QUrprUd1nCeicw

13 ms·

91.
by 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
92.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
That's the way it is with any optional X11 or Wayland extension. Either you implement the extension yourself, or you use a library to implement it for you. Typically the code to do this is put in a toolkit, but you decided to write you
93.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
No, this particular "reputation" you're referring to is a lie and a fabrication based on nothing, in order to push a narrative. I mean you literally just walked it back right now, in literally the same sentence. The people ch
94.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
Yeah that's fine if you prefer the default KDE workflow. If you prefer a different workflow, you have to either spend a lot of time configuring it, or use something else.
95.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
No it really doesn't. I've seen tons of Qt themes that break apps. Their theming system is similar to the design of GTK's, so it has most of the same problems. This isn't a technical problem, it's entirely a social
96.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
Cinnamon is also way behind on the tech. They're still stuck on GTK3 and X11. The resources going to KDE to reduce jankiness is only going to KDE. It isn't going to GNOME. I can't see why you think that would have any effect
97.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
The change may be in areas you don't see. Refactoring is something visible only to developers but it has to be done continuously to be able to pay down tech debt. FYI dbus is also used by KDE, XFCE and MATE. Please avoid making more cr
98.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
All of those alternatives are notorious for having a release schedule slower than molasses, or for having outdated tech, or for having a lot of bugs. That's the price you pay, nothing is for free in this world. You mentioned they had m
99.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
It's not healthy to find yourself getting angry at decisions made by random open source projects. I really doubt anyone working on that has as strong opinions as you on what the file picker looks like, or they would have written one th
100.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
Did you actually bother reading any of the arguments on that page? They don't want distros to use themes because themes always break apps. This is unavoidable. There's no practical way to make those kind of themes in a way that wo
101.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
That user isn't mythical. I'm a developer and I like GNOME's simplifications. I prefer to spend less time messing about with my window manager and more time actually, you know, developing. If you ask me, the idea that technic
102.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
>Commercial developers who don't personally use GNOME at home and only only work on it because it's their job. You're acting like this is a bad thing but that's how open source is supposed to work. Every contributor w
103.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
>This is all assuming you want to use DBus. Why? Wayland is already the thing that you speak to talk to the display server. Why use another protocol for basic functions like this? You have this completely backwards. Dbus was already stan
104.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
>The Gnome people seem to seriously just go around removing options because deleting working code used by actual humans makes them feel more powerful They do it because open source projects don't have infinite resources to maintain
105.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
>It doesn't violate the letter of the GPL, but it sure as hell violates the spirit. No it doesn't. The spirit of the GPL is essentially "do whatever you want with this as long as you keep distributing the source code.&quot
106.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
Then maybe you should use one of those projects instead of GNOME? What's the problem here?
107.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
That "reputation" is complete nonsense. Outside of HN (and a few other places with low-quality moderation) I don't see anyone trying to push that "reputation" as a narrative. GNOME has no other option but to dismiss
108.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
Applications shouldn't use libwayland directly unless you're planning to implement your own toolkit and event loop and threading abstraction yourself. It's certainly a take to do things in the most complex way and then compla
109.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
>Basically GNOME is living in and pushing a world where there's only GNOME. No, that's false. I can't see why you'd even think that. GNOME wouldn't be using Wayland at all if that were true. GNOME uses standards
110.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
That's not a good comparison. To get a full picture, you have to compare the X server, all the Xorg drivers, the X client libraries, the X utilities, all the different X window managers and compositors, all the code from alternate X se
111.
by QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
>you either have to add GTK as a dependency to get the "correct looking" titlebars or spend useful development time writing shitty, non-native looking window decorations just for GNOME users That's a false dilemma. You don
112.
by 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 decisi