I use Linux, macOS, and Windows on a regular basis. I use mostly default settings, only a couple changes. Over time my settings move closer and closer to defaults. I tell people to upgrade their OS (with a couple exceptions). I was on-board with GNOME 3 when it came out (I was an Arch user at the time, but I’m in remission now).
The GTK file chooser dialog is easily the most garbage piece of fucking shit. Honestly, sometimes, if I want to post something online I just copy the file to my Mac first just to avoid dealing with the fucking piece of shit GTK file chooser. If I need to sort through a bunch of files, easier to run Samba and sort through them on my Mac, because Nautilus was scooped out of the same fucking pile of shit than the GTK file chooser was scooped from.
As far as I can tell, the last time that browsing files on macOS really changed was 2007, when 10.5 came out and had Quick Look. Since then, browsing files on Linux has somehow gotten worse. Do you know what it’s like on macOS? Every once in a while, Apple quietly adds support for previewing a couple more formats.
I'm sure there's people here who are long-time contributors and/or supporters. Just ignore me, I'm not your target audience. ... I'm really not sure who your target audience is, though.
I actually have a copy of the book, and it is indeed a good book. The problem is that it somehow empowers GNOME developers to keep creating/maintaining/rewriting broken software, all in the name of "usability".
Holy crap. It reads like a parody written by someone who read this thread and article. I was thinking it couldn't be as bad as people we're saying, but it's worse!
> Free software development is not a democracy, and does not get driven by polls. Features and bugs are introduced by those who show up, within a community that works towards a shared goal.
And it is exactly to let themselves yell that, they work hard to alienate few normal devs left in the project.
I understood now that Gnome 3.0 was from the start Redhat's fully intentional attempt to appropriate the project, and is not dissimilar to Microsoft's embrace, extend, extinguish.
1. Get command of some more abandoned parts of the project.
2. Push a series of guaranteedly unpopular sharp direction changes which will lead to loss of devs.
3. As devs leave, you get more reinforcement to your casus belli, saying that "nobody maintains this pile of garbage, so now I am taking it over too"
Please do not spread these unfounded conspiracy theories. If you are a developer and you don't agree with direction changes, you don't have to work on them, you can work in the direction of your choosing. AFAIK there are numerous forks of GNOME over the years that are still going.
The problem is that GNOME is not just a DE. By virtue of being a project that's used by RedHat and Ubuntu, it's the closest thing to the standard DE that desktop Linux has at the moment.
Worse yet, its developers consciously make design decisions that make it hard to write applications that play well with GNOME without taking a dependency on it - their take on it seems to be that GNOME is a platform, and their main interest is supporting "GNOME apps", even to the detriment of all the rest.
Between these two things, deficiencies in GNOME affect a lot of people who didn't necessarily choose to be affected.
I'm not sure what you expect can be done about that. Every desktop is going to have its own set of features and APIs that other desktops don't. That's what they mean by "platform." Should e.g. KDE developers spend less time working on their own features and start contributing more to GNOME, to make GNOME apps work better in KDE, and vice versa? Maybe, but they would have to take the initiative to do it.
Having unique features is fine, of course. It's when GNOME goes out of its way to make it impossible for DE-agnostic apps to "do the right thing" for ideological reasons, when every other DE supports some kind of lowest common denominator. Here's one famous historical example:
I don't see how that is an example of ideological reasons, or how that contradicts what I said. It seems like exactly what I was saying -- GNOME, Ubuntu and XFCE all have their own separate APIs for things. I've seen that issue posted here and on reddit so many times and I never understood why anyone considers it any more significant than all the other times a random open source project removed a deprecated API or did an incompatible version bump. Yes, I get it, it's frustrating when upstream is a moving target, but that's exactly what he's saying. You can choose to follow the moving target or you can target a platform that moves slower.
And because I have to keep saying this, that is a non-issue now anyway. XFCE supports the new app indicator protocol, and since Ubuntu dropped unity their support for it is available as a standard GNOME extension: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/615/appindicator-supp...
> If you are a developer and you don't agree with direction changes, you don't have to work on them
I would tell the same to Poettering, Clasen, and co.
There is really nobody who obligates them to work on their "innovations" in GNOME with religious zeal if the rest of the project showed no interest, speaking lightly.
If nobody wants to work on their stuff, they can't claim "victimhood" as if that happens as a result of somebody's ill intents.
I have to reference Torvalds vs. SystemD here as an example how Sievers, Poettering, and co. instantly drew up a picture of kernel community being some kind of a bullying ring when the only thing they did to them was to ignore their (bad quality) patches.
I would advise holding off judgement on specific individuals unless you have worked with them closely and you have a deep understanding of why certain decisions were made.
Again, if you are a developer and you disagree with someone's choices, you are free to take it in your own direction. You do not have to work on anybody else's stuff if you don't want.
> I would advise holding off judgement on specific individuals unless you have worked with them closely and you have a deep understanding of why certain decisions were made.
Is this advice meant to be applied against all people, or just other developers? I certainly wouldn't apply this standard to RIAA lawyers suing kids. I judge them to be worms even though I never worked with them. And don't even get me started on politicians, I've never worked with one but I certainly feel entitled to have harsh opinions about some of them.
If the advice is limited in scope to professional peers, then I have to disagree with it; having double standards for people like yourself isn't great advice.
> Is this advice meant to be applied against all people, or just other developers? I certainly wouldn't apply this standard to RIAA lawyers suing kids. I judge them to be worms even though I never worked with them. And don't even get me started on politicians
These developers do not wield power over anyone and they are not filing lawsuits. They are developing code, either as their job, or as volunteers. And in either case, contributing their work as open source.
It might help to take a little perspective before publicly passing judgement on _individuals_ and what you imagine their intentions to be rather than merely judging the merit of their contributions. Those are completely different things.
This advice definitely applies to open source developers whose work is out completely in the open.
You can literally take millions of lines of code that they may have written wholesale, and change a single word in it that you don’t like.
In open source, they have nowhere to hide. If you disagree with a certain decision they have made, you are welcome to take the effort they have put in to implement the hundreds and thousands of other decisions they have made that you do agree with, with a simple “git clone”.
> if you are a developer and you disagree with someone's choices, you are free to take it in your own direction.
That would be best said to persons named above.
They were free to fork GNOME into their touchscreen based imaginary future, and experiment with it even more freely as a minority group, rather than trying to hijack the project, and getting stalled half-way because of popular pushback.
>trying to hijack the project, and getting stalled half-way because of popular pushback
Again, please do not spread these unfounded conspiracy theories. I can explain more what I mean by this, but it seems unlikely you are willing to hear what I have to say. I can tell you if you're trying to convince me to be hostile towards any specific developers for any specific project, I will have to decline to get involved with that. You don't have to resort to character assassination, if you have some ideas on a good technical direction for a project, just make the argument and write the code: people will listen if your arguments are sound and your code works.
This sure seems accurate to me, from what I've personally observed, but I don't understand what motive they might have. What's the point of controlling popular software by making everybody hate it?
> What's the point of controlling popular software by making everybody hate it?
I think, in their view, all comes after taking hold of the project. But here, they got that, and now what? Now, all lofty plans have to meet the cold reality.
It's like a mutunineers on a ship throwing officers overboard, just to realise hours later that they are in the middle of an ocean, and they have no idea how to sail a ship without skilled crew.
I saw that happening in public companies: a single asshole activist with puny few percents of the company keeps throwing big radical decisions onto every shareholder meeting, until he gets everybody so discombobulated, or the company so disfunctional that others either leave the company to him for taking, or he gets a legal casus belli to sue the company to try to wreck it further, and then seize it.
For such people, it doesn't matter if the company in question dies, as long as they come out with gain. Some are plainly idiots with too much legal education, and some are genuine degenerates doing it with full knowledge of consequences.
Does GNOME really bring in much paid support momey? In the past I have worked at a company that did have RHEL5 workstations with GNOME by default, but everybody I knew treated that as a joke and sshed into the workstations from their (Windows) Thinkpads or Macbooks. The desktop software on those workstations was unwanted and unused.
A lot of people like it. Just because there are old timers that cannot move past gnome 2 it do not mean that Gnome 3 is bad. It faster and more polished that KDE. Workspace management and screen real estate is supierior to anything I used.
I believe the 'graying of GNOME' discussed here a few weeks ago is evidence that fewer and fewer people like GNOME each year. New developers would naturally be drawn from the ranks of enthusiastic users. (Why would a developer volunteer their labor for software they don't use and care about?) The graying of GNOME shows that the pool of enthusiastic users has been shrinking since GNOME 3. That's about when GNOME tipped over the edge and started losing developers faster than it gained new ones. The missing new developers would be new developers, not old timers. If it were only old timers who feel alienated, I wouldn't expect GNOME to have trouble recruiting new developers.
Gnome 3 is default for most popular distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, Debian etc) If anything gnome is getting more popular thanks to Ubuntu switching.
There fewer people contributing because programming in C is no longer fun or hip. It is not Gnome problem but the whole Linux ecosystem. Gnome is slowly adopting rust but the core framework is still C. There is plenty of active forks of Gnome2 people can contribute there.
Screw Red Hat, the amound of crapware and bad attitudes coming from them is astounding. And of course, since they have big bucks, it gets shoved down everyones' throats.
The GTK file chooser dialog is easily the most garbage piece of fucking shit. Honestly, sometimes, if I want to post something online I just copy the file to my Mac first just to avoid dealing with the fucking piece of shit GTK file chooser. If I need to sort through a bunch of files, easier to run Samba and sort through them on my Mac, because Nautilus was scooped out of the same fucking pile of shit than the GTK file chooser was scooped from.
As far as I can tell, the last time that browsing files on macOS really changed was 2007, when 10.5 came out and had Quick Look. Since then, browsing files on Linux has somehow gotten worse. Do you know what it’s like on macOS? Every once in a while, Apple quietly adds support for previewing a couple more formats.