4 ms·

> When it comes to “my way or the highway”, I noticed that users mainly reference GNOME, far more than any other project. There is one main reason I can think o

> When it comes to “my way or the highway”, I noticed that users mainly reference GNOME, far more than any other project. There is one main reason I can think of. either this, or, bear with me for a second, maybe because GNOME unlike most big OSS projects has people going into issue tracker of other software and asking them to do things specifically for accomodating GNOME at the expense of other DEs (https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/3685 https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/3685 for the most famous example - who the f* says this really: "I guess you have to decide if you are a GNOME app, an Ubuntu app, or an XFCE app unfortunately. I'm sorry that this is the case but it wasn't GNOME's fault that Ubuntu has started this fork. And I have no idea what XFCE is or does sorry. It is my hope that you are a GNOME app. Yes this kind of fragmentation is unfortunate. I'm not happy about it either. Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up. Wish you the best."). Only other project I've ever seen this with is Rust people spamming RIIR issues on gh. Or stuff like this insane thread: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/issues/217 https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/issues/217

QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
There's nothing wrong with that statement though. It's literally true. GNOME, Ubuntu and XFCE all have different APIs that conflict with each other. The situation is a bit better now that Ubuntu dropped Unity but that was a decision they had to make by themselves, GNOME couldn't do anything about it. What else do you expect them to do? Any time Ubuntu or XFCE decides to keep some API that breaks GNOME, or worse, decides to implement some new API, GNOME has to drop their own plans and maintain it forever? That doesn't make any sense no matter which way you look at it. You're shooting at some random GNOME dev for playing the role of messenger instead of addressing the root cause. I also see nothing wrong with the second thread. GNOME is under no obligation to implement features they don't want to implement. You're posting that to push a narrative while ignoring the other hundreds (thousands?) of bugs that get fixed without any fanfare and without the HN crowd throwing a multi-year long tantrum. It's quite frankly embarrassing to see these brought up continually as an attempt to criticize GNOME. You can do better than this for the Linux community.
- traverseda 4y ago
  That's what freedesktop is supposed to be for, figuring out common standard so that multiple desktop environments can work together cleanly.
  - QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
    Freedesktop standards can't include everything, it only makes sense to standardize "lowest common denominator" features that you know every desktop won't have a problem implementing. And since this is all open source and everyone can do whatever they want, participation in freedesktop is voluntary anyway. You can do the best possible job you can writing a standard and some desktop can still reject it for any reason they want.
    - traverseda 4y ago
      Sure, everything's made of and the standards don't matter. Sure, the gnome organization has the right to do whatever they want and no one can force them to do anything. That doesn't make the immune to criticism though. It's they're right to shoot themselves in the foot, to break with freedesktop standard, to ignore community requests. But it's also everyone else's right to say that that kind of behavior is shitty and makes them poor stewards of the project. Sure, I can't prove that their approach is doing immense damage to the "year of the linux desktop", but very rarely do I encounter people in real life who do more than tolerate gnome because it's the default. Sure, no one owes anyone anything and there is no objective "right choice". Once again a post-modern view of truth doesn't make gnome immune to criticism. Why Gnome defenders always jump straight to post modernism when criticism pops up is beyond me.
      - QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
        >Sure, I can't prove that their approach is doing immense damage >that kind of behavior is shitty and makes them poor stewards of the project. This is a perfect example of a useless, substance-free criticism. You can't prove what you're saying, you admit you don't really know what you're talking about, but you're happy to say they're shitty. It's like if you randomly walked into stores and said to the clerk "I can't prove it but you're a shitty person who's bad at your job" and then walked out. That would be like, ok? Do you think anyone is actually going to be motivated by that? Now just imagine you have a little website with your friends for your hobby and someone you don't know does this to you. They come along saying you're shit for not making everything exactly to their personal opinions. Can't you see how this is an awful way to participate in a supportive community? Really now. Repeatedly making the same nonsensical requests and criticisms isn't going to help anyone. If you seriously expect them to improve their project then you should take the same advice: improve your own criticism. Make it so good and so respectful and so helpful they can't ignore your suggestions anymore. Avoid the personal attacks telling someone they're shitty and bad, instead think about how you can support that person and build them up to be better to accomplish great things.

QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago

There's nothing wrong with that statement though. It's literally true. GNOME, Ubuntu and XFCE all have different APIs that conflict with each other. The situation is a bit better now that Ubuntu dropped Unity but that was a decision they had to make by themselves, GNOME couldn't do anything about it. What else do you expect them to do? Any time Ubuntu or XFCE decides to keep some API that breaks GNOME, or worse, decides to implement some new API, GNOME has to drop their own plans and maintain it forever? That doesn't make any sense no matter which way you look at it. You're shooting at some random GNOME dev for playing the role of messenger instead of addressing the root cause. I also see nothing wrong with the second thread. GNOME is under no obligation to implement features they don't want to implement. You're posting that to push a narrative while ignoring the other hundreds (thousands?) of bugs that get fixed without any fanfare and without the HN crowd throwing a multi-year long tantrum. It's quite frankly embarrassing to see these brought up continually as an attempt to criticize GNOME. You can do better than this for the Linux community.

traverseda 4y ago
That's what freedesktop is supposed to be for, figuring out common standard so that multiple desktop environments can work together cleanly.
- QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
  Freedesktop standards can't include everything, it only makes sense to standardize "lowest common denominator" features that you know every desktop won't have a problem implementing. And since this is all open source and everyone can do whatever they want, participation in freedesktop is voluntary anyway. You can do the best possible job you can writing a standard and some desktop can still reject it for any reason they want.
  - traverseda 4y ago
    Sure, everything's made of and the standards don't matter. Sure, the gnome organization has the right to do whatever they want and no one can force them to do anything. That doesn't make the immune to criticism though. It's they're right to shoot themselves in the foot, to break with freedesktop standard, to ignore community requests. But it's also everyone else's right to say that that kind of behavior is shitty and makes them poor stewards of the project. Sure, I can't prove that their approach is doing immense damage to the "year of the linux desktop", but very rarely do I encounter people in real life who do more than tolerate gnome because it's the default. Sure, no one owes anyone anything and there is no objective "right choice". Once again a post-modern view of truth doesn't make gnome immune to criticism. Why Gnome defenders always jump straight to post modernism when criticism pops up is beyond me.
    - QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
      >Sure, I can't prove that their approach is doing immense damage >that kind of behavior is shitty and makes them poor stewards of the project. This is a perfect example of a useless, substance-free criticism. You can't prove what you're saying, you admit you don't really know what you're talking about, but you're happy to say they're shitty. It's like if you randomly walked into stores and said to the clerk "I can't prove it but you're a shitty person who's bad at your job" and then walked out. That would be like, ok? Do you think anyone is actually going to be motivated by that? Now just imagine you have a little website with your friends for your hobby and someone you don't know does this to you. They come along saying you're shit for not making everything exactly to their personal opinions. Can't you see how this is an awful way to participate in a supportive community? Really now. Repeatedly making the same nonsensical requests and criticisms isn't going to help anyone. If you seriously expect them to improve their project then you should take the same advice: improve your own criticism. Make it so good and so respectful and so helpful they can't ignore your suggestions anymore. Avoid the personal attacks telling someone they're shitty and bad, instead think about how you can support that person and build them up to be better to accomplish great things.