5 ms·

I feel a lot of sympathy for the GNOME developers. They are 15 years past the "let's build something cool!" stage and into the long, long grind of support and c

I feel a lot of sympathy for the GNOME developers. They are 15 years past the "let's build something cool!" stage and into the long, long grind of support and compatibility and being expected to work everywhere all the time. As an outsider, it looks like all the cool kids moved on a long time ago so it's basically just people too stubborn to quit working on it and a few paid devs trying to make something happen with pretty limited resources. That said, as a developer I have basically had enough of GNOME, and I'm porting my personal projects to ImGUI. Does it integrate in the desktop? Not really. Is it pretty? No. It just is what it is (a library for GUI app development) and it doesn't try to be everything else that GNOME does.

cweiske2 2y ago
> into the long, long grind of support and compatibility They are not. I can't count how often the gnome shell extensions broke with each new minor version.
mook 2y ago
It sounds like an alternative where they just don't pretend they support the thing the don't support was proposed, and shot down because that means they won't show up in UI that only lists things that support the thing? … And they also control the UI in question?
chris_wot 2y ago
I have no sympathy for them. They implement a spec and make a big song and dance about being open and standards friendly... and then when they don't implement the standard correctly they say they have implemented it correctly, argue about it and then when they are proven incorrect they just close the ticket, even though they could make small changes to fix the problem. They are just arrogant.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  https://youtu.be/gT9F4qHoYlg https://youtu.be/gT9F4qHoYlg They chose violence. They chose to copy Apple; they chose to go all in on the horrible idea of Convergence, where you have one monitor, and it's a touch screen (and if you don't, you're a second class citizen stuck in the old ways of using, y'know, an actual computer). Modern GTK removes ever more features and has wording like "tap" and "swipe", basically telling you it expects you to be a mobile developer. Everything gets more complex, more poorly documented, and more rigid, and the only thing they tell you is it's gonna happen more, and more often. If you ask them how to do something GNOME doesn't expect -- like remove rounded corners from your GTK window, they straight up tell you you're stupid for wanting to. Sympathetic lurkers don't know but try to offer some shots in the dark. Later, you figure out it's quite easy -- just undocumented, and the GNOME devs didn't wanna tell you. :D It's no wonder all GTK apps are toy apps compared to Qt apps and that many projects are switching from GTK to Qt, and never the other way around. Good riddance. https://youtu.be/uDjISuhSxDc https://youtu.be/uDjISuhSxDc
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    At this point, I'm quite used to it. I don't worry about it too much, eventually they'll make a huge mistake and Gnome will become completely unusable and then their potential user-share will crater even further. And noone will be terribly upset.
Intralexical 2y ago
> I feel a lot of sympathy for the GNOME developers. They are 15 years past the "let's build something cool!" stage and into the long, long grind of support and compatibility and being expected to work everywhere all the time. They don't have to do that, you know. In fact, it's a pretty common complaint that it's rather difficult for new contributors to get involved with them stonewalling issue discussions and merge requests. Volunteering is voluntary. They don't deserve sympathy for actively inflicting that onto both themselves and everybody else.
cullmann 2y ago
I as Kate maintainer can not understand their position in that bug. I see that one might forget about the implications of that rename, but now it got reported and the fix would be, at least the simple one, to just keep the old icons for these names. That would have zero bad impact on 'modern GNOME apps'.
- Intralexical 2y ago
  That would make sense if they cared about solving the issue. Rather than about proving they're right and showing they're in control. The specific issue and facts don't actually matter. Y'all said something that was different from what they were already doing/thinking, therefore, you must be wrong.

cweiske2 2y ago

> into the long, long grind of support and compatibility They are not. I can't count how often the gnome shell extensions broke with each new minor version.

mook 2y ago

It sounds like an alternative where they just don't pretend they support the thing the don't support was proposed, and shot down because that means they won't show up in UI that only lists things that support the thing? … And they also control the UI in question?

chris_wot 2y ago

I have no sympathy for them. They implement a spec and make a big song and dance about being open and standards friendly... and then when they don't implement the standard correctly they say they have implemented it correctly, argue about it and then when they are proven incorrect they just close the ticket, even though they could make small changes to fix the problem. They are just arrogant.

shrimp_emoji 2y ago
https://youtu.be/gT9F4qHoYlg https://youtu.be/gT9F4qHoYlg They chose violence. They chose to copy Apple; they chose to go all in on the horrible idea of Convergence, where you have one monitor, and it's a touch screen (and if you don't, you're a second class citizen stuck in the old ways of using, y'know, an actual computer). Modern GTK removes ever more features and has wording like "tap" and "swipe", basically telling you it expects you to be a mobile developer. Everything gets more complex, more poorly documented, and more rigid, and the only thing they tell you is it's gonna happen more, and more often. If you ask them how to do something GNOME doesn't expect -- like remove rounded corners from your GTK window, they straight up tell you you're stupid for wanting to. Sympathetic lurkers don't know but try to offer some shots in the dark. Later, you figure out it's quite easy -- just undocumented, and the GNOME devs didn't wanna tell you. :D It's no wonder all GTK apps are toy apps compared to Qt apps and that many projects are switching from GTK to Qt, and never the other way around. Good riddance. https://youtu.be/uDjISuhSxDc https://youtu.be/uDjISuhSxDc
- chris_wot 2y ago
  At this point, I'm quite used to it. I don't worry about it too much, eventually they'll make a huge mistake and Gnome will become completely unusable and then their potential user-share will crater even further. And noone will be terribly upset.

Intralexical 2y ago

> I feel a lot of sympathy for the GNOME developers. They are 15 years past the "let's build something cool!" stage and into the long, long grind of support and compatibility and being expected to work everywhere all the time. They don't have to do that, you know. In fact, it's a pretty common complaint that it's rather difficult for new contributors to get involved with them stonewalling issue discussions and merge requests. Volunteering is voluntary. They don't deserve sympathy for actively inflicting that onto both themselves and everybody else.

cullmann 2y ago

I as Kate maintainer can not understand their position in that bug. I see that one might forget about the implications of that rename, but now it got reported and the fix would be, at least the simple one, to just keep the old icons for these names. That would have zero bad impact on 'modern GNOME apps'.

Intralexical 2y ago
That would make sense if they cared about solving the issue. Rather than about proving they're right and showing they're in control. The specific issue and facts don't actually matter. Y'all said something that was different from what they were already doing/thinking, therefore, you must be wrong.