5 ms·

You can use a library like that or you can draw your own decorations. There unfortunately is no other option. I don't see it as being likely that GNOME will sup

You can use a library like that or you can draw your own decorations. There unfortunately is no other option. I don't see it as being likely that GNOME will support SSD any time soon, it just isn't designed for that.

mort96 6y ago
I know, and that's kind of what I'm complaining about. There's no reason it couldn't support SSDs.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  I was trying to be clear here: There is a reason and it's that it's not really possible architecturally for them to support SSDs in Wayland; doing so would require a redesign of significant parts of the compositor's code. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. If you're trying to say they should have anticipated this and made a different architectural decision years ago, maybe that's true, but that also offers no practical solution to the applications that need to support it right now.
  - mort96 6y ago
    I am trying to say that maybe they should have made the architectural decisions which wouldn't prevent non-GTK applications from working in GNOME. That's all.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      I don't know what you're trying to get at. We can sit here and argue and say they should have done this and they should have done that, but that doesn't help anybody who wants support for them at this current moment. And please don't exaggerate, non-GTK applications do work in GNOME. Qt5 has native CSDs that will show up in GNOME. If the application is a game or something that doesn't support CSD then the experience is somewhat degraded but they still work. You can resize and move any window by holding Super and Left/Middle clicking. I won't pretend the situation is ideal but I also don't believe it's totally unusable or on a bad trajectory at the moment—like I said the other libraries are working on getting CSD support too.
solarkraft 6y ago
> There unfortunately is no other option. Gnome could stop being unreasonably obstructionist, but that indeed seems unlikely.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  What would it take for something not to qualify as being "unreasonably obstructionist" to you? If there's an open source desktop project that has infinite resources to redesign and rewrite everything at will at a moment's notice, then please let me know. I'll gladly use it. Hell, I'll sign up as a developer.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Have GNOME devs yet acknowledged that XFCE exists? In one now infamous exchange with Transmission developers a GNOME dev claimed that he didn't even know what XFCE was and, furthermore, that cross platform applications like Transmission should choose whether they would be "GNOME apps or XFCE apps", suggesting that they can't be both. The context of this exchange was that GNOME developer asking that a feature be removed from Transmission because GNOME would no longer support it. That's just one example, but GNOME has a reputation for not respecting Linux desktop diversity for a reason.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      I had to dig up the comment you're talking about but just to put this in perspective: You are forming your current opinion about entire communities based on one comment made by one developer 10 years ago. I'm fascinated by all this open source that's out there but if you told me that a developer had to know every single open source desktop out there in order to contribute to one of them then I can't really get behind that. It's very hard to keep track of what everyone's doing all the time. But in any case I don't understand what is contentious about that. Some pieces are shared between GNOME and XFCE, but a lot of pieces are different and applications have always needed to choose. If they weren't trying to be different they wouldn't have made a separate desktop environment with their own separate libxfce libraries and components. (To GNOME's credit, they have gotten rid of most of the "libgnome" things since then, but now an application that wants to speak to certain GNOME-specific pieces is usually expected to use their private dbus protocols, things that XFCE would never implement anyway)

mort96 6y ago

I know, and that's kind of what I'm complaining about. There's no reason it couldn't support SSDs.

cycloptic 6y ago
I was trying to be clear here: There is a reason and it's that it's not really possible architecturally for them to support SSDs in Wayland; doing so would require a redesign of significant parts of the compositor's code. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. If you're trying to say they should have anticipated this and made a different architectural decision years ago, maybe that's true, but that also offers no practical solution to the applications that need to support it right now.
- mort96 6y ago
  I am trying to say that maybe they should have made the architectural decisions which wouldn't prevent non-GTK applications from working in GNOME. That's all.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    I don't know what you're trying to get at. We can sit here and argue and say they should have done this and they should have done that, but that doesn't help anybody who wants support for them at this current moment. And please don't exaggerate, non-GTK applications do work in GNOME. Qt5 has native CSDs that will show up in GNOME. If the application is a game or something that doesn't support CSD then the experience is somewhat degraded but they still work. You can resize and move any window by holding Super and Left/Middle clicking. I won't pretend the situation is ideal but I also don't believe it's totally unusable or on a bad trajectory at the moment—like I said the other libraries are working on getting CSD support too.

solarkraft 6y ago

> There unfortunately is no other option. Gnome could stop being unreasonably obstructionist, but that indeed seems unlikely.

cycloptic 6y ago
What would it take for something not to qualify as being "unreasonably obstructionist" to you? If there's an open source desktop project that has infinite resources to redesign and rewrite everything at will at a moment's notice, then please let me know. I'll gladly use it. Hell, I'll sign up as a developer.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Have GNOME devs yet acknowledged that XFCE exists? In one now infamous exchange with Transmission developers a GNOME dev claimed that he didn't even know what XFCE was and, furthermore, that cross platform applications like Transmission should choose whether they would be "GNOME apps or XFCE apps", suggesting that they can't be both. The context of this exchange was that GNOME developer asking that a feature be removed from Transmission because GNOME would no longer support it. That's just one example, but GNOME has a reputation for not respecting Linux desktop diversity for a reason.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    I had to dig up the comment you're talking about but just to put this in perspective: You are forming your current opinion about entire communities based on one comment made by one developer 10 years ago. I'm fascinated by all this open source that's out there but if you told me that a developer had to know every single open source desktop out there in order to contribute to one of them then I can't really get behind that. It's very hard to keep track of what everyone's doing all the time. But in any case I don't understand what is contentious about that. Some pieces are shared between GNOME and XFCE, but a lot of pieces are different and applications have always needed to choose. If they weren't trying to be different they wouldn't have made a separate desktop environment with their own separate libxfce libraries and components. (To GNOME's credit, they have gotten rid of most of the "libgnome" things since then, but now an application that wants to speak to certain GNOME-specific pieces is usually expected to use their private dbus protocols, things that XFCE would never implement anyway)