This is crazy -- not what mpv did; what GNOME did to make them do that. It sucks because GTK is a pretty toolkit, but honestly QT is just as nice, especially if the system has mostly QT programs.
This is crazy -- not what mpv did; what GNOME did to make them do that. It sucks because GTK is a pretty toolkit, but honestly QT is just as nice, especially if the system has mostly QT programs.
As an end user of GNOME, what is all this ranting about non-GNOME apps? I have zero issue using VLC, Spotify, Telegram, or Steam (the four non-GTK apps I have on my system) on GNOME, either...
As an end user of GNOME, what is all this ranting about non-GNOME apps? I have zero issue using VLC, Spotify, Telegram, or Steam (the four non-GTK apps I have on my system) on GNOME, either Wayland or X11.
Especially the tone of this link just seems like someone with an axe to grind againstGNOME:
wm4 later, in a moment of weakness, reverted the commit and replaced the code with a far less based version that only warns GNOME users that they are using a platform developed by egomaniac developers who have no regard for their users or developers of non-GNOME free software
With attitudes like this, is it any surprise that the GNOME team is starting to treat it as its own platform?
I can say as a user that I appreciate the GNOME team's vision, and that (for me) there isn't a desktop that comes close in usability. I'd say these non-GNOME devs have just as much of an ego as the ones they're accusing, honestly.
EDIT: Also, this site has some... questionable, at best articles. I'm hesitant to think it represents much of the Linux community outside of the /r/linux shitposters that come out of the woodwork on topics like CoCs.
I think they definitely have an axe to grind :) They are trying to get GNOME to support a set of interfaces that all other Desktop Environments already do and get them to adhere to a standard. I...
Especially the tone of this link just seems like someone with an axe to grind againsg GNOME
I think they definitely have an axe to grind :) They are trying to get GNOME to support a set of interfaces that all other Desktop Environments already do and get them to adhere to a standard.
With attitudes like this, is it any surprise that the GNOME team is starting to treat it as its own platform?
I think you are inverting the timeline here. These attitudes are from developers who are frustrated with GNOME teams behavior.
I'd say these non-GNOME devs have just as much of an ego as the ones they're accusing, honestly.
?? I am not sure where you got egos of developers in play here and am not sure why is this an issue? They are all working on open-source software. Most of us working on open-source software don't care about egos. We are trying to build something that people can use. GNOME is making that harder.
The crux of this issue is this:
The GNOME projects unique blindness to the world outside of that toxic cesspool means that free software developers, and commercial developers, are forced to choose between two bad choices: They can either do a lot of extra work to make the software work under GNOME, even though it already works fine with all the other desktop environments, or drop GNOME support. mpv has finally had enough of their nonsense and gone with the "drop GNOME support" option.
PS: Also the apps you mentioned are fairly large (vlc) or commercial (steam) projects who have the man-power to write the extra code needed to run on GNOME, or are using frameworks (signal, spotify) like electron or CEF, which do a lot of work to make sure applications built using them run on GNOME. It doesn't change the fact that GNOME is still a non-standard environment that needs a lot of extra work from developers!
Edit:
I can say as a user that I appreciate the GNOME team's vision, and that (for me) there isn't a desktop that comes close in usability.
No one is asking GNOME to change their vision or build an inferior product here. What these developers are asking are for GNOME is to adhere to the API that are exposed by window environments; this in no way changes how GNOME works for the end user.
Think of this like all the extra work web developers had to do to make their website work correctly on IE several (cough) years ago. At the end of the day, the website would work the same in whatever browser the end-user wanted to see the site in. But it was a lot more work for the devs to support IE. [1], [2]
I mean, given it's default on most of the major distros, I'd argue that GNOME is the closest to a de facto "standard" environment on a desktop Linux system as is. It's the development version of...
I mean, given it's default on most of the major distros, I'd argue that GNOME is the closest to a de facto "standard" environment on a desktop Linux system as is.
It's the development version of the true meaning of "the customer is always right" --if the users you want are on a certain DE/OS/whatever, then that's the "standard" you need to aim for, or make something so utterly amazing/useful that it meets all their needs enough to move to where you want them to be (far more unlikely).
That's not a great argument. Internet Explorer is the default browser on the OS with the major market-share. (see my edit from my previous post) Also, there is an actual standard that exists. If...
I mean, given it's default on most of the major distros, I'd argue that GNOME is the closest to a de facto "standard" environment on a desktop Linux system as is.
That's not a great argument.
Internet Explorer is the default browser on the OS with the major market-share. (see my edit from my previous post)
Also, there is an actual standard that exists. If GNOME wants to build another one, that's fine.
Doesn't change the fact that is being argued by this post. which is that the developers at the end of the day have to write more code to support GNOME.
It's the development version of the true meaning of "the customer is always right" --if the users you want are on a certain DE/OS/whatever, then that's the "standard" you need to aim for if you want users.
We are talking about FOSS. The developers can choose to support what DE they want. Developers of mpv here have had enough and made a post announcing why they will not support GNOME. Users are free to choose what application/DE they want to use.
This is wrong. They support wayland properly. There's some people pushing for the optional ssd extension but it is just that. But they are. Supporting the ssd wayland extension is effectively...
It doesn't change the fact that GNOME is still a non-standard environment that needs a lot of extra work from developers!
This is wrong. They support wayland properly. There's some people pushing for the optional ssd extension but it is just that.
No one is asking GNOME to change their vision or build an inferior product here. What these developers are asking are for GNOME is to adhere to the API that are exposed by window environments; this in no way changes how GNOME works for the end user.
But they are. Supporting the ssd wayland extension is effectively breaking the wayland model and requires additional work that they have no intention to ever use.
Most of the developers of the GNOME desktop environment have the strange idea that GNOME is somehow a "platform" that is separate from, and not a part of, the overall GNU/Linux ecosystem. One direct result of this self-isolation has been the regular breakage of non-GNOME software when it is running in GNOME. This has affected free software project like mpv
This is crazy -- not what mpv did; what GNOME did to make them do that. It sucks because GTK is a pretty toolkit, but honestly QT is just as nice, especially if the system has mostly QT programs.
As an end user of GNOME, what is all this ranting about non-GNOME apps? I have zero issue using VLC, Spotify, Telegram, or Steam (the four non-GTK apps I have on my system) on GNOME, either Wayland or X11.
Especially the tone of this link just seems like someone with an axe to grind againstGNOME:
With attitudes like this, is it any surprise that the GNOME team is starting to treat it as its own platform?
I can say as a user that I appreciate the GNOME team's vision, and that (for me) there isn't a desktop that comes close in usability. I'd say these non-GNOME devs have just as much of an ego as the ones they're accusing, honestly.
EDIT: Also, this site has some... questionable, at best articles. I'm hesitant to think it represents much of the Linux community outside of the /r/linux shitposters that come out of the woodwork on topics like CoCs.
I think they definitely have an axe to grind :) They are trying to get GNOME to support a set of interfaces that all other Desktop Environments already do and get them to adhere to a standard.
I think you are inverting the timeline here. These attitudes are from developers who are frustrated with GNOME teams behavior.
?? I am not sure where you got egos of developers in play here and am not sure why is this an issue? They are all working on open-source software. Most of us working on open-source software don't care about egos. We are trying to build something that people can use. GNOME is making that harder.
The crux of this issue is this:
PS: Also the apps you mentioned are fairly large (vlc) or commercial (steam) projects who have the man-power to write the extra code needed to run on GNOME, or are using frameworks (signal, spotify) like electron or CEF, which do a lot of work to make sure applications built using them run on GNOME. It doesn't change the fact that GNOME is still a non-standard environment that needs a lot of extra work from developers!
Edit:
No one is asking GNOME to change their vision or build an inferior product here. What these developers are asking are for GNOME is to adhere to the API that are exposed by window environments; this in no way changes how GNOME works for the end user.
Think of this like all the extra work web developers had to do to make their website work correctly on IE several (cough) years ago. At the end of the day, the website would work the same in whatever browser the end-user wanted to see the site in. But it was a lot more work for the devs to support IE. [1], [2]
I mean, given it's default on most of the major distros, I'd argue that GNOME is the closest to a de facto "standard" environment on a desktop Linux system as is.
It's the development version of the true meaning of "the customer is always right" --if the users you want are on a certain DE/OS/whatever, then that's the "standard" you need to aim for, or make something so utterly amazing/useful that it meets all their needs enough to move to where you want them to be (far more unlikely).
That's not a great argument.
Internet Explorer is the default browser on the OS with the major market-share. (see my edit from my previous post)
Also, there is an actual standard that exists. If GNOME wants to build another one, that's fine.
Doesn't change the fact that is being argued by this post. which is that the developers at the end of the day have to write more code to support GNOME.
We are talking about FOSS. The developers can choose to support what DE they want. Developers of
mpvhere have had enough and made a post announcing why they will not support GNOME. Users are free to choose what application/DE they want to use.This is wrong. They support wayland properly. There's some people pushing for the optional ssd extension but it is just that.
But they are. Supporting the ssd wayland extension is effectively breaking the wayland model and requires additional work that they have no intention to ever use.