4 ms·

I adore Gtk2 look and feel. Oh, why you had to go, Gtk2, why? Gtk 2 had a soul, and Gtk 3 feels like it wants to scream "hey, I'm like macOS, but free!"

• nfoz 9y ago
  This is off-topic, but IMO the biggest failure of GNOME 3 is that it called itself GNOME 3. Sure it was mostly the same community working on a similar project. But they could have used a new name, and made it a separate offering! GNOME2 had basically completed its mission. It was stable and consistent and had many happy users. But when a "GNOME 3" exists, people are force-upgraded. Except it feels more like a separate product than an "upgrade". In fact GNOME 2 lives on but strangely that project had to re-brand itself as MATE: http://mate-desktop.org/ http://mate-desktop.org/. Gtk2 and GNOME 2 did the same thing to all the happy users of GNOME1/Gtk1.2. It was a community upheaval with big consequences. I think your Gtk2/Gtk3 gripe is the same. If the goals are different enough, let's please let the projects live happily in parallel.
  • Santosh83 9y ago
    Ideally this should happen, but with limited man power and motivation, maintaining multiple huge code bases in parallel is something only big corps can hope to do. That's why in open source the old code is forked and carried forward by someone else, if it is worth it.
  • qznc 9y ago
    I'm a happy MATE user. Uses less resources than Unity or GNOME 3, but is more feature-full and polished than XFCE or other small desktop environments.
• thomastjeffery 9y ago
  They depends entirely on the theme you use.