If you want their fancy windowing stuff, I think you also need to use their apps. Terminal, IDE, etc etc. Switching to a different terminal is friction, switching to a different IDE is a really big jump. My bet is most people aren't going to switch to a different IDE just to get different window management behaviours. And if the bundled IDE is brilliant, then you can't use that without this window management coming along for the ride too.
The differentiator for this project is the window management. Don't restrict that to just the re-implemented apps within the walled garden, and then you have the behaviour implemented in the right place.
The homepage explicitly calls out that "Cate is not a window manager replacement" yet as far as I can tell pretty much all its features are window management. And the ones that aren't would be better off living in their own dedicated apps anyway (or aren't going to replace people's preferred editors or terminals).
The infinite canvas idea sounds cool, and I'm not aware of a window manager that lets you zoom and pan around a massive "desktop", but it really does sound like the cool bits would be better implemented as an actual window manager. Then we can keep using our favourite IDEs, terminals, editors, etc. etc which is where the actual friction for change sits, and have the cool infinite canvas/docking/arranging stuff on top.
Pro jazz trombonist here. All there is to usefully say about piano roll notation, with or without colours has pretty much already been said. And if you want more (much more) detail, then Tantacrul (designer on MuseScore) has done a great video.
The only useful head's up I can give is the current position marker on your playback is quite a long way behind the audio, around 1-2 beats on the one piece I tried.
I've been through this. I started a B2B SaaS and the very first customer required us to get it before we could go live.
I found engaging a specialist consulting company invaluable to guide us through understanding the spec and designing processes and policies that were proportionate to our size and skillset. But be warned, there are a lot of chancers in this space - e.g. I had a few companies say they could give us a pre-written set of policies and give us the cert in a couple of weeks. Do. Not. Do. This.
This consultancy even sat in on our first external audit to help us work our way through it, which turned out to be critical as the auditor went off-beam and started faulting us for not doing things that weren't even in the spec. So this isn't something you can wing your way through - you have to become an expert and thoroughly understand the spec, and its implications, in depth.
I spent a couple of months, full time, on getting to grips with the spec, grinding down scope and coming up with the lightest-touch policies possible that would a) still be useful and b) satisfy the auditors. And yet it's still critically important that you get an auditor who understands small companies - there are still some out there that are adamant it has to be a massively cumbersome thing that takes entire teams just to run.
But, be warned, this does place an ongoing admin burden on your company that you wouldn't otherwise have. Documenting and evidencing actions that wouldn't necessarily need it before, as well as conducting your own internal audits to ensure you're still doing the things you said you'd do.
So I would not recommend getting it until you're forced to by a client.
The good news is I was able to argue all the things we were doing as a matter of course in our software dev lifecycle could be mapped directly onto 27001's requirements. Things like declaring that the documentation of our networking and infrastructure _is_ our terraform scripts. Just because an auditor doesn't know how to read them doesn't mean they're not a perfectly valid form of documentation for the team using them.
So, yes, small, agile companies can gain and maintain certification (our last external audit by the British Standards Institute was passed with no non-conformities), but it's hard work and means spending effort that doesn't directly add value to the business.
I don't understand how devs don't use a tool that makes multiple versions of everything possible.