The unparalleled GNU/Linux software which I utilize, including
global industrial standards like Matlab and Mathematica, all have
a SDI interface with completely independent windows.
If you don't know what MDI/SDI is just read about it here, dumbfuck:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-document_interface>
Most Micro$lop Winblows junk does use the MDI and a lot of the
junk GNU/Linux DEs like GNOME and KDE have software based on
MDI.
Which do you prefer? MDI or SDI?
It's not that that I give a flying fuck because I already know
that you are beaten distro lackey that could not exercise choice
if your life depended upon it, but I just want to get some idea
as to how how far the mainstream distro infection has penetrated.
I thank you in advance (for nothing).
I don't have a preference, only that I think SDI works most of the time,
and MDI is better in some situations where the documents are tightly
coupled.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 11:38:30 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I don't have a preference, only that I think SDI works most of the time,
and MDI is better in some situations where the documents are tightly
coupled.
I suppose that MDI is the standard on Micro$lop because it never had
(until very recently) virtual desktops.
But let's compare PhotoShop and GIMP.
Photoshop is MDI and the image being edited is necessarily shrunk to
allow for the surrounding toolbars and menus. Needless to say, editing
an image requires maximum resolution to be able to easily discern the
details but PhotoShop does not allow this. Junk!
The GIMP, however, is SDI and I can expand the image to be as large
as I desire because all the toolbars and menus are within completely independent windows. All the windows can overlap or they can be in
different VDs.
Also, consider opening two, or even three or more, separate images
to effect cutting and pasting between them. With the independent
windows of GIMP this is absolutely no problem.
I can't imagine how that would be done with MDI PhotoShop. I suppose
one would have to awkwardly cut/copy from the first image and then
close the first and open the second in order to copy. Extremely
inefficient!
SDI should be the only way. In GNU/Linux is usually is but I don't
know about the GNOME/KDE junk software.
The unparalleled GNU/Linux software which I utilize, including
global industrial standards like Matlab and Mathematica, all have
a SDI interface with completely independent windows.
If you don't know what MDI/SDI is just read about it here, dumbfuck:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-document_interface>
Most Micro$lop Winblows junk does use the MDI and a lot of the
junk GNU/Linux DEs like GNOME and KDE have software based on
MDI.
Which do you prefer? MDI or SDI?
On 13 Jul 2025 12:37:09 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
My windows never overlap, so I don't see any difference.
Is is IMPOSSIBLE to do any significant or complex work without
overlapping windows. IMPOSSIBLE!
You must be involved with extremely simple childish and/or womanish activities.
The case is closed.
My windows never overlap, so I don't see any difference.
Nonsense.
On 13 Jul 2025 14:10:37 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Nonsense.
That is your argument. Nonsense.
The most common screen resolutions currently are 1920×1080
or 2048 × 1536.
On such screens a word processing document needs to take up
at least half of the area to be comfortably legible.
If one deals with more than one open document then overlapping windows
are inevitable.
For image editing the situation is even worse.
Even now, as I reply to your idiotic post with the Pan newsreader,
the "Post Article" window must overlap the main Pan window for any
kind of comfortable composing.
When the virtual terminals are included as well as virtual
desktops then it is very easy to visualize that non-overlapping
windows are an IMPOSSIBILITY for any kind of serious computing
work.
Instead of spewing nonsense why don't you post a screen capture
of your desktop with your non-overlapping junk?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You cannot. Wayland does not allow it
and you could never do it otherwise.
You are a GNU/Linux failure.
Which do you prefer? MDI or SDI?
This question is valid only in theory. In practise in Qt lib. QMdiArea
class is broken for ages. The same is true for QDockWidget (this is more modern aproach to MDI windows). The problem is that, Qt lib is the only
cross platform C++ GUI lib broadly available. The Qt Group (in polish
that sounds just like "Qt Grave"), makes everything to get rid of
classic programs based on MDI windows (even free and open source), and
they want to convert all normal C++ programmers to script kiddie using
QML (Java Script mutant).
Why? There is no reason for Windows to overlap except if your toy
obsolete window manager allows it. What does an overlapping window
brings except loosing time to switch between them?
IMO, MDI is the stupidest idea that anyone could imagine and it
belongs only in Micro$lop Winblows.
If you want a Linux tool, you use LaTeX.
W dniu 13.07.2025 o 20:34, Farley Flud pisze:
IMO, MDI is the stupidest idea that anyone could imagine and it belongs
only in Micro$lop Winblows.
Meybe MDI management is not very wise, but it is definitely not limited
to Micro$lop Winblows:
1. I personally, as commercial programmer, code MDI app in 1999-2000 in Borland C++ Builder;
2. I personally try QMdiArea from Qt lib. and discover it is plenty of
bugs, and abandon this class;
3. I use search engine and found that wxWidgets support MDI Windows,
URL:
<https://docs.wxwidgets.org/latest/classwx_m_d_i_parent_frame.html>
This question is valid only in theory.
3. I use search engine and found that wxWidgets support MDI Windows,
URL:
<https://docs.wxwidgets.org/latest/classwx_m_d_i_parent_frame.html>
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:15:52 +0200, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 wrote:
This question is valid only in theory.
And it is Dimdows-specific. Because only in Windows did you have the
concept of an “application” window within which the app had to put all its
“document” windows.
This convention became known as “MDI” (“Multiple Document Interface”). And
boy was it clunky. Because you couldn’t increase the size of a “document”
window beyond the limits of its “application” window: so first you had to increase the size of the latter, then go back and resize the former.
To get around this, Windows users got into the habit of running all their apps full-screen. Thus, the full screen area was always available for “document” windows. But switching between apps became a little more clunky
(no virtual desktops).
Then later, SDI (“Single Document Interface”) was introduced, where a single app could have multiple top-level windows, each for its own
document, with no overall “application” window as such.
But of course the system can’t tell the difference between such top-level windows and the older MDI-style “application” top-level windows. So now you end up with multiple entries in your taskbar for the same running app,
if it has multiple SDI windows open. There are some heuristics employed to try to figure out when to group them under a single icon on the taskbar,
but this sort of thing can never be 100% reliable.
Personally, I much prefer MDI, I find the plethora of windows with SDI applications a confusing mess.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 13:41:53 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
Personally, I much prefer MDI, I find the plethora of windows with SDI
applications a confusing mess.
There's always one in an otherwise unanimous party that will ruin
the consensus.
I do not wish to be rude or offensive but I must state the facts,
and the facts are very clear:
Anyone who actually prefers MDI has serious perceptual, intellectual,
and even psychological issues.
MDI is so obviously twisted and fucked that any mentally healthy human
being would immediately recoil at its lunacy.
Personally, I much prefer MDI, I find the plethora of windows with SDI applications a confusing mess.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 13:41:53 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
Personally, I much prefer MDI, I find the plethora of windows with SDI
applications a confusing mess.
It’s quite instructive to compare the Microsoft Windows GUI with the
design of X11. In both of them, every single GUI widget (including menu, buttons and other controls) is technically a “window”, which can have other windows within it to implement its different parts. So the entire
GUI in both architectures is built out of nesting “windows” within “windows”.
But X11 never had the concept of an “application window”, which the app had to use to contain all its other windows. That is where Microsoft
Windows went wrong. In X11, users see “windows” as only the top-level GUI entities; any substructure within those is normally described as “widgets”, even though they are also technically “windows” as far as the
API is concerned.
In short, X11 permitted more flexible GUI design than Microsoft ever
could. Those limitations carry over as problems in the Windows GUI even today. For example, attempts to adapt Windows to less traditional (i.e. non-desktop) application areas tend to hit roadblocks that make it less competitive than Linux-based solutions, even if the latter don’t actually use X11 as such: that flexibility mindset carries over to other kinds of *nix-based display server as well.
On 2025-07-14 22:59, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
But X11 never had the concept of an “application window”, which the
app had to use to contain all its other windows. That is where
Microsoft Windows went wrong. In X11, users see “windows” as only
the top-level GUI entities; any substructure within those is
normally described as “widgets”, even though they are also
technically “windows” as far as the API is concerned.
This is arse about tit, the MDI functionality is *ADDITIONAL* to any functionality in X11. IMV, you're merely trying to make a virtue out
of a shortcoming.
"Microsoft went wrong" is merely a personal opinion with which I do not
agree ...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:23:19 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-14 22:59, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
But X11 never had the concept of an “application window”, which the
app had to use to contain all its other windows. That is where
Microsoft Windows went wrong. In X11, users see “windows” as only
the top-level GUI entities; any substructure within those is
normally described as “widgets”, even though they are also
technically “windows” as far as the API is concerned.
This is arse about tit, the MDI functionality is *ADDITIONAL* to any
functionality in X11. IMV, you're merely trying to make a virtue out
of a shortcoming.
“No u”, as they say.
MDI was not “additional”, it was a *requirement* of applications
written for Microsoft Windows, right back to 1985. SDI was only
introduced as an option in the 1990s sometime. Which is why it never
quite fitted seamlessly into the existing GUI behaviour.
"Microsoft went wrong" is merely a personal opinion with which I do not
agree ...
The facts speak for themselves: look how Microsoft has tried to adapt
Windows and its GUI to other market segments besides the traditional
desktop, and see how badly that has turned out.
I note that browsers
commonly have an MDI with each web document in a tab of its own. Nobody seems to have any problem with that,
whereas nothing could be worse than ...
trying to use sane in Linux to scan documents, which
results in a plethora of windows
On 2025-07-15 01:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
MDI was not “additional”, it was a *requirement* of applications
written for Microsoft Windows, right back to 1985. SDI was only
introduced as an option in the 1990s sometime. Which is why it never
quite fitted seamlessly into the existing GUI behaviour.
That is not my point, which was that MDI is functionality that appears
not to be available under Linux.
"Microsoft went wrong" is merely a personal opinion with which I do
not agree ...
The facts speak for themselves: look how Microsoft has tried to adapt
Windows and its GUI to other market segments besides the traditional
desktop, and see how badly that has turned out.
Those 'facts' are again merely your own opinions ...
On 2025-07-13 23:28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:15:52 +0200, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 wrote:
This question is valid only in theory.
And it is Dimdows-specific. Because only in Windows did you have the
concept of an “application” window within which the app had to put all its
“document” windows.
This convention became known as “MDI” (“Multiple Document Interface”). And
boy was it clunky. Because you couldn’t increase the size of a “document”
window beyond the limits of its “application” window: so first you had to
increase the size of the latter, then go back and resize the former.
To get around this, Windows users got into the habit of running all their
apps full-screen. Thus, the full screen area was always available for
“document” windows. But switching between apps became a little more clunky
(no virtual desktops).
Then later, SDI (“Single Document Interface”) was introduced, where a
single app could have multiple top-level windows, each for its own
document, with no overall “application” window as such.
But of course the system can’t tell the difference between such top-level >> windows and the older MDI-style “application” top-level windows. So now >> you end up with multiple entries in your taskbar for the same running app, >> if it has multiple SDI windows open. There are some heuristics employed to >> try to figure out when to group them under a single icon on the taskbar,
but this sort of thing can never be 100% reliable.
Personally, I much prefer MDI, I find the plethora of windows with SDI applications a confusing mess.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:42:24 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-15 01:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
MDI was not “additional”, it was a *requirement* of applications
written for Microsoft Windows, right back to 1985. SDI was only
introduced as an option in the 1990s sometime. Which is why it never
quite fitted seamlessly into the existing GUI behaviour.
That is not my point, which was that MDI is functionality that appears
not to be available under Linux.
Your point is wrong. MDI is not additional “functionality”, it is a GUI misfeature, unfortunately still baked into Windows.
"Microsoft went wrong" is merely a personal opinion with which I do
not agree ...
The facts speak for themselves: look how Microsoft has tried to adapt
Windows and its GUI to other market segments besides the traditional
desktop, and see how badly that has turned out.
Those 'facts' are again merely your own opinions ...
Market figures don’t lie. Look at the ignominious twin failures of Windows Phone and Windows RT. Look at how Windows-based handhelds are struggling, running native Windows-based games, against the Linux-based Steam Deck -- even though you’d think the Linux machine would be handicapped by having
to run those games under emulation.
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-07-14, Java Jive <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-07-13 23:28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:15:52 +0200, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 wrote:
This question is valid only in theory.
And it is Dimdows-specific. Because only in Windows did you have the
concept of an “application” window within which the app had to put all its
“document” windows.
This convention became known as “MDI” (“Multiple Document Interface”). And
boy was it clunky. Because you couldn’t increase the size of a “document”
window beyond the limits of its “application” window: so first you had to
increase the size of the latter, then go back and resize the former.
To get around this, Windows users got into the habit of running all their >>> apps full-screen. Thus, the full screen area was always available for
“document” windows. But switching between apps became a little more clunky
(no virtual desktops).
Then later, SDI (“Single Document Interface”) was introduced, where a >>> single app could have multiple top-level windows, each for its own
document, with no overall “application” window as such.
But of course the system can’t tell the difference between such top-level >>> windows and the older MDI-style “application” top-level windows. So now >>> you end up with multiple entries in your taskbar for the same running app, >>> if it has multiple SDI windows open. There are some heuristics employed to >>> try to figure out when to group them under a single icon on the taskbar, >>> but this sort of thing can never be 100% reliable.
Personally, I much prefer MDI, I find the plethora of windows with SDI
applications a confusing mess.
I use Emacs quite a bit, and well, everything is within the one window, unless you specifically open another.
On 2025-07-16 11:26, Borax Man wrote:
I use Emacs quite a bit, and well, everything is within the one window,
unless you specifically open another.
Yes, I agree, but what is interesting about your comment is that it contradicts Lawrence D'Oliveiro's claim that MDI is a flaw in Windows!
I use Emacs quite a bit, and well, everything is within the one window, unless you specifically open another.
Those figures have nothing to do with MDI vs SDI.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 12:54:52 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
Those figures have nothing to do with MDI vs SDI.
They do demonstrate the fact though, do they not, that the inflexibility
of Microsoft’s core GUI design is holding it back from embracing new innovations and entering new markets.
On 2025-07-16 11:26, Borax Man wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-07-14, Java Jive <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-07-13 23:28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:15:52 +0200, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 wrote:
This question is valid only in theory.
And it is Dimdows-specific. Because only in Windows did you have the
concept of an “application” window within which the app had to put all its
“document” windows.
This convention became known as “MDI” (“Multiple Document Interface”). And
boy was it clunky. Because you couldn’t increase the size of a “document”
window beyond the limits of its “application” window: so first you had to
increase the size of the latter, then go back and resize the former.
To get around this, Windows users got into the habit of running all their >>>> apps full-screen. Thus, the full screen area was always available for
“document” windows. But switching between apps became a little more clunky
(no virtual desktops).
Then later, SDI (“Single Document Interface”) was introduced, where a >>>> single app could have multiple top-level windows, each for its own
document, with no overall “application” window as such.
But of course the system can’t tell the difference between such top-level
windows and the older MDI-style “application” top-level windows. So now
you end up with multiple entries in your taskbar for the same running app, >>>> if it has multiple SDI windows open. There are some heuristics employed to >>>> try to figure out when to group them under a single icon on the taskbar, >>>> but this sort of thing can never be 100% reliable.
Personally, I much prefer MDI, I find the plethora of windows with SDI
applications a confusing mess.
I use Emacs quite a bit, and well, everything is within the one window,
unless you specifically open another.
Yes, I agree, but what is interesting about your comment is that it contradicts Lawrence D'Oliveiro's claim that MDI is a flaw in Windows!
On 2025-07-17 03:54, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 12:54:52 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
Those figures have nothing to do with MDI vs SDI.
They do demonstrate the fact though, do they not, that the
inflexibility of Microsoft’s core GUI design is holding it back from
embracing new innovations and entering new markets.
Whatever, it's only [... random swerve into personal attacks ...]
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:48:36 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
On 2025-07-17 03:54, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 12:54:52 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
Those figures have nothing to do with MDI vs SDI.
They do demonstrate the fact though, do they not, that the
inflexibility of Microsoft’s core GUI design is holding it back from
embracing new innovations and entering new markets.
Whatever, it's only [snip restored] Whatever, relevant to your tedious and somewhat trolling advocacy of Linux in a Windows ng, it's irrelevant to MDI vs SDI.
Seasoned Internet user tip: if you have to start resorting to personal attacks, that’s a good sign that you’ve run out of logical arguments.
... snipping what you can't find an answer to ...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 13:55:24 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
... snipping what you can't find an answer to ...
The only answer to personal attacks is to point out that they mean that you’ve lost the argument.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 13:55:24 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
... snipping what you can't find an answer to ...
The only answer to personal attacks is to point out that they mean that you?ve lost the argument.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:40:35 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,371 |