cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/57302675

an article explaining why GNOME should support SSD, but also arguing against the reasons often given for why they shouldn’t

If someone could repost this to r/GNOME I would appreciate it, since I don’t have a reddit account.

  • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Because they’re objectively better on a desktop.

    Your compositor should control the window - if the poorly implemented client hangs, you can just click the server-side close button a couple times and get the “shall I force close this?” popup

    The only reason for CSD is touch interfaces on small screens. In that case, you still need some other interface to handle misbehaving applications, but they tend to be harder to use, e.g. the removal of home/back buttons on Android

    Edit: If you’re trying to improve on SSD, you could consider some model where the client can register some actions it would like to have displayed to the compositor, and the compositor can relay clicks back to the client. In this scheme, the compositor still owns the title bar, but the client can request special decorations

    • Ferk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      The only reason for CSD is touch interfaces on small screens.

      Even in this case I’d argue that on small screens most apps simply have no real decorations (not even client-side)… there’s typically not even a close button. Hamburger buttons are menus, which isn’t what’s typically considered “decoration”. One could argue that the bar at the bottom in Android with home/back/etc controls is effectively a form of SSD. Android offers system UI or gestures to send the app to the background (ie. minimize) or closing it, it does not require Apps to render their own, which is effectively what Gnome is asking with CSD.