Applications menu for GNOME

Mon Mar 9 12:03:44 UTC 2020

On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 11:39, Tom H <tomh0665 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Current attempt involves Dash-to-Panel, Arc Menu, Topicons Plus,
> > Panel Icons, Pixel Saver and some other things.
>
> What's missing once you install the extensions above?

It is not (only) a case of missing functionality, it is a case of
badly-implemented or non-working functionality.

I can go into a lot of depth on this, if you like, but it is not very
relevant to this list and it is probably not a good place.

A better place, if you have an OpenID of some form, might be over on my blog.

This post lays out some of my objections:

"Why I don't use GNOME Shell"
https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/52807.html

& is followed up here:

"On GNOME 3 and design simplicity"
https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/58328.html

Here's what I found using the extensions was like:

A quick re-assessment of Ubuntu GNOME now it's got its 2nd release
https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/57630.html

For me, Ubuntu Unity worked very well as a Mac OS X-like desktop, with
actual improvements over Mac OS X (which I use daily.) I used it from
the version when it was first released -- 11.04 I think? -- and still
do. In fact I just installed it on 19.04 this weekend after my latest
efforts to tame GNOME 3 failed.

I don't particularly like Win95-style desktops -- I'm old, I predate
them -- but I'm perfectly comfortable using them. I have some tests I
apply to see if they are good enough imitations of the real thing to
satisfy me. Notable elements of these tests: does it handle a vertical
taskbar? Is it broadly keystroke-compatible with Win9x?

Windows-like desktops which pass to some degree, in order of success:
Xfce; LXDE; LXQt
Windows-like desktops which fail: MATE; Cinnamon; KDE 5

If I was pressed to summarise, I guess I'd say that some key factors are:
• Do the elements integrate together?
• Does it make efficient use of screen space, or does it gratuitously waste it?
(Failed badly by GNOME Shell and Elementary)
• Does it offer anything unique or is it something readily achieved by
reconfiguring an existing desktop?
(Failed badly by Budgie & arguably Elementary)
• Do standard keystrokes work by default?
(Failed badly by KDE)
• Can it be customised in fairly standard, discoverable ways?
• Is the result robust?
E.g. will it survive an OS upgrade (e.g. Unity), or degrade gracefully
so you can fix it (Unity with Nemo desktop/file manager), or will it
break badly enough to prevent login (GNOME 3 + multiple extensions)?

> Arc seems to give the menu that defines Gnome 2, Xfce, Mate, Cinnamon, ...

Only on a very trivial cosmetic basis.

> I use FLuxbox day-to-day, but I have Gnome installed and log in to it
> more or less once a month. I've never liked the Win-like menu; Gnome's
> usable for me with the move_clock and hidetopbar extensions installed
> and with Plank as an app-launcher.

If you are happy with something as minimal as Fluxbox, then my
objections to many existing desktops are probably things that have
never even occurred to you and will probably seem trivial, frivolous,
and totally unimportant. It may be very hard to discuss them, unless
you're willing to accept that, as an opening position, stuff that you
don't even notice is critically, crucially important to other people.

> > I tried Elementary but my conclusion is that the team trying to copy
> > the look and feel of Mac OS X do not actually understand how Mac OS X
> > works.
>
> What does this mean?

Elementary presents a _cosmetic_ imitation of Mac OS X, but it is
skin-deep. Its developers seem not to understand how Mac OS X _works_
and how the elements of the desktop function. So, they have
implemented things that _look_ quite Mac-like, but don't work. Not
"don't work in a Mac-like way". I mean, don't work _at all_.

It is what I call "cargo cult" software: when you see something, think
it looks good, so you make something that looks like it and then you
take it very seriously and go through the motions of using it and say
it's great.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1511096774517.png

Actually, your aeroplane is made of grass and rope. It doesn't roll
let alone fly. Your radio is a wooden fruit box. Your headphones are
woven from reeds. They don't do anything. They're a hat.

You're wearing a hat but you think you're a radio operator.

https://igeek.com/w/Cargo_Cult

As an example: Mac OS X is based on a design that predates Windows 3.
Programs do not have a menu bar in their windows. Menus are elsewhere
on the screen. On the Mac, they're always in a bar at the top. On
NeXTstep, which is what Mac OS X is based on, they're vertically
stacked at the top left of the screen.

If you don't know that, and you hear that these OSes were very simple
to use, and you look at screenshots, then you might think "look at
those apps! They have no menu bars! No menus at all! Wow, what a
simple, clean  design! Right, *I* will write apps with no menus!"

That is a laudable goal in its way -- but it can mean that the result
is a rather broken, braindead app, with no advanced options, no
customisation, no real power,

What's worse is that you didn't realise that that's the purpose of
that panel across the top of the desktop in all the screenshots. You
don't know that that's where the menus go. All you see is that it has
a clock in it.

You don't know your history, so you think that it's there for the
clock.  You don't know that 5 or 6 years after the OS was launched
with that bar for the menus, someone wrote an add-on that put a clock
on the end, and the vendor went "that's a good idea" and built it in.

But you don't care about history, you never knew and you don't want
to... So you put in a big panel that doesn't do anything, with a clock
in it, and waste a ton of valuable space...

Cargo cult desktops.

Big dock thing because the Mac has a dock but they don't know that the
Dock has about 4 different roles (app launched *and* app switcher
*and* holds minimised windows *and* is a shortcut for useful folders
*and* is a place for status monitors. But they didn't know that so
their docks can't do all this.

Menu bar with no menus because the Mac has a menu bar and it looks
nice and people like Macs so we'll copy it but we didn't know about
the menus, but we listened to Windows users who tried Macs and didn't
like the menu bar.

Copying without understanding is a waste. A waste of programmer time
and effort, a waste of user time and effort, a waste of screen space,
and a waste of code.

You must understand *first* and only *then* copy.

If you do not have time or desire to understand, then do not try to
copy. Do something else while you learn.

> > I tried Budgie but my conclusion is that the team did not adequately
> > explore whether existing desktops could adequately do what they
> > wanted.
>
> I'm going to try it.

:Shrug:

Enjoy yourself. That's what it's all about.

-- 
Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Flickr: lproven – Skype: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 – ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053