
[Link] (6 responses)
1. What is the Gnome team's theory for how to serve the need for "current status" display and interactions:
2. How is this "current status" theory intended to interact with features such as notifications?
Such a clarification here would be helpful for me to understand, so thanks a lot if you are in a position to answer!
Posted Sep 6, 2017 9:57 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (5 responses)
The first two are easy easy -- wireless connected, battery charging, etc have permanent icons in the upper right corner. They've been there (in one form or another) since the beginning of G3.
I can't comment on the third, though the TFA did mention the recommended mechanism for IM-type notifications.
Posted Sep 6, 2017 12:58 UTC (Wed)
by bandrami (guest, #94229)
[Link] (4 responses)
Does Gnome want to provide a way for application A to convey information that I can glance at at any time without leaving the context of application B, or am I right that Gnome is opposed to that on design principles?
Posted Sep 7, 2017 2:08 UTC (Thu)
by ocrete (subscriber, #107180)
[Link] (3 responses)
One of the goals of the GNOME 3 design is to allow for distraction free work, and to force all notifications through the notification panel (and the notification API), so they can be controlled by the user (who can for example decide to ignore them all. So a status panel is just a bad idea.
The idea is basically to do the same thing that iOS/Android do. They don't have icons for all apps tha can work in the background, you only get a notification if something worthy happens.
Posted Sep 7, 2017 3:09 UTC (Thu)
by bandrami (guest, #94229)
[Link]
Posted Sep 7, 2017 3:11 UTC (Thu)
by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)
[Link]
Posted Sep 7, 2017 4:19 UTC (Thu)
by TRS-80 (guest, #1804)
[Link]
This is more about power saving though, so the user knows what is running and can stop it to save power. The section on notifications is also worth reading https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/android-8-0-oreo-...
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
In other words, they have no interest in including TopIcons. They're knowingly breaking an age-old paradigm without replacement. Some software you'll just not anymore be able to use on GNOME unless you have TopIcons installed.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Thanks for the extra work, we were just piking navel lint here anyway.
-------
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Wol
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
1) At least some core GNOME members see GNOME as a place for experimental design. At least some core GNOME members see GNOME as culturally disruptive. This seems pretty well documented, although perhaps not the view of all core GNOME members.
2) At least some core GNOME members desire to see GNOME as a default or the default Desktop Environment. This also seems well documented.
3) My personal opinion (which might be a small minority opinion for all I know) is that trying for both an experimental desktop and being _the_ mainstream desktop is at best inconsiderate to users.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
You do realise that Ubuntu just dropped Unity, do you?
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Surely. We will all switch to the Unity 8, no?
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
*icon image rarely follows or *icon images rarely follow; grr.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
> Gnome3 actually improves this paradigm with a dynamic stack-based approach.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Why choose one or another when you can have both in gnome-shell? :-)
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
The nice thing is that, if you want that behavior in GNOME, it's a simple configuration tweak away. I agree that having only one display participate in workspaces is weird, but I am happy to flip a switch and get something more usable for me. Everybody should of course set their defaults in a way that pleases me, but I've long since given up on convincing the world of that.
Workspaces
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
E17 got this (and so many other things) right, the right way: each screen has independent workspace layouts and switching.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
And that's why Windows added ability to hide tray icons. Duh.
Windows supports tray management SINCE FREAKING WINDOWS 2000!!
Did I already mention the Bartender app? I think I did. That's how you solve the status icon problem on Mac.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Millions of people chose GNOME 3 because a standard feature of other platforms, that many apps expect to be there, is badly implemented and now due to be removed entirely? Somehow I doubt that.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
now I can not get it back at all and I really used the dropbox icon :(
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
3 days after, this comment is still not published.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Not really. If you need this feature, there's a documented way to have it. If you don't, then you don't.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
The entire Gnome 3 project gets in the way and generally feels quite awkward. As a Computer Scientist, I know Gnome is total garbage. It was taken over by Clueless Idiots and Chinese Communists about ten years ago. All they do is remove features and move buttons around. Allan Day shouldn't just remove the status icon tray, he should delete the entire Gnome 3 project!
The first amendment does not apply to private web sites.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Wol
There is almost nothing we want to do less than policing the comment stream; that's part of why deletion of comments tends to happen at a rate of less than once a year. I would really hope that LWN readers wouldn't need that — and most of the time they don't. Please, everybody, let's try to keep it that way, OK?
Deleting comments
Deleting comments
Deleting comments
Usually I'd put up with the minor detour (this situation is thankfully rare on this site), but seeing this thread prompted me to do something. So, here's a usercss to keep the menu in view if anyone else wants it:
Deleting comments
.topnav-container { position: sticky; top: -.3em }
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Yep. And of course, GNOME doesn't have a stable ABI for extensions. Oh, and it'll require you to add dependency on GNOME, no QT for you. Of course, KDE or other desktop environments are not supported.
Ooh, what kerberos authenticator app is that?
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Ah, I missed that you were the person who switched to a Mac laptop. I did find krb5-auth-dialog although it's a bit underdocumented. On the Mac side, we deployed KerbMinder but that's no longer developed, NoMAD is what's recommended now.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
> a way to display permanent heads-up information like "your wireless is still connected" or "your battery is charging" or "while you were out of the room you received at least one chat message"
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
> a way to display permanent heads-up information like "your wireless is still connected" or "your battery is charging" or "while you were out of the room you received at least one chat message"
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Opinions clearly differ on this point. Strongly. My vote obviously counts for nothing, but I prefer a status panel to notifications. I generally turn off all desktop notifications because they are more annoying than useful.
Day: Status Icons and GNOME
Day: Status Icons and GNOME