Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:54 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Gnome "Theme development is a tedious and difficult task, and for the GTK devs to be so careless in breaking their API at every turn disrespects the many hours people put into making themes for it. [...] I was given to believe that this breakage stems from a Microsoft-like climate of preventing users from customizing their systems, and deliberately breaking the work of others so that your 'brand' is the best. Anytime I hear the word 'brand' being used in Linux, I know something valuable is being poisoned." I find the tone of this one a bit too harsh and overly negative at times, but his point still stands.
Thread beginning with comment 541668
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why not use Qt?
by ssokolow on Fri 9th Nov 2012 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not use Qt?"
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

I'm sure KDE and Qt developers could do lightweight apps to shave some imperceptible time off for you, but then they would take longer to develop and wouldn't have any features anyone using a desktop would care about. LXDE is basically just a window manager. If it wasn't more people would be using it, but they aren't.


You obviously don't know much about LXDE. I suggest examining the categorized (core, accessories, system, configuration) list of components at http://wiki.lxde.org/en/Main_Page before making that claim.

...and even if the combination of Plasma, KWin, Dolphin, and friends didn't induce noticeable slow-downs that doesn't change the fact that the maintainership of GTK+ is the problem and the UI design philosophy for things like Amarok and Gwenview does an inferior job of meeting my goals compared to applications like Audacious and Geeqie which happen to be written using GTK+ (and which also happen to be more lightweight).

Edited 2012-11-09 17:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Why not use Qt?
by segedunum on Fri 9th Nov 2012 19:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not use Qt?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You obviously don't know much about LXDE.

I'm afraid I do - and XFCE. It looks and feels like what it is - a mid-to-late nineties post-CDE, barely-better-than-a-window-manager, not-quite-a-desktop that even a small minority of Linux desktop users use. Now that is small. Ditto XFCE.

There's a reason they are used by a minority and only by those who believe they can see miniscule time delays on extremely modern hardware and believe that if they run it on modern hardware it will be blazzzzing fast. Or something.

...and even if the combination of Plasma, KWin, Dolphin, and friends didn't induce noticeable slow-downs

People are not going to trade features and functionality for your perception of 'slowdowns' I'm afraid.

Many Linux desktop people, and especially those around Gnome and GTK, take the 80/20 rule as to why you just don't need all those features and why you should choose something 'lightweight'. Alas, the problem is it is never the same 20% of features that people use.

They don't even define lightweight either, but they don't tell you what it is - software that looks like arse and does less.

...that doesn't change the fact that the maintainership of GTK+ is the problem...

What I find ironic is that you clearly love 'lightweight software' but GTK itself has chosen to be more and more 'lightweight' - and you don't like that.

...UI design philosophy for things like Amarok and Gwenview does an inferior job of meeting my goals compared to applications like Audacious and Geeqie which happen to be written using GTK+ (and which also happen to be more lightweight).

That's good - for you.

Ever see any software companies marketing 'lightweight' software, 'lightweight' word processors or 'lightweight web browsers? No? That's because there isn't a market for software with less features and with the tagline 'lightweight'. You just don't see it.

Reviews of such software generally go along the lines of "Well, it seemed to load up fast but it just doesn't have this feature that I need. If it implements that then I might use it". Stories like that are a penny a dozen and are as old as graphical user interfaces themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Why not use Qt?
by ssokolow on Fri 9th Nov 2012 21:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Why not use Qt?"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

I'm afraid I do - and XFCE. It looks and feels like what it is - a mid-to-late nineties post-CDE, barely-better-than-a-window-manager, not-quite-a-desktop that even a small minority of Linux desktop users use. Now that is small. Ditto XFCE.


In other words, you're redefining "barely more than a window manager" to include any desktop which doesn't provide its own re-invention of every application users commonly want? Nice way to move the goalposts.

I'm honestly curious how you reconcile the fact that so many people pretend Epiphany and GOffice don't exist and use Firefox and LibreOffice instead.

I'm willing to consider LXDE "minimalist" compared to GNOME and KDE but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what is barely more than a WM... especially since I strongly agree with the LXDE view that good applications rely on standards to be featureful without tying themselves too strongly to one desktop.

GQView isn't "part of" any desktop but, for my needs, it's superior to every DE-provided image viewer in existence.

Balkanizing desktop components just works to kill off one of Linux's greatest strengths.

There's a reason they are used by a minority and only by those who believe they can see miniscule time delays on extremely modern hardware and believe that if they run it on modern hardware it will be blazzzzing fast. Or something.


It's very obvious that you have an impression of who I am and you're just twisting my words to fit it.

There are several reasons I run LXDE:

1. most importantly, the only reason I have a shiny, fast computer is because my motherboard and video card failed earlier this year and I got a bundle deal on a new mobo, CPU. and memory.

If my time hadn't been more valuable than the money I paid, I'd probably have sourced a replacement mobo, 1GiB DDR2 DIMM and some capacitors and still be willingly remaining on an Athlon64 X2 5000+ with 4GiB of RAM (I use VirtualBox) and a GeForce 7600GS... both bought at least five years ago when they were state of the art.

When I get better hardware, I expect to be able to do more with it, not do the same things with a few new animations and fewer features because the developers lack discipline. (Hence why I actually test my desktop on an old 2Ghz Celeron every 6 months and make any adjustments necessary to keep the system requirements down)

I think the only upgrade which I actually considered warranted was the GPU upgrade and only because the old GeForce 7600GS couldn't use VDPAU to allow the Athlon64 X2 5000+ to play 1080p video.

2. with Trinity (the KDE 3 fork) being apparently too under-manned to implement things like the XDG Icon Naming spec, PCManFM is the most comfortable file manager I find practical. (I've already mentioned that Konqueror 4 gained some issues in the process of being ported to Qt 4)

3. Plasma actually cannot do certain things I liked in Kicker. (eg. Having one big activity span both monitors so my taskbar widget can span smoothly across.) Why should I run a heavier desktop when I don't use the features it adds and do want a feature it removed?

4. Aside from the Aero Snap clone, KWin 4 doesn't offer me any advantages over Openbox and I'd already written and grown used to a basic WinSplit Revolution clone by the time they added it.

5. I use Vim for my programmer's text editor and LibreOffice for my office suite. Kate/GEdit, KDevelop/Geany, and KOffice/Calligra/AbiWord/Gnumeric are not applicable.

6. Vim loads faster than KWrite or GEdit, gives me more of the functionality I desire, and, when I don't need syntax highlighting, Leafpad loads in under 500ms.

7. I play my videos in bare MPlayer with no GUI beyond the playback surface. Why waste space and CPU on GUI widgets when I do everything with keybinds anyway?

8. Beyond that, my motto is "right tool for the job, no matter where it comes from". I run K3b because it's the best combination of stability and comfort, Filelight or ncdu depending on what I want since Baobab doesn't know the meaning of "cached results", etc. etc. etc.

People are not going to trade features and functionality for your perception of 'slowdowns' I'm afraid.


That depends. My mother runs LXDE because she never saw the point in GUIs like Unity and my brother just switched to LXDE in the last few months for reasons similar to mine. (It does everything he needs of it... more quickly)

Many Linux desktop people, and especially those around Gnome and GTK, take the 80/20 rule as to why you just don't need all those features and why you should choose something 'lightweight'. Alas, the problem is it is never the same 20% of features that people use.


Exactly why I couldn't even stand GNOME 2.x. Their 20% of features people "actually need" are very different from mine.

They don't even define lightweight either, but they don't tell you what it is - software that looks like arse and does less.


Ok, now that's just an attempt at provocation.

I'll admit Vim can look ugly at times, but everything else I use looks great and is, if anything, MORE featureful than the DE-bundled stuff.

For example, I challenge you to find ANY Linux media player that's still being maintained that'll play my esoteric chiptune and Amiga module formats as well as Audacious.

...or Geeqie. Sure, things like Gwenview look very fancy, but try quickly spinning your scroll wheel to skim through a bunch of images until you find the one you want. I've never found anything with such well-written asynchronous image loading.

While you're spinning away, Geeqie may or may not be able to finish loading the images, but you're guaranteed to at least see a glimpse of the top of each image.

Gwenview fakes that kind of performance by skipping images if your scroll events start to pile up.

I could go on all day.

What I find ironic is that you clearly love 'lightweight software' but GTK itself has chosen to be more and more 'lightweight' - and you don't like that.


Don't conflate being lightweight with being unnecessarily rigid.

As I said before, I'm not satisfied with my desktop look and feel being limited to "big fat widgets: light" or "big fat widgets: dark" just because the GNOME devs think everyone either wants a touchscreen or has money to burn on ever bigger monitors.

I can personally vouch for the fact that both GTK+ 1.x and Qt 3.x are capable of high-performance theming and GTK+ 2.x had no problem offering a stable API, so whoever's developing GTK+ 3.x is either irresponsible or incompetent.

Ever see any software companies marketing 'lightweight' software, 'lightweight' word processors or 'lightweight web browsers? No? That's because there isn't a market for software with less features and with the tagline 'lightweight'. You just don't see it.


Given that you leaped on my mention of the word "lightweight" and brushed off my comment about them fitting my needs better, I get the impression you misinterpreted my phrasing.

When I said that Geeqie and Audacious fit my needs best, that was the primary point. The point in parentheses was simply that tools manage to exist which do that while also being lighter than GNOME or KDE offerings.

Do you see me as some kind of threat to your preferences or something? Because all I'm trying to do is argue that, since GNOME can't possibly please everyone, the diversity fostered by stable GTK+ APIs is a good thing.

I'm perfectly happy with the tools I have. All I want is for them to stay alive, well, and part of a healthy ecosystem.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Why not use Qt?
by zima on Fri 9th Nov 2012 22:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Why not use Qt?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

LXDE [...] looks and feels like what it is - a mid-to-late nineties post-CDE, barely-better-than-a-window-manager, not-quite-a-desktop that even a small minority of Linux desktop users use. Now that is small. Ditto XFCE.
There's a reason they are used by a minority and only by those who believe they can see miniscule time delays on extremely modern hardware and believe that if they run it on modern hardware it will be blazzzzing fast. Or something.
People are not going to trade features and functionality for your perception of 'slowdowns' I'm afraid.
[...] 80/20 rule [...] the problem is it is never the same 20% of features that people use.
They don't even define lightweight either, but they don't tell you what it is - software that looks like arse and does less.

All linux desktops are used by a small minority - much closer to themselves than to the big boys.


Anyway, I'm not using desktop environments, I'm using applications; DE needs to just get out of the way.
Apps should be loosely integrated, so I can choose what I consider the best full-featured combination, and not on the basis of their relation to particular DE.
^it's perfectly valid approach, /me thinks...

Also, there are older computers out there. For example, a mini-webcafe at one institute was set up with old, surplus machines - just for browsing and ~office. For quite some time, they were running KDE 3.x (and OpenOffice, not KOffice...). But KDE 4.x was a bit overkill; now they run LXDE just fine - BTW, similarity to Windows is a desired trait.

And you know, there's one saying about opinions and arses :p

Ever see any software companies marketing 'lightweight' software, 'lightweight' word processors or 'lightweight web browsers? No? That's because there isn't a market for software with less features and with the tagline 'lightweight'. You just don't see it.

~Marketing surrounding for example Opera often goes in that direction. BTW, it's a rather full-featured browser...
(though yeah, the market seems limited; but Opera does see decent success in CIS, where machines tend to be older/slower; and a significant success in mobile, where the handsets are often very slow)
But Chrome and Firefox were also marketed similarly, at one point or another. And browser is one of most significant apps used by people nowadays.

Reply Parent Score: 2