On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 13:34 +0200, Julien Olivier wrote: > >There are more reasons to want particular application to be > >running for some time without interfering with others, I gave > >just one. > > This could be a good time to tell us what those other reasons are. > this has been said several times already but I'll say it again: there > are applications that need to run constantly but with which the user > only needs to interact from time to time. This is the case mainly for > music players, email applications, instant messengers and download > managers / torrent clients. > Currently, applications in this category can (optionally or not) (ab)use > the notification area (banshee, rhythmbox, empathy, transmission), or > try to split their app into a daemon and a UI (empathy developers are > thinking about it). And some applications just don't bother find a > solution (evolution). > I don't see why, for such applications, having a way to minimize them > (hide the main window from the screen, the overlay and the ALT-TAB list, > but keep the application running in background) would hurt.
I wouldn't "hurt", but it isn't a solution. There is ongoing conversation about the right solution to this [as has been mentioned here several times]. Just bringing back "minimize" isn't a solution. And you can still just leave them in a workspace. I always have Evolution, Empathy, XIRC, and some other misc crap purring away in the first workspace. It isn't distracting to actual work/tasks in other workspaces and if I need to do e-mail etc... I just fly up to the top workspace. Works great; I really sincerely do *not* see a problem. > If the problem with it is that developers fear that users won't know > where there application window has gone when they minimize it, I think > it's nothing to be worried about as the window will still be accessible > by clicking on the application launcher. In the workspace expose minimized windows still appear. > If the problem is that developers don't want to have a "minimize" button > on the title bar (for any reason), a possible solution could be to have > a parameter in the desktop file specification to declare that the > application needs to run in the background. And if it is the case, the > "close" button will minimize the app instead of closing it. Applications would still need to cooperate with that setting to get sane / consistent behavior. So you are right back to the current situation. > We really need to find a generic solution to that problem, that will > work without having to wait for application designers to find the > solution by themselves, because they will never agree to do the same > thing, and this will lead to inconsistency and/or abuse of other > technologies. Some rag-tag apps won't cooperate with whatever is decided on, that is for sure. But Evolution, Empathy, Banshee, etc... all will; I have no doubt. _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
