"I doubt that individual GNOME developers mean any malice. There may be no malice intended from any of the GNOME project leaders. But over the last few years I

"I doubt that individual GNOME developers mean any malice. There may be no malice intended from any of the GNOME project leaders. But over the last few years I have steadily become convinced that cumulatively their actions and policies are active sabotage towards every last bit of the Linux desktop that isn’t GNOME." How? I use XFCE and I do not develope native linux apps, so I lack detail knowledge here - but as far as I understands it, GTK is developed for GNOME. It has even Gnome in the name. So of course they mainly care about - well, GNOME. So knowing this, I simply would never choose GTk as a plattform for my software, if I would not intend to have it mainly in the GNOME universe. (I would probably use something like Qt, which is explicitely not advertised as bound to one Desktop, but right now I rather stay with the WEB and avoid all of that).) I mean, did GTK advertise itself as a universal linux toolkit and promised eternal support at some point? Then there might be a point of them being assholes, but even then it would not be sabotage, if they simply focus on their priorities. It would be entirely something else, if the company Redhat would do all the changes by purpose to break other stuff to make people switch to Gnome. This would warrant the term sabotage - but the evidence I have seen so far is not convincing. So maybe it rather was people using GTK because it worked "fairly platform-neutral" and then expected it stays that way? And then got mad, when developement direction changed? So making demands of something they got for free? Like I said, it might be free, but I do not intend to be bound to gnome(and I do not like GTK too much) so I will never use it for my apps. And people who did, probably have to switch - or fork it and adopt it to their needs. Isn't this, what open source is about?