Marc Haber <mh+
usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 15:34:29 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>
MDI is one of several solutions to an inherently clunky and
complicated UX problem: how do you manage a single application with
arbitrarily many documents, in a desktop environment with a bunch
of other stuff open as well?
>
We already have plenty of solutions to that. Look at the dual
concepts of “virtual desktops” and “activities” in KDE Plasma 6.x,
for example. That allows you to switch between entire suites of
document/application windows in a single operation.
A feature (virtual desktops) which MS failed to provide natively until
W10's release in July 2015 (easily about 20+ years after multiple X
window managers provided the feature), and even then, in typical
Microsoft fashion, they completely failed to understand the usefulness
and built a half-assed amateur implementation.
That is something I have never understood, and have failed to find
example use cases: All documentation I found handles this feature in
half a paragraph, leaving it to the user to grasp the possible power
of the two-dimensional concept.
Unfortunately, yes, the docs. are not so great regarding usecases.
From the fvwm2 man page it is described as:
Fvwm provides both a large virtual desktop and multiple disjoint
desktops which can be used separately or together. The virtual
desktop allows you to pretend that your video screen is really quite
large, and you can scroll around within the desktop. The multiple
disjoint desktops allow you to pretend that you really have several
screens to work at, but each screen is completely unrelated to the
others.
And a bit further on:
THE VIRTUAL DESKTOP
Fvwm provides multiple virtual desktops for users who wish to use them.
The screen is a viewport onto a desktop which may be larger than the
screen. Several distinct desktops can be accessed (concept: one
desktop for each project, or one desktop for each application, when
view applications are distinct). Since each desktop can be larger than
the physical screen, divided into m by n pages which are each the size
of the physical screen, windows which are larger than the screen or
large groups of related windows can easily be viewed.
The (m by n) size (i.e. number of pages) of the virtual desktops can be
changed any time, by using the DesktopSize command. All virtual
desktops must be (are) the same size. The total number of distinct
desktops does not need to be specified, but is limited to approximately
4 billion total. All windows on a range of desktops can be viewed in
the FvwmPager, a miniature view of the desktops. The pager is an
accessory program, called a module, which is not essential for the
window manager to operate. Windows may also be listed using the
WindowList command or the FvwmIconMan module.
Fvwm keeps the windows on the desktop in a layered stacking order; a
window in a lower layer never obscures a window in a higher layer. The
layer of a window can be changed by using the Layer command. The
concept of layers is a generalization of the StaysOnTop flag of older
fvwm versions. The StaysOnTop and StaysPut Style options are now
implemented by putting the windows in suitable layers and the
previously missing StaysOnBottom Style option has been added.
Sticky windows are windows which transcend the virtual desktop by
"Sticking to the screen's glass". They always stay put on the screen.
This is convenient for things like clocks and xbiffs, so you only need
to run one such gadget and it always stays with you. Icons can also be
made to stick to the glass, if desired.
The 30 second elevator pitch is it provides some portion of the
advantage of multiple monitors, whether or not one has multiple
monitors connected.
In Fvwm2's version, it also adds the ability to pretend to have a much
larger monitor surface than one really has (was more useful back in the
day when photo viewers did not include "resize to screen" as an
automatic default).
The use I put them to (I have my Fvwm2 config providing six copies of
my two monitors, arranged in the pager as a 2 wide by three tall
rectange. And the individual copies of the pair of monitors loosely
have different "work" occurring in each. I do a fair amount of video
editing, so one virtual desktop has all the windows/apps used for that task on
it. A second contains most of my Firefox windows (although Firefox
windows get opened in other desktops as needed). A third desktop has
my Firefox windows and other terminals/apps for eBay and Craigslist
sales.
So if I'm just 'web browsing' I'm usually on the virtual desk with most
of the Firefox windows (with none of the video editing or
eBay/Craigslist windows in the way). But if I'm video editing, I
switch to the video editing desktop, and all the 'general web browsing'
windows disappear and all the video editing tools windows appear (each
left where I placed it).
I.e., it reduces the total "clutter" by giving you seperate "monitor
copies" upon which to park groups of related windows for a given task,
and then quickly switch back and forth.
A virtual version of the hobbiest who does both woodworking and
electronics, and has one workbench setup only for woodworking, and a
second workbench setup only for electronics. Except in that world that
requires two physical workbenches and the space to set them up. The
equivalent in the virtual world would be like the hobbiest having a
pair of buttons on the front of a single workbench, push one button and
the workbench would transform into "wood working workbench" (somehow), push
the other button and the workbench would transform into "electronics
workbench". But none of the woodworking tools are in the way while
using the electronics bench, and none of the electronics tools are in
the way when using the woodworking workbench.
MDI is inherently clunky because Microsoft chose to impose the stupid UI
convention that there must be a top-level “application window” to contain
all the application-specific “document windows”. No other GUI is built
that way.
They did that 30 years ago and did pioneering work in this regard,
just to reduce the blame we put on them today.
I chalked it up to them being 30 years too late in finally copying yet
another good idea from Xwindows window managers into their crappy OS
product. Much of what is there since Win95 has been nothing more than
them ripping off ideas from Xwindows window managers, and then half
assing their version by failing to understand the full usefulness in
most instances.
Distros specifically designed for children
Re: Distros specifically designed for children