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 541819
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Why not use Qt?
by segedunum on Sat 10th Nov 2012 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why not use Qt?"
Member since:

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 afraid you're trying to split hairs now in order to avoid the main point - it's a pile of crap that does very little that a minority of the minority use.

Ergo, you don't matter.

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 have no idea what that means, but put simply Firefox and LibreOffice have features people want, Epiphany and and GOffice don't. Very simple.

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

I'm afraid you made that very clear when you started talking claptrap about being able to shave milliseconds of response time off by using LXDE - having spent quite a bit of money on hardware and 16GB of RAM no less. You just don't matter I'm afraid.

There are several reasons I run LXDE:

Don't care. You're a minority of a minority.

Don't conflate being lightweight with being unnecessarily rigid.

Ahhhhh, there we have 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.

I'm not talking about your needs here. You're a minority of a minority. If that work for you great, but you're a very small minority nonetheless.

Do you see me as some kind of threat to your preferences or something?

I hardly think so. My point is that this is the same claptrap that has been espoused by users and developers of Linux desktops for ten years.

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.

GTK has made a decision that they can't possibly please everyone. They just don't have the manpower to maintain it properly.

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.

Great. However, you've missed the point that you are not important here.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Why not use Qt?
by ssokolow on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Why not use Qt?"
ssokolow Member since:

And now you're resorting to the adult version of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "na na na na na"... coupled with an ad hominem dismissal.

I can still see a lot of avenues I could take to further my argument, but you're obviously too attached to your view of who I am, what I want, and the state of GTK+ so I'm not going to waste time talking to a brick wall.

Reply Parent Score: 2