Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th May 2007 18:54 UTC
Gnome In the GNOME bugzilla, there is an ongoing discussion about whether or not to include a patch into the default GNOME installation which would enable GNOME to (optionally) have a global application menubar, similar to that of the Mac OS and KDE (in the latter it is optional and off by default). Installation instructions and .deb packages, as well as a 60-page (and counting) discussion of the patch, are available on the UbuntuForums. Read on for a poll on this issue.
Thread beginning with comment 241243
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why?
by rayiner on Thu 17th May 2007 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
Member since:

It should be noted that in the Mac paradigm, windows belong to applications, which exist independently of windows. The menubar is the central representative of the application as a whole, so it makes sense to put application-global functionality in a place separate from any window. Most other UIs conflate applications and windows in a way that the Mac UI does not.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Why?
by Spellcheck on Thu 17th May 2007 20:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
Spellcheck Member since:

And that made beautiful sense when we had a single-tasking Finder. I liked it, anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Why?
by Luminair on Thu 17th May 2007 20:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
Luminair Member since:

That is true. If you had a system with a large number of multi-window applications, that system would do well with the Mac-style menu bar. Windows and Ubuntu are not such systems, however ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Why?
by hobgoblin on Thu 17th May 2007 23:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
hobgoblin Member since:

but then you dont have the funny experience of closing every window and still have programs running.

i would love to toss the whole idea of programs. rather make them into plugins or extensions tied to file types.

if i have a file type open, said plugin is loaded by the system. when no such file type is active in any window, toss said plugin away for now.

today one have to all to often link file types with programs to get anything done...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Why?
by alexandru_lz on Thu 17th May 2007 23:21 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
alexandru_lz Member since:

but then you dont have the funny experience of closing every window and still have programs running. but then you dont have the funny experience of closing every window and still have programs running.

Correct -- but, like I said, there are a lot of users to whom this experience doesn't sound "funny", but perfectly logical.

(More uninteresting historical rambling, skip if you're in a hurry or simply don't care about why today's interfaces are like they are:)

I read once (but I can't claim it's true) that this app-runs-but-no-window-open comes from the desktop analogy. The earliest more complex Mac programs took a rather lengthy time to load, and it was sometimes more convenient not to exit a program completely if you knew that, while you don't need your computer in the meantime, you will need that program later. By analogy, if you write notes in a notebook, and then you put it away for a short time, it's reasonable to expect that, while it's not in your attention (i.e. there is no "window" for it), you don't want to close it and put it in a cabinet -- but just open it later. Remember, cluttered taskbars can be even more painful than single-tasking systems (which was, indeed, the original reason behind this whole thing).

Reply Parent Score: 1