Docks are Old.

[Virtuality314]

Is anyone else starting to think that docks (Docky, AWN, Cairo-dock etc) are become...tiring? OS X has one, Windows (sort of) has one, Unity (technically) has one as does Gnome and Xfce (by default).

They look awesome and they are really useful...but I am getting tired of looking at the same sort of thing all the time. Does anyone else share this opinion?

[mamamia88]

You said it yourself that they look awesome and are useful. What else do you want? I personally don't use one i just keep my menus clean and use synapse for quick launching but, i do see them being useful

[Virtuality314]

My problem is that they're getting overused IMO and I was wondering if there is something which can look just as good and be just as useful. ( Obviously there is Synapse and GnomeDo ).

[buzzingrobot]

Icons are things we click on to launch applications. Sometimes they're in a thing we call a panel. Sometimes they're in a thing we call a dock. The differences are minimal.

Anything that might replace panels and docks would still be a gathering of icons on the desktop. Different name, same stuff.

[|{urse]

Sometimes old is better, sometimes it isn't, it's nice to have both options readily available just in case.

I prefer a fairly old dock-style launcher called wbar because it is fast and doesn't interfere with games.

[Frogs Hair]

I like having my most used applications available but not directly pasted to the desktop as links. Panels and docks can accomplish the same thing, but docks often include more features . The bottom line for me is there has to be a way to access applications and there is a lot of heated debate about how that should be done, but in the end its just a different type of menu.

[ikt]

The thing that bugged me most about gnome 2 was that the applications I used the most had icons the same size as applications I rarely use, and they were tiny.

[Umbra Diaboli]

Am I the only one who thinks they look awesome and thats it? They are very ineficient, I don't know why we are moving away from good old efficient stuff such as the Windows XP or Cinnamons taskbar. Actually I do know; for most users EyeCandy > Usefulness.

[stinkeye]

Am I the only one who thinks they look awesome and thats it? They are very ineficient, I don't know why we are moving away from good old efficient stuff such as the Windows XP or Cinnamons taskbar. Actually I do know; for most users EyeCandy > Usefulness.
No it's because the touch interfaces of phone and tablet is where they see the greatest opportunity
to break into now and in the future.
The desktop has become a secondary goal.

[lykwydchykyn]

Maybe you should install afterstep (http://www.afterstep.org). It has a "wharf (http://www.afterstep.org/visualdoc.php?show=wharf)".

[AndrewN42]

I actually find myself to be happy when using Docky in place of Unity's sidebar. I like to maximize my screenspace so I auto-hide docky as I do with Windows' task bar. I never liked how stock GNOME 2 had two task bars. Unity's lens is nice for me as I normally just hit Super and then type the name of the application I want to launch something anyway.

[montag dp]

Am I the only one who thinks they look awesome and thats it? They are very ineficient, I don't know why we are moving away from good old efficient stuff such as the Windows XP or Cinnamons taskbar. Actually I do know; for most users EyeCandy > Usefulness.I use Cairo dock and find it to be more useful than a regular task bar when there are a lot of windows open. It's quicker for me to find the window I want.

[3rdalbum]

Risc-OS had a dock years before the Mac OS.

I never liked docks, but I'm quite happy with the Unity launcher.

[monkeybrain2012]

Well any dock is better than having icons all over the desktop like in Windows XP.

[lykwydchykyn]

Is anyone else starting to think that docks (Docky, AWN, Cairo-dock etc) are become...tiring? OS X has one, Windows (sort of) has one, Unity (technically) has one as does Gnome and Xfce (by default).

They look awesome and they are really useful...but I am getting tired of looking at the same sort of thing all the time. Does anyone else share this opinion?

Eventually, many of us get to a point where we realize that having a desktop that looks cool or works great for the average user is not nearly as compelling as having a desktop that is optimally efficient for what we personally do with it. That's the point where you dump Unity, GNOME, KDE, etc and switch to something like openbox, awesome, or Xmonad and hack it into something that is completely frictionless to you but incomprehensible to anyone else.

[craig10x]

Well any dock is better than having icons all over the desktop like in Windows XP.

Couldn't agree more...It so much "neater" in the unity dock bar as compared to shortcuts all over the desktop on windows... :)

[Virtuality314]

Eventually, many of us get to a point where we realize that having a desktop that looks cool or works great for the average user is not nearly as compelling as having a desktop that is optimally efficient for what we personally do with it. That's the point where you dump Unity, GNOME, KDE, etc and switch to something like openbox, awesome, or Xmonad and hack it into something that is completely frictionless to you but incomprehensible to anyone else.

That's something that's happened to me very recently. I used to be a big fan of Gnome, and now I use Openbox, I find everything else difficult.

I've also found this (http://xdaks.deviantart.com/art/My-App-Launcher-308471767) which seems like a nice, minimalistic way to launch your apps.

[odiseo77]

I'm not a big fan of docks, but I understand they might be useful on desktops like Gnome3 and Unity. Anyway, as for me, I'm happy with KDE and its classical panel with a taskbar and launchers for applications.

[buzzingrobot]

Am I the only one who thinks they look awesome and thats it? They are very ineficient, I don't know why we are moving away from good old efficient stuff such as the Windows XP or Cinnamons taskbar. Actually I do know; for most users EyeCandy > Usefulness.

Exactly how are docks inefficient? Why is a stack of icons called a "dock" less efficient that a stack of icons called a "panel"?

For me, "eyecandy" is visual decoration that serves no other purpose. Panels and docks don't fall into the category. Wobbly windows, rotating cubes, etc., do.

As for efficiency, how do you determine what's efficient? I think it's a rather pointless attribute to measure for most users. The kind of thing that users who jail themselves inside tiled window managers running vim glory in. ;)

[lykwydchykyn]

As for efficiency, how do you determine what's efficient?

It's a fairly objective thing. If it takes less time and uses less computing resources, it's more efficient. Is there another definition out there we can be subjective about?

[Gster4]

Eventually, many of us get to a point where we realize that having a desktop that looks cool or works great for the average user is not nearly as compelling as having a desktop that is optimally efficient for what we personally do with it. That's the point where you dump Unity, GNOME, KDE, etc and switch to something like openbox, awesome, or Xmonad and hack it into something that is completely frictionless to you but incomprehensible to anyone else.

Good stuff. I switched from using cario-dock several months ago, and now I use fluxbox. I have a drop down terminal called Guake that I use for almost everything (except starting firefox) and added to my ~/.bash_aliases. "Eye Candy" uses up no cpu/ram now, I remember how to launch everything from the command line, and I haven't used a graphical file manager in weeks. Is it for everyone? No, I find it efficient, others find it inpenetrable; most people will still want a dock and assorted eye candy, I don't. But to each their own.

[buzzingrobot]

It's a fairly objective thing. If it takes less time and uses less computing resources, it's more efficient. Is there another definition out there we can be subjective about?

Except in marginal instances, "computing resources" are of little consequence. If resources are adequate for a task, that's all that counts. There is no reward for "saving" resources that would not otherwise be used.

Personally, I decide what I like to use on subjective grounds. I'm not about to use something I don't like only because it saves a few seconds each day. Or vice versa.

Again, though, a dock is a place to put icons. I still fail to see any real difference between a dock, a panel, a desktop, or any other place where we put icons, other than personal preference.

[mips]

I've found all docs to be very slow to load at startup, even minimal Plank.

[MadmanRB]

I find docks very practical compared to old style taskbars and load's of icons on the desktop.
While yes window switching in unity is a lot harder then it should be I still like having a clean desktop, same thing with KDE with the help of icon only taskmanager,

[lykwydchykyn]

Except in marginal instances, "computing resources" are of little consequence. If resources are adequate for a task, that's all that counts. There is no reward for "saving" resources that would not otherwise be used.


If that's what makes you happy, I really don't care. I'm not here to tell you what to put on your computer.

My setup saves me a lot of irritation and annoyance waiting on the computer to do incosequential things. I really like it because of that. That's the "reward".



Personally, I decide what I like to use on subjective grounds. I'm not about to use something I don't like only because it saves a few seconds each day. Or vice versa.


Where did I suggest that you shouldn't run what you want to run?

[Sam Mills]

They look awesome and they are really useful...but I am getting tired of looking at the same sort of thing all the time. Does anyone else share this opinion?
Not me. I spend all my time doing things on my computer, and it really doesn't matter to me how I open an app. I used to care about making my computer pretty and change things around, but I guess age has a way of making you not care any more. ;)

I just want my computer to work so I can get things done. DE's/bells and whistles don't matter to me.

[Sam Mills]

Eventually, many of us get to a point where we realize that having a desktop that looks cool or works great for the average user is not nearly as compelling as having a desktop that is optimally efficient for what we personally do with it. That's the point where you dump Unity, GNOME, KDE, etc and switch to something like openbox, awesome, or Xmonad and hack it into something that is completely frictionless to you but incomprehensible to anyone else.
Actually, a command line install with fluxbox or xfce can yield good results too. It will be lightning quick, but still have a somewhat traditional desktop.

[lykwydchykyn]

Actually, a command line install with fluxbox or xfce can yield good results too. It will be lightning quick, but still have a somewhat traditional desktop.

Yeah, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek when I said that; but I think it's interesting how many long-time Linux users seem to resonate with that statement.

I dropped KDE for awesome when I realized two things:

- that I had launchers for applications on my dock, panel, menu, and desktop. Yet 9 times out of 10 I launched programs by typing their names into krunner, because I'm a verbal thinker, and it was more trouble to remember which blob of pixels went with which program.
- that it took as much as four or five seconds to put a terminal window on the screen on my (at the time) modern and well-equipped machine, just because the windows were composited and the drawing was animated. Same hardware, without the eyecandy -- instant. I launch lots of terminals in my workflow.

It was hard to let go of the eyecandy, I'll admit it; but I love what I have now even more.

[black veils]

something that might help with the boredom, is to use xfce, configure 'panels' to be totally transparent so only icons show, make them different width and height, put at various edges of the screen, maybe even have them auto-hide.

[neu5eeCh]

Eventually, many of us get to a point where we realize that having a desktop that looks cool or works great for the average user is not nearly as compelling as having a desktop that is optimally efficient for what we personally do with it. That's the point where you dump Unity, GNOME, KDE, etc and switch to something like openbox, awesome, or Xmonad and hack it into something that is completely frictionless to you but incomprehensible to anyone else.

Yes. This. About a year ago (because I couldn't and still can't customize Unity) I moved to XFCE. My desktop is very simple with the panel vertically on the left side. This gives me the most efficient use of my screen. The panel has everything I need. A one-click launcher gives me access to all my most frequently used applications (a lovely little feature in XFCE that allows one to make ones own menu). For the rest, I use synapse. I rarely access the "main menu" and I've removed all the docks (AWN and CAIRO).

I used to be a big fan of docks, but now I find them gratuitous.

I may try openbox one of these days, but I like the little compositing touches of XFCE. What I find interesting about this conversation is the hint of a backlash against the increasingly stylized and mannered DEs of Windows, Gnome, KDE, and to a lesser extent Apple and Ubuntu. I'm wondering if we will begin to see a more general backlash with a return to a more flexible and simpler interface. I must admit, Unity isn't bad that way, but Unity does force a certain work flow on users -- whereas DEs like XFCE, openbox and fluxbox leave it to the user.

[Virtuality314]

Guys...don't turn this in to a war about the best type of interface, please. Everybody has their own way of doing things...OK?

[Umbra Diaboli]

Exactly how are docks inefficient? Why is a stack of icons called a "dock" less efficient that a stack of icons called a "panel"?

For me, "eyecandy" is visual decoration that serves no other purpose. Panels and docks don't fall into the category. Wobbly windows, rotating cubes, etc., do.

As for efficiency, how do you determine what's efficient? I think it's a rather pointless attribute to measure for most users. The kind of thing that users who jail themselves inside tiled window managers running vim glory in. ;)

Docks divide everything by apps. A bar such as Windows' or Cinnamon's divides by window (except for Windows 7, but you can still make it divide by window with 2 simple clicks in the taskbar settings) while at the same time displays the users apps for quicklaunch - This is far better.

[mips]

Exactly how are docks inefficient?

They chow a lot of memory and are slow to start up. Even minimalistic Plank is a biatch.

[Moose]

I used to use Cairo and eventually got sick of it. I ended up installing the Cinnamon DE and using the Start Menu type feature its panel has.

[zer010]

I've tried a couple docks and configurations to make some really eye-pleasing and clean desktops, but I dont really have the time to do all of that anymore so I just stick with the default LXDE setup... with a few changes. I find the old style XP "start" menu combined with the awesome categories that STILL eludes any Win OS, is quite efficient and easy to navigate. For my most used apps, I just put a launcher on the panel. Except on rare occasion, I keep my desktop free of icons.

[screaminj3sus]

Well any dock is better than having icons all over the desktop like in Windows XP.

I always used to use a dock with winxp :)
http://threatdown.deviantart.com/art/Desktop-2-12-07-48653883

[screaminj3sus]

They chow a lot of memory and are slow to start up. Even minimalistic Plank is a biatch.

plank starts up like instantly and uses hardly any memory, what on earth are you talking about?