> If you need something to be upset about browsers, there are plenty of egregious changes being pushed down the throats of the users. In contrast, I wasn't suggesting anything that the user has to accept without questions.
I will never object to new isolated features that are opt-in, don't break other features, don't clutter up the UI and worsen the performance. I'm also willing to take compromises for new features. Sadly this is not the experience I get from modern software development and especially anything Web-adjacent like browsers.
I only pointed out how I don't think these should be priorities or think they are already solved.
> Using profiles is currently like using different browsers altogether.
Using profiles is like using a different configuration and different runtime state with the same browser. This doesn't sound too far of from isolation, but I think security that is rolled in user programs and not backed by the OS is fundamentally futile. It is nice to have another option, but I wouldn't count on if for real security. And it seams to be a bit unnecessary, when the OS already provides process and user isolation, that are seldom able to be bypassed.
> If you haven't noticed, ..... browsers become complicated OS ...
Yes, and I don't like that, but this is orthogonal here.
> why insist on gatekeeping it to the OS window manager?
To me that is the opposite of gatekeeping, because now this is available and consistent to every program and not just specific to a single one.
Per program window handling used to be common, but has been largely abandoned, because most people don't work that way. MS Windows has had (and still has) MDI. This is a nice concept in my opinion, but it largely went away for reasons. Some setup programs still ask you if you want to install the program in MDI or SDI mode, but to my knowledge no new program does it and users seldomly use it. MacOS also has remnants of this with windows that are bounded by the borders of the parent window.
This approach has a fundamental flaw though. So you do a lot amount of work and now you can display multiple websites side-by-side in a single OS window, but as soon as you want to do the same with the text editor, the Office application, the Video player or any other program, you are lost and need to use the OS window manager. Now you have red-flavored and green-flavored windows, that are incompatible and not interoperable and this is kind-of stupid.
Instead we went the other way, and in my opinion for a good reason. So for example on MS Windows tabs are treated the same as windows, they get listed in the window switcher and get screenshots just like real OS windows. I think this is a better approach, because now all the windows can be modified and moved the same and also have vastly more features than isolated applications could ever provide. Think of how to implement "Always on top" in the browser.
> Where have you ever seen that done satisfactorily?
Yes, everyday on my computer? I either click on the tab and do "Move Tab" > "to New Window", or just drag the tab away from its position and then press Windows - Left/Right Up/Down, wherever I want the tab to be.
> Forget the numerous bars and panels all over the place that take up so much space.
The chrome isn't that much and can even be reduced to a tiny line, when you turn it into a popup. Granted, this could be a button, but that's not a large change and the functionality is already available with an oneliner. In fact I recently added exactly this feature.
> When have you ever been able to share information seamlessly like in a single window?
Whenever I want it?
> It's so frustrating that it's a joke as a solution.
Not to me. Can share what frustrates you?
> On which platform? How many WMs/DEs you know offer that facility?
Well you already listed MacOS, and I was able to do it in the past on GNOME/Mate, but just tried it and it still exists, but is broken, so I am sad. I was under the impression, that this used a portable API, because it did work across a lot, of UI toolkits.
> But the window layout shouldn't stop there. Currently, the menu bars, tab bar/sidebar, toolbars, address bar etc consume too much space. Imagine if it was the same case for desktops? Desktops take only a tiny fraction of the screen space in the form of the status bar or the dock. Even that is optional in many cases and can be hidden when not in use. The best way to layout the pages on a window IMHO, is how the tiling window managers do it. Browsers like Firefox already treat the UI like HTML+CSS. But it's on a different plane from the page UI - so much so that you need to start the debugger console in a different mode to control it. But if the tabs, status bars and menu bars used the same layout as regular pages (but with special UI control privileges), you'll get numerous options to design it the way you prefer and hide them easily.
What you describe sounds like what KDE supports out of the box. You will be pleased to hear, that the corporate browser vendors Google and Apple have forked the KDE browser, so you can expect that browsers to be highly customizable. /s
> there are plenty of egregious changes being pushed down the throats of the users.
I just fear that this all starts as a good intention, but becomes yet another thing pushed down the throats of users. The browser chrome is one of the last remaining things, that work and look exactly like the native UI, and I don't want to loose that last bit. Also have you heard of the line of death? I don't think we want to loose that. See https://textslashplain.com/2017/01/14/the-line-of-death/
I will never object to new isolated features that are opt-in, don't break other features, don't clutter up the UI and worsen the performance. I'm also willing to take compromises for new features. Sadly this is not the experience I get from modern software development and especially anything Web-adjacent like browsers.
I only pointed out how I don't think these should be priorities or think they are already solved.
> Using profiles is currently like using different browsers altogether.
Using profiles is like using a different configuration and different runtime state with the same browser. This doesn't sound too far of from isolation, but I think security that is rolled in user programs and not backed by the OS is fundamentally futile. It is nice to have another option, but I wouldn't count on if for real security. And it seams to be a bit unnecessary, when the OS already provides process and user isolation, that are seldom able to be bypassed.
> If you haven't noticed, ..... browsers become complicated OS ...
Yes, and I don't like that, but this is orthogonal here.
> why insist on gatekeeping it to the OS window manager?
To me that is the opposite of gatekeeping, because now this is available and consistent to every program and not just specific to a single one.
Per program window handling used to be common, but has been largely abandoned, because most people don't work that way. MS Windows has had (and still has) MDI. This is a nice concept in my opinion, but it largely went away for reasons. Some setup programs still ask you if you want to install the program in MDI or SDI mode, but to my knowledge no new program does it and users seldomly use it. MacOS also has remnants of this with windows that are bounded by the borders of the parent window.
This approach has a fundamental flaw though. So you do a lot amount of work and now you can display multiple websites side-by-side in a single OS window, but as soon as you want to do the same with the text editor, the Office application, the Video player or any other program, you are lost and need to use the OS window manager. Now you have red-flavored and green-flavored windows, that are incompatible and not interoperable and this is kind-of stupid.
Instead we went the other way, and in my opinion for a good reason. So for example on MS Windows tabs are treated the same as windows, they get listed in the window switcher and get screenshots just like real OS windows. I think this is a better approach, because now all the windows can be modified and moved the same and also have vastly more features than isolated applications could ever provide. Think of how to implement "Always on top" in the browser.
> Where have you ever seen that done satisfactorily?
Yes, everyday on my computer? I either click on the tab and do "Move Tab" > "to New Window", or just drag the tab away from its position and then press Windows - Left/Right Up/Down, wherever I want the tab to be.
> Forget the numerous bars and panels all over the place that take up so much space.
The chrome isn't that much and can even be reduced to a tiny line, when you turn it into a popup. Granted, this could be a button, but that's not a large change and the functionality is already available with an oneliner. In fact I recently added exactly this feature.
> When have you ever been able to share information seamlessly like in a single window?
Whenever I want it?
> It's so frustrating that it's a joke as a solution.
Not to me. Can share what frustrates you?
> On which platform? How many WMs/DEs you know offer that facility?
Well you already listed MacOS, and I was able to do it in the past on GNOME/Mate, but just tried it and it still exists, but is broken, so I am sad. I was under the impression, that this used a portable API, because it did work across a lot, of UI toolkits.
> But the window layout shouldn't stop there. Currently, the menu bars, tab bar/sidebar, toolbars, address bar etc consume too much space. Imagine if it was the same case for desktops? Desktops take only a tiny fraction of the screen space in the form of the status bar or the dock. Even that is optional in many cases and can be hidden when not in use. The best way to layout the pages on a window IMHO, is how the tiling window managers do it. Browsers like Firefox already treat the UI like HTML+CSS. But it's on a different plane from the page UI - so much so that you need to start the debugger console in a different mode to control it. But if the tabs, status bars and menu bars used the same layout as regular pages (but with special UI control privileges), you'll get numerous options to design it the way you prefer and hide them easily.
What you describe sounds like what KDE supports out of the box. You will be pleased to hear, that the corporate browser vendors Google and Apple have forked the KDE browser, so you can expect that browsers to be highly customizable. /s
> there are plenty of egregious changes being pushed down the throats of the users.
I just fear that this all starts as a good intention, but becomes yet another thing pushed down the throats of users. The browser chrome is one of the last remaining things, that work and look exactly like the native UI, and I don't want to loose that last bit. Also have you heard of the line of death? I don't think we want to loose that. See https://textslashplain.com/2017/01/14/the-line-of-death/