"Apps For GNOME" Launches To Highlight GNOME Apps

[arQon]

GNU tends to favour big tangled systems and unfortunately, in my experience that almost kills lifespan just as badly as closed-source software. Just try to build any considerable program from Gnome 2 and you will see it is fairly impossible without a good few months of manpower to re-engineer. In that time you could basically rewrite it instead.

Oh god yes. Just thinking about some of the projects I've worked on with that problem is giving me an impending sense of PTSD...

[AHOY]

When I use a new distro or reinstall, and come across a PDF, I'm wondering what the heck is that horrible PDF viewer. Then I remember it's Evince and uninstall the hell out of it. Nowadays it doesn't even have + - buttons for zooming (you need one more click to get into the zoom percentage menu), you can only rotate clockwise (6 hits necessary for a counterclockwise 90% rotation, as the submenu annoyingly disappear every time you rotate 90% clockwise... instead of two for most other viewers), etc...
They manage to make it worse every time. It's become an utter joke.

Some years ago I used to install Acrobat Reader (before it ditched Linux support).
And these days I'm using either Foxit Reader (the best of the bunch but no scaling support), qpfdview (doesn't look pretty but is functional at least) or ePDFview (last release was 10 years ago and yet it's more functional than evince!).

Even Firefox or Edge integrated viewer do a better job.

https://tsdgeos.blogspot.com/2021/08/poppler-2109-will-have-massive-speed.html

[yump]

I found com.rafaelmardojai.Blanket through this post, and the combination of rain+thunder+train sounds was very comfy. Thanks Mr. Mardojai.

[kpedersen]

I have written and inherited a number of GTK applications, some are fairly substantial. Yet at no point in time would I consider them Gnome applications. They have no reason to drag in Gnome related dependencies and I really do find any developer who does drag in dependence on Gnome libs to have slightly suspect motives.

I could almost see the Gnome foundation pushing the idea of Gnome dependence to prevent other systems (i.e Windows, Mac, KDE) from using the same software easily and thus diminishing their unique selling point. And ultimately this would be in a similar vein to the GPL as a way to push free software which I am not entirely averse to.

What I am averse to is the fact that Gnome is flaky as shit and when it falls (like Gnome 1 did and like Gnome 2 did), it will take down *every* single application featured on the Apps for GNOME website unnecessarily. Gnome 3 is not an evolution of Gnome 2. It is a completely different bit of software albeit with the same name and the same will happen again for Gnome 5.

GNU tends to favour big tangled systems and unfortunately, in my experience that almost kills lifespan just as badly as closed-source software. Just try to build any considerable program from Gnome 2 and you will see it is fairly impossible without a good few months of manpower to re-engineer. In that time you could basically rewrite it instead.

[mppix]

arQon Mez'
It does not matter if certain developers work on -any- Gnome app for fun or a part of their dayjob with approval of their management.
The point _is_ that the Gnome foundation, you, or I don't have a direct say what and how they do it.

[arQon]

I get that Gnome apps devs and Gnome devs are not always the same, and sure there might be more community work on the ecosystem (of apps) than on the core (Gnome and GTK), yet I believe the most important apps are not being done by volunteers.

I think you and tomas are somewhat talking at cross purposes - you're saying "core Gnome apps", but he seems to be hearing "every app that uses GTK", and there's certainly a difference between the two groups. Gnome seems to have become a lot more secretive about its financials, staffing, etc over the last few years, so it's hard to see what's going on as a casual observer.

Regardless, the idea that e.g. Igalia - which is a consulting business with 100+ employees of its own - is producing software "for fun" is patently absurd. I'm sure we can all agree on at least that much.

> make a noticeable difference on the capacity of Gnome to adapt to the variety of workflows (currently being almost inexistant, with their mindset being that workflows should adapt to Gnome).

This, though, I don't see happening at all. Classen and the rest of Gnome's leadership have repeatedly made it very clear that they're *not interested* in other workflows, or any "other" of *any* kind that isn't exactly what the Gnome team's "vision" is. It's not about manpower, or technical limitations, or any other soluble problem: it's simply a policy, set in stone, that "What users want is not important unless it aligns with our preferences". (That's not the exact wording, but it's close enough).
Much like the "It's not a bug, f**k you" attitude re the GTK4 font rendering bug here last week, that attitude is systemic, so no amount of reassigning staff would matter: anyone who isn't on board with that approach isn't allowed into the tribe in the first place.

> The only reason you'd want that is to offer a turnkey ecosystem in the corporate world.

For Igalia, at least, that appears to be "in-car entertainment systems". Certainly a large enough market for it to be worth gambling on. I wish them luck.

[uid313]

I use XFCE and make it a point to avoid GNOME apps -;(. With CSD they look funny on the XFCE desktop. But occasionally I try out epiphany-browser to see what the gnome developers are up to and I have to say that it must be worst browser for Linux.

I don't use Epiphany either, but it is quite interesting with a GNOME-native web browser. I am no fan of Epiphany, I use Firefox but Epiphany got this pretty cool feature where you can install websites as applications and it shows up in the GNOME Shell. It feels well integrated.

[Mez']

But now you're moving the goal post, suddenly referring to "the most important apps".

I'm not moving anything, I'm talking about the whole ecosystem (including circle). Not every single one of the smaller ones come from corporate interests, sure. But the most important ones (in the news here), I believe they do or did originally.

Obviously someone sees a point, otherwise they would not be developed. Either you have volunteers and then no one can decide that they should spend their time on something else. Or you have paid developers like Igalia for Epiphany. Apparently they, Igalia, do in fact see a point in developing it. Otherwise why would they?

Well, that's exactly what I'm saying.
1. It's corporations that see a point in developing those
2. They're wasting resources in NIH stuff

The bottom line is: It is a misconception that resources can be "redirected" to work on other apps or features just because some users (like you) think it would be more meaningful. Open source have never worked like that and never will. Otherwise we would not have a plethora of desktop environments / window managers like Gnome, KDE, Cinnamon, Mate, Xfce, Sway, Xmonad, i3, Enlightenment etc etc.
Why can't we just decide on the "One True Desktop" and "redirect" all resources currently being spread out over several projects? Will never happen.

It is your own bottom line. Mine is different.
It is not always possible to redirect, true, for the reasons you mention. But it is possible to some extent. And I'm convinced even that limited extent would make a noticeable difference on the capacity of Gnome to adapt to the variety of workflows (currently being almost inexistant, with their mindset being that workflows should adapt to Gnome).

[tomas]

And some here are falling for the trick.

Not at all. See further comments below.

I get that Gnome apps devs and Gnome devs are not always the same, and sure there might be more community work on the ecosystem (of apps) than on the core (Gnome and GTK)

Yes, it's in fact a huge difference. Several developers working on the Gnome ecosystem like mutter, shell, gtk etc are paid developers working for example RedHat or Endless or Canonical as you say. That does not translate to the majority of Gnome apps being developed by paid developers, at least not as part of their job.

yet I believe the most important apps are not being done by volunteers

But now you're moving the goal post, suddenly referring to "the most important apps".

I see no point in developing Maps or Boxes or a Web browser from a volunteer's point of view

Obviously someone sees a point, otherwise they would not be developed. Either you have volunteers and then no one can decide that they should spend their time on something else. Or you have paid developers like Igalia for Epiphany. Apparently they, Igalia, do in fact see a point in developing it. Otherwise why would they?

The bottom line is: It is a misconception that resources can be "redirected" to work on other apps or features just because some users (like you) think it would be more meaningful. Open source have never worked like that and never will. Otherwise we would not have a plethora of desktop environments / window managers like Gnome, KDE, Cinnamon, Mate, Xfce, Sway, Xmonad, i3, Enlightenment etc etc.
Why can't we just decide on the "One True Desktop" and "redirect" all resources currently being spread out over several projects? Will never happen.

[Mez']

So you believe, but you don't really have anything to back up your claim. At least I gave one reference from a Gnome core developer stating the opposite. Why would he lie? And what makes you believe that a majority of Gnome apps have paid developers behind them?

https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/desktop-linux/1274920-gtk-4-4-released-with-continued-ngl-improvements-inspector-by-default?p=1275182#post1275182

I totally share the opinion written here by arQon (2nd quote in the message). And some here are falling for the trick. I get that Gnome apps devs and Gnome devs are not always the same, and sure there might be more community work on the ecosystem (of apps) than on the core (Gnome and GTK), yet I believe the most important apps are not being done by volunteers. I see no point in developing Maps or Boxes or a Web browser from a volunteer's point of view, as there are much better alternatives already (and anchored in users' habits). The only reason you'd want that is to offer a turnkey ecosystem in the corporate world.