| >Your assumption that everyone cares about this is false, there's no "misconceptions" here. The only misconception is the one that GNOME is the center of the Linux universe... which is tacitly untrue. I never said that everyone cares about this, nor did I say that GNOME is the center of the Linux universe, not sure where you got either of those from. I agree those statements are not true. However, developers of some apps do care that their apps are broken by themes. If you want to make your fonts 15% less viewable that's fine, I'll be happy to give you tips on how to do that, but you deserve to know about the technical issues with that and why it causes enough trouble that app developers don't want to support it. Just my opinion: impeding the accessibility of your system and manually compiling all your apps just because of a perceived slight against some developers is a bad idea. >GNOME is an extension of a modular system, one that was also designed to be built upon to create better experiences. GNOME once also shared that sentiment of modularity So this is a misconception, theming was always buggy and really badly supported in both GTK2 and GTK3, and considered mostly a hack. It kind of worked if people kept updating the themes constantly but it was a really bad uphill battle. You can continue hacking things that way if you want, but I expect some app developers will try to discourage you from doing it because eventually it really only becomes a source of bugs with no benefit to the user. Personally I also would do discourage you from that if you're trying to accomplish a specific goal with these platforms besides just messing with the font contrast, it could be a lot more productive if you wanted to work on a more robust way of doing things. But it's really up to you, I can only present you an option of what to do and then you have to decide for yourself. >You'll never install it without having another, feature-complete package manager operating alongside it. This is true for a lot of distros, but Flatpak isn't just a package manager. >Flatpak tries doing a hundred things, and can't do a single one better than another, dedicated tool. There is no argument here. Flatpak is not, cannot, and will never be considered a real package manager. It's a second-class supplement at best, and abhorrent bloatware when it stops working properly. I'd advise against this type of strong rhetoric, it's easy to make these hyperbolic flourishes but what you've said isn't really true and lacks any facts to back it up. The underlying technologies (mostly ostree and bwrap) are pretty generic and are dedicated tools by themselves, Flatpak just puts those together with some repos. You could use those tools alone if you wanted. I'd agree that Flatpak would be pretty redundant if other package managers used ostree and could access its repos, but currently they cannot. It provides something different than your distro package manager. |