I don't want options to micromanage every effect. If the effect is bad, then
we'll take patches to improve the effect.

And there's already another bug about improving the minimization animation, so
I'll close this one.

I am impressed. I actually didn't expect I would convince Havoc to add that
option, but I also didn't expect the bug to be closed within an 1.5 hour after
reporting with the resolution that if we don't want the effect, it will be
improved. I was looking for some discussion, but found no willingness to discuss.

I would recommend to your attention this thread:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/2005-February/msg00000.html

I will try not to deduce from this that GNOME developers dont't listen to their
users wishes.

BTW regarding the thread I mentioned above: I got positive replies from a few
more users to my address only (they didn't go to the list).

(bug 102175 is the other bug about improving the minimization animation.  Soeren
is working on composite stuff, and I'll eventually find some free time for that
too...)

You can feel free to discuss, but we don't need a new bug open in order to do so.

But if you discuss, please present new information. There's no new data here
that would lead to rethinking the existing decision. I don't think it's feasible
to revisit every decision every couple of days. If there's some new line of
thinking, then OK, we can revisit. If it's just people repeating themselves, at
some point the case is closed.

Hi all... I also would like this option available as a gconf preference.

I agree that flooding the user with preferences is a bad thing but if the
preference was a gconf only one I am sure not many people will get confused :)

I personally see this as a bug. I find the minimize effect distracting, but am
unable to turn it off. Please reconsider adding this option.

Daniel: Please read what Havoc wrote in comment 6.

The new data here (actually maybe not new, but which you seem to be ignoring) is
that there is a lot of users wanting a feature. If user wishes are not a reason
to rethink a decision, I don't know what is. Actually, the message you (together
with Elijah) are giving is "this is a fixed decision and we're not going to do
anything about it, no matter how many users call for it". It can be nicely seen
in comment 8.

This isn't going anywhere, so let's drop it. Just for the next time, what is the
proper place for discussions over GNOME features?

Andrei: That's not new.  ;-)  I personally frequently see people requesting
options when they dislike existing behavior.  The vast majority of the time,
they assume that because the behavior exists it is intentional and thus want a
way to turn it off.  Adding such preferences increases code-complexity (N prefs
means 2^N combinations of switches and therefore 2^N things that have to be
tested), and reduces the chance that the real bug will get fixed.  (Had Havoc
accepted ill-advised prefs for things like strict-pointer-focus, raise-on-click,
etc. that merely papered over the problem, he may never have gotten me to work
on Metacity because the half-baked solution would have been 'good enough to live
with')  A better solution is to determine whether there's really a bug, and to
fix it.  Only add preferences when it's necessary.  In this case, there's an
obvious bug--the minimization animation royally sucks.  So let's fix it--then,
if there's still a problem, we can look closer at the prefs issue.

Something new would be like: "When I run GUI programs remotely (i.e. over the
internet), trying to minimize a window on top of such a program results in many
black lines being drawn on the remote app that remain there for several seconds
(due to the high latency of the X connection).  This is something that may not
be really fixed by an improved minimization animation as it will not solve the
high latency issue".  That's a real problem that I don't believe has been
discussed before (though I don't want to re-read bug 87793, bug 95777, bug
97094, bug 80509, bug 118814, and bug 92867), but I never added it to previous
bugs because I lowered my dependency on proprietary apps that were only on my
school computers that I wanted to work on at home.  Besides, in that case, I
don't see why one wouldn't want all of the reduced_resources stuff to be used.

(Oh, for reference, the bug on improving the animation is bug 102175)

The final fix will be the compositing manager, which will end once and for all
the artifacts and tearing from resizing/moving and effects, because we'll be
able to have a full-featured accelerated double-buffered desktop.

And it'll do your laundry and walk your dog.

> And it'll do your laundry and walk your dog.

Will you add a gconf preference to disable this feature? I personally like to
walk my dog....

Daniel: no, they won't. See the list of bugs that Elijah sent, quite sad reading.

Elijah: thanks for explaining the reduced_resources option. I agree it makes
sense, but I maintain my point about the rest.

Daniel: Dude, you need to upgrade your dog to a newer model that has enough
energy to be walked more than once.  ;-)

http://ometer.com/features.html

Hello,

this is not about adding new features but about splitting an existing feature(s)
witch is imo a good thing seen the way these are combined.
I understand reducing recources for those who do remote X, but there are many
users that don't want animations at all. (I see the framed window when moved
as an animation too). So why improve an animation that is not wanted in the
first place, just because it's not wanted?

I've tested the minimize animation with composite and this removes the
uglyness. But I am still forced to use [composite and] the minimize effect.
It affects gnome's cleaness imho, thats why I want to get rid of it.
Really, I've never understood why this minimize effect is there. Read somthing
about to show the user whats going on, however, when I click on the minimize
I already know what happened and is going on to the window. Without the effect
gnome is cleaner and metacity is also much more lean and clean.

To be fair: 
I understand the existance of the effect, it's just a little to (maybe
because of it not being smooth enough) annoying for users that wants "clean".

anyhow, thanks for the free software :)

(please don't mind my dutch),

rel