In Road To Qt, Audacious Switches From GTK3 Back To GTK2

[Luke]

gtk-file-chooser is where icons are hardcoded

What's this about hardcoded themes? Adwaita isn't hard coded. And why should you, or anybody not part of their project have say in how their project runs? If you want a say, then you need to be a contributor. But you've already said it is incompatible with what you want, then you should probably contribute to something else instead of spending your time dick waving about how 'awful' it is.

OOOhh that's a lot of personal attacks! Still, the hardcoded icons are in the filechooser's sidebar and I have yet to find any options to revert them. Since they are images they could surely be replaced in the source and the resulting modified source compiled. It would be beyond my skill to write support for changing them at runtime in GTK, so if they ever make the rest of the icons hardcoded I will be forced to replace and recompile.

GNOME can publish anything they want, but I do not have to use it, nor do the folks at Audacious, who kicked off this thread by quite sensibly dumping GTK3 for GTK2. So can Mint, which created Cinnamon to be everything a lot of desktop users feel GNOME 3 should have been. All GNOME would really have to do to remove the need for so many forks would be to stop breaking the extensions with every new release, and not hardcode things like those sidebar icons in the filechooser. At least this is FOSS and not Microsoft, so those of us who like to play with things really DO get a choice.

[psychoticmeow]

OOOhh that's a lot of personal attacks!

You're damn right.

Still, the hardcoded icons are in the filechooser's sidebar and I have yet to find any options to revert them. Since they are images they could surely be replaced in the source and the resulting modified source compiled. It would be beyond my skill to write support for changing them at runtime in GTK, so if they ever make the rest of the icons hardcoded I will be forced to replace and recompile.

GNOME can publish anything they want, but I do not have to use it, nor do the folks at Audacious, who kicked off this thread by quite sensibly dumping GTK3 for GTK2. So can Mint, which created Cinnamon to be everything a lot of desktop users feel GNOME 3 should have been. All GNOME would really have to do to remove the need for so many forks would be to stop breaking the extensions with every new release, and not hardcode things like those sidebar icons in the filechooser. At least this is FOSS and not Microsoft, so those of us who like to play with things really DO get a choice.

How are these any more hardcoded than other icons? If your theme doesn't provide the necessary icon file then it'll fall back to using those from Adwaita/the default. And what's this now about extensions breaking with every release? Gnome shell extensions, or something Gtk related?

[TheBlackCat]

All I see in that blog article is a bunch of idiots unable to grasp that the Gnome project wanted to try and work towards having a somewhat uniform presentation and actually getting some spit and polish applied to their user

I see three major problems here:

1. It shows gtk+ is happy to break API compatibility if it benefits the goals of Gnome, no matter what effect it may have on the community. So far this has mostly affected theme developers, but the general ideas that gtk+ developers have stated can be applied to anything in gtk+ (as recent issues with window decorations demonstrate).

2. They apparently are happy to work with Red Hat theme developers, they just don't care about community themes. Why is only Red Hat allowed to break Gnome's precious "uniform presentation"?

3. No matter how hard they try, they are not going to have a "uniform presentation". Distros will just patch their own stuff in no matter what gtk+ does. The only people who suffer are community members.

It's fine if you don't want that in your desktop environment, but at least acknowledge that the goal is worth it, and not pull out the "Microsoft-like" FUD.

What a load of inflammatory horse shit.

I don't see any FUD. I see people upset with the direction a project is headed. I see people upset that the promises of API stability were not upheld. FUD implies that the information is false or somehow intentionally misleading. But nothing they said was false or misleading.

You may not agree with them, and gtk+ obviously doesn't agree with them. But just disagreeing with something doesn't make it "FUD" or "horse shit". People are allowed to disagree with the decisions of a project. People are allowed to voice those disagreements.

[TheBlackCat]

While almost everyone here has been willing to have an actual discussion about what is broken, you've come in with the FUD guns blazing.

You think dismissing anyone who dares disagree with the decisions of gtk+ devs as "FUD" and "horse shit" counts as "an actual discussion"?

[psychoticmeow]

I see three major problems here:

1. It shows gtk+ is happy to break API compatibility if it benefits the goals of Gnome, no matter what effect it may have on the community. So far this has mostly affected theme developers, but the general ideas that gtk+ developers have stated can be applied to anything in gtk+ (as recent issues with window decorations demonstrate).

Indeed, hence the discussion earlier about communication.

2. They apparently are happy to work with Red Hat theme developers, they just don't care about community themes. Why is only Red Hat allowed to break Gnome's precious "uniform presentation"?

What's this now? I need more information.

3. No matter how hard they try, they are not going to have a "uniform presentation". Distros will just patch their own stuff in no matter what gtk+ does. The only people who suffer are community members.

If a particular distro wants to make their community members suffer, how is that the fault of the Gnome project? Why would they patch Gnome to break its UI when alternatives exist?

I don't see any FUD. I see people upset with the direction a project is headed. I see people upset that the promises of API stability were not upheld. FUD implies that the information is false or somehow intentionally misleading. But nothing they said was false or misleading.

What about this "hardcoded" icons nonsense, the thing that I specifically called Luke on twice now, and then claiming that Gnome is a tablet-inspired interface, when it isn't, and never was. Isn't that false information?

You may not agree with them, and gtk+ obviously doesn't agree with them. But just disagreeing with something doesn't make it "FUD" or "horse shit". People are allowed to disagree with the decisions of a project. People are allowed to voice those disagreements.

You think dismissing anyone who dares disagree with the decisions of gtk+ devs as "FUD" and "horse shit" counts as "an actual discussion"?

If you think I've dismissed a valid argument somewhere, please let me know and I'll correct it. That said, before Luke got here there was actual interesting discussion happening, and I'd like to see it continue because if the community doesn't see fit to address these issues, they won't get addressed. Shocking I know.

[dee.]

Hey, it's all good if someone wants to create a polished user experience. But if you start removing options because you want everyone to see all the cool stuff you made for them, if you purposely break customization options for the sake of "brand visibility", that's some highly fucked up shit right there.

I can tell an anecdote: I redesigned a whole new UI & theme for a certain software project, and worked hard (for free) and led/organized the work of several other people to create a functional UI and a consistent, clean and pleasing visual style for the application. But you know, at the same time, I also wrote a lot of code to add options for theming and customization, and whenever I changed something, I tried to make it in a way that is not hardcoded but instead definable in themes, because no matter how great a theme or UI, it's never going to satisfy everyone because people have differing tastes and opinions.

And during all those months spent working on this project, these two goals never ever contradicted each other. A project can have a consistent "brand", and a cool, modern, pleasing visual style and a functional UI, and ALSO offer the option to customize the look and feel for those who'd rather dress up the application the way they want. Go figure!

I have nothing against GNOME really. I'd really like to see GTK succeed, because it's good to have an alternative for Qt... sadly it looks like GTK is turning into a GNOME-only toolkit, which forces everyone to use Qt, and that's going to be kind of shitty for DE's that use GTK like Cinnamon...

[psychoticmeow]

Hey, it's all good if someone wants to create a polished user experience. But if you start removing options because you want everyone to see all the cool stuff you made for them, if you purposely break customization options for the sake of "brand visibility", that's some highly fucked up shit right there.

That's the impression that the blog earlier was trying to give everyone, by taking comments out of context and misrepresenting what people had said.

I have nothing against GNOME really. I'd really like to see GTK succeed, because it's good to have an alternative for Qt... sadly it looks like GTK is turning into a GNOME-only toolkit, which forces everyone to use Qt, and that's going to be kind of shitty for DE's that use GTK like Cinnamon...

Or perhaps they could contribute directly to Gtk, instead of it just being Gnome oriented because only Gnome developers work on it. I honestly don't understand how people expect to be represented in the development of software that they don't have some investment in.

[ua=42]

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=72592

Just a thought.

Since a quick look on past posts on various subjects reveals a tendency of calling everyone who disagrees with his/her opinion an idiot. On every subject. Multiple times.

[psychoticmeow]

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/profi...ignore&u=72592

Just a thought.

Since a quick look on past posts on various subjects reveals a tendency of calling everyone who disagrees with his/her opinion an idiot. On every subject. Multiple times.

If they can't apply simple logic to their own arguments why shouldn't I call someone an idiot? Oh well, ignore me if you choose, people will still be wrong on the internet.

[TheBlackCat]

Indeed, hence the discussion earlier about communication.

This is not a problem with communication. gtk+ devs have communicated their goals and approach quite effectively. The problem is that many people do not agree with those goals or approach.

If a particular distro wants to make their community members suffer, how is that the fault of the Gnome project? Why would they patch Gnome to break its UI when alternatives exist?

No, sorry, you can't just dismiss any decision that disagrees with what Gnome devs want as "making their community members suffer". Gnome devs are not all-knowing, perfect beings that make perfect software no one can possibly improve on. This is exactly the attitude

What about this "hardcoded" icons nonsense, the thing that I specifically called Luke on twice now, and then claiming that Gnome is a tablet-inspired interface, when it isn't, and never was. Isn't that false information?

Where did any of that appear in the blog post you were responding to? I never commented on your response to Luke, I commented on your response to the blog post. If there is false information in the blog post that you dismissed as "FUD" and "horse shit", I would like you to point it out. But you can't dismiss a blog post as "FUD" and "horse shit" based on something said 2 year later by someone completely unrelated on unrelated website.

If you think I've dismissed a valid argument somewhere, please let me know and I'll correct it.

You can start by explaining what, specifically, about the blog post is "FUD" and "horse shit" besides the awful crime of disagreeing with gnome developers.