Linux

48363 readers

911 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Confirm or reject my suspicions about the massive default window sizes (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

My laptop has a display resolution of 1366x768. Every now and then, I'll encounter a window whose default height is over 768 and thus won't fit entirely within my screen. The GTK file picker comes to mind, though it is resizable without much fuss. But then there are those that cannot be resized and being unable to move the titlebar further up, I am forced to use Alt+F7 to see what's at the bottom.

I suspect that many programs today are designed to work comfortably on higher resolution displays, but not really tested on smaller ones. Understandably, developers only have so much time and 1366x768 is getting long in the tooth. Just wanted to put this out there since nobody seems to be talking about it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 34 points 3 days ago (2 children)

1366x768? Where are they supposed to fit all that whitespace at such a small resolution?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I don't understand the posh stylistic decisions around padding, rounded borders, etc. How do those things make the UI better exactly?

As someone who used low resolutions for most of my University years (I did my thesis in a tiny ultralaptop), I relied heavily on a custom gtk2 theme I had to write to remove most of that padding that made the UI feel so unnecessary and my screen so cramped.

Gnome now pushing for removing theming completely and relying on just color scheme customization feels totally backwards to me. I don't have an answer for OP sadly... other than just using terminal / tui apps more whenever possible.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I use Xfce with Bspwm as a window manager. A plugin writes the window title in the status bar. Window decoration is just a rectangular outline. Its hard to get a more space efficient gui.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I'm in the camp of liking the padding and rounding to the point of having themed a bunch of sites to look similar with user css

I am however usually on high res screens and am in the habit of removing everything unnecessary from the screen to make space with my theming

Also generally if I open graphical applications at all it's because I want it to look nice and clean, if I wanted pure space efficiency I'd just use the terminal for everything all the time

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When 720p display era they can do it. Why today they cann't?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I feel UI trends have gone in the direction of making things worse, not better.

I remember when it was pretty much unanimous that "mplayer" was beautiful in all its square corners glory, while "Windows Live Media Player" was seen as a horrible abomination.

Now it feels like everyone is on board with inefficient UI designs like the latter for some reason.