[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kwin
Subject:    [Kwin] Re: kwin - Window placement
From:       Cristian Tibirna <tibirna () kde ! org>
Date:       2002-05-18 1:39:12
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday, 17 May 2002 13:48, Roland Seuhs wrote:
> The problems with all 3 currently available policies are discussed in the
> usability-thread; Summarized, the main problem I have is that all 3
> policies feel random, that means you never know where the next window will
> appear.

It is your personal feeling. You and Shane are the only two users that 
complained in 5 years of existance of the smart placement.

> I think that both "centered" and "top-left" would be nice additions as they
> are both predictable and useful.

I don't want to be rude, but any placement policy that stacks windows at the 
same position on the desktop is brain-dead and a big step backwards from 
cascade or smart placement.

Not even windows or dos or mac, that aren't traditionally (weren't for a long 
time in their history) multiprocessing (i.e., the OS was allowing only one 
application to be active at a time), didn't stack all windows in the same 
place.


> So I write you this mail so that you know he's not the only one unhappy
> about the currently available policies.
> Since added policies don't disturb or remove any other features, it should
> hurt nobody.
>
> Is applying the patch OK with you?

No, it is not OK with me.

As a maintainer of a free software project, I have a duty to the users and the 
fellow developers, especially when they submit patches, to pay attention to 
(and include) the features or functionalities they want.

As you very well observe, adding this (dis)functionality in kwin wouldn't 
probably hurt anybody too much. 

Problem is, again as a maintainer of free software project, I have another 
important duty: to make sure that the application doesn't become a collection 
of functionalities useful each only for a minimum number of users. We can't 
afford to bloat applications in order to introduce barely used features. We 
usually consider that at this point competition intervenes. I'm sure you 
could find a window manager (other than kwin) that offers the kind of window 
placement you require. If you don't then you might want to think there is a 
problem with your requirement.

And yes, adding many features rarely used _do_ hurt other users. In the 
specific case of window placement, adding the new policies to the combo-box 
would be required (in kcontrol) and this will add more to the already 
confusing over-configurability of KDE, a thing that is very often criticized.

Once again, I want you to understand me clear. I respect your wish for adding 
functionalities that will suit yourself (that's one of the principles of free 
software: "scratch your itches") but we must take care of all the other users 
too.

I, nevertheless, am open for discussion. If other arguments, by other people, 
or by you, will be brought in favor of adding these functionalities, I will 
reconsider.

Two notes:
1) random placement is there by tradition. the father of all window managers 
(twm) offered it, I think. I would really be very surprised to find out there 
is even 1% of kwin users that choose this policy.
2) smart placement is _very_ far from being random. I can predict with a 
probability of 99% where the next window will end up. That is, there where 
this new window will obscure the least of the other windows already existing 
on the desktop, or, if enough free space is available, in the left-uppermost 
free location that can accomodate that window. And, btw, why is it needed for 
the users to predict where a window will end up?

-- 
Cristian Tibirna .. tibirna@sympatico.ca
PhD student .. ctibirna@giref.ulaval.ca .. www.giref.ulaval.ca/~ctibirna
KDE developer .. tibirna@kde.org .. www.kde.org

_______________________________________________
Kwin mailing list
Kwin@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwin
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]