In 13.2, desktop icons could be dragged into any position desired and they would stay exactly there. Now in Leap 42.2, KDE plasma5, folder view, icons are snapping to a grid rather than staying where I want them.
Can this grid-snapping be disabled? Does desktop view allow any non-grid setup? I don’t want the grid… I want the icons to stay where I drag them. This is a real drag, coming from 13.2
I muddle through… I have some intuition but my ignorance is vast, despite googling the issue. If anyone can advise, …thanks in advance.
I can understand that many users like a grid (it’s been an option in MS-Windows since way back). Adding grid-snapping as an option would be much better than removing users’ freedom to arrange symbolic link icons the way they want. Mandatory imposition of a grid just seems to run counter to the basic ethic of customizeability in Linux. In my case I have a favorite desktop image background, and want to arrange the icons on and around features of that image. I also like to cluster certain icons together, leaving more space between clusters. It’s for both aesthetics, and navigational & use-of-space efficiency.
Thanks for the reference to the reddit post; it suggests a workaround for widgets (grid-size parameter edit) …and I tried it, but it doesn’t seem to work for symbolic link icons. The post confirms that desktop customizeability has been sacrificed in KDE Plasma5 for even-spacing, and suggests we ought to be thankful for the loss. Certainly, we have plenty to be thankful to developers for, but does that mean their decisions should not be questioned? I shouldn’t be able to decide for myself if my desktop is too messy? This “bug”: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358418 …continues to draw comments in favor of letting users arrange icons where they choose. I’ll be hoping and watching for a change in the forced-grid…
The next openSUSE Conference is scheduled for May 26th through May 28th this year, once again in Nürnberg (same as last year).
Given that, there are usually KDE folks attending the conference (at least there were one or two at last year’s conference), might it not be a good idea to have a couple of informal and/or semi-formal face-to-face discussions around these issues?
The “Call for Papers” ends on Friday the 31st of March; therefore there isn’t much time left to set-up a semi-formal discussion.