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 241339
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why?
by hobgoblin on Thu 17th May 2007 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

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:
2007-02-11

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

RE[6]: Why?
by hobgoblin on Fri 18th May 2007 07:25 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

sounds a bit like the experience i have read about with symbian. there programs dont close when closed, but stay in memory until something else comes around that needs the memory...

some people love it, some people hate it, and there are special programs created to enable the user to take better control of it all.

Reply Parent Score: 2