Debian server running on the old stable kernel 
1 Like
Libadwaita is...
2 Likes
GNOME / libadwaita · GitLab here? Some a code project.
OK then POP OS working on some GUI Rust
Rust vs C++ | Which is Better and Why? - YouTube
well, put! 
1 Like
I'm sorry about perceived toxicity but I feel some bubbles needs to be burst. I kind of say things how they are, didn't even mention anyone specific either.
What I said is pretty legitimate
Here is the actual history of what has happened between pop and gnome, written by brainblasted on the fediverse
https://blogs.gnome.org/christopherdavis/2021/11/10/system76-how-not-to-collaborate/
I think it makes system76 look pretty petty
We are both entitled disagree. I'm not too worried about what you said. So no problems there.
According to Chris Davis, who you link to, he says this:
Let me clear this up immediately: nothing about the theming infrastructure has changed in GTK itself between GTK3 and GTK4. The only changes are listed in the migration guide, and are mostly removed or replaced GTK-specific CSS functions. All the changes that have caused controversy have to do with libadwaita.
You might have seen some people bring up two particular issues as counterpoints to this:
What do those two issues mean? Well, it means that the GTK team thinks that these particular issues are better handled in platform libraries. This does not mean only libadwaita or only libgranite, nor does it mean that GTK-based applications would no longer be able to have a dark theme or different themes. The platform library would be responsible for handling those items in accordance with their goals.
Desktops X, Y, and Z could work together and create a
libxyzthat loads different stylesheets just like GTK does now, or they could each make their own platform library that handles their specific needs. The proposed GTK changes would simply put the choice in the hands of each platform.
I'm not too familiar with the technical details of what's changing, or what's not. However, I'm fascinated to learn how it affects Linux distros in general and why developers are so upset.
In my view, Gnome are absolutely entitled to change what they like, as are distros to choose whether to use it or not, to fork it or not, or implement whatever they like in instead. If Gnome develops a desktop distros want to use, that's great. If distros choose something else, it's no use blaming the distros.
What I find interesting, however, is how (as I read it) the article and other Gnome responses I've read in connection to Solus complain that Gnome is subject to attacks and hostility because others want to do their own thing, and that generally life's not fair. It reminds me of a girlfriend I once had.
From what I can tell, Pop OS was absolutely right and entitled to stop using LVFS and tell others they're doing so:
As a Gnome user, I had absolutely no idea it was updating or might update my "firmware".
1 Like
Then Gnome can control your system on distribution what you using changing some parameters. Interesting like some tracing etc? To much reading POP vs Gnome a battle. Pop just choice them way and don't want cooperate with Gnome. That what i understand.
No, it is not.
You do not get to sidestep the guidelines by claiming that you believe that your personal attack was an accurate one.
Whether it is or is not accurate is not the point.
The point is to attack the idea not the people.
Criticize flaws in the idea to test the idea for merit. Do not assume personal traits of the people and then attack them.
Calling people who do not agree with your point of view "just a bunch of wannabe's" is a fallacy that does not address the merits of any idea.
This statement is 100% inaccurate.
I have read the code - the theming infrastructure does, 100%, change. Partly due to the removal of several widgets.
This is Dodging and shifting the goal posts. Clear point: WHY does the GTK team think that theming is better handled by platform libraries (Which lock it in)? What is their reasoning for this?
This statement is very misleading. Yes, it does mean those things; Unless Gnome /GTK team signs off permission to change the theme to a dark theme. So, it is only accurate to say "it does not mean" as long as it includes the qualifier of "it does not mean you cannot change to a dark theme - as long as you get permission from Gnome who has taken full control of the functionality, first. In writing."
What Goals?
Is that how we are wording being on bended knee trying to get permission from Gnome to customize ones own system? "Working together?"
And this is Unecessary. That is the most crucial part... What made GTK / Gnome believe it was necessary to "work together" to change the system from a user being able to apply a less-eyestrain dark theme without asking Gnome for Written permission to one where they must do so?
Instead of in the hands of the User where it has been up until now and where it belongs.
Your see with eyes wide open.
Many people instigate something in order to serve self-interest, then complain bitterly that there is something wrong with everyone else.
6 Likes
People will use google or someting to read what those differences are. When i started with linux 3 months ago i did some research. I ended with zorin os 16 because there was alot of great news from that distro which made me curious. Since then i never booted into windows, infact there will be no more data mining windows machines ever in our home again.
The more options people will have the better. Some people like gnome, some like xfce, some like kde or cinnamon. I use gnome but i love cinnamon. I will swap one day, but for now i am happy with what i have.
3 Likes
I agree. I do not understand the opposition to having choices. Oh no... Options!? This is baad!!
3 Likes
There is this book called Paradox of Choice. I read it years ago. It was quite eye-opening to me.
Sometimes consumer are unhappy to be given too many choices, such as shelfful of different shampoo brands.
For me, ultimate anti-choice is macOS.
Users are completely locked in not only in software but also in hardware - unless one takes the less travelled Hackintosh route which I did in the past.
1 Like
That os true. No choice like a closed a fish in the box.
1 Like
1 Like
I haven't read that book, so I will not comment on it. However, I do understand the notion of 'information overload' and how that can be quite daunting to someone seeking insight about a product that is new and foreign to them.
Yet, I hesitate to fault the amount of options available. Instead, If I could fault anything it would be the amount of quality options available. And to me, this is probably the concern of most people who start looking for alternatives in areas they are unfamiliar with.
To return back to the issue with Gnome, Ubuntu and the like (as it pertains to Linux and the community that Linux is (or was intended to be), I always cringe when I see developers begin to pander to corporate interests. I understand the need for revenue and to pay people for their hard work, but when corporations are sought out as revenue streams this is the point where community voices and visions begin to vanish and the demands of a few begin to dictate how things evolve going forward.
This direction, in my humble opinion, is against the very fiber of anything Linux/FOSS. It takes away the voices of the many and replaces it with the desires of a few well funded sources.
My concern at this point is the hints of decay within what used to be such a great Linux/FOSS community. Which begins when the desire of developers to seek and attract corporate interests starts to obfuscate the desires of those communities that they were initially developed to help. It will eventually result in the capitulation of freedom and reduction of choice.
Sorry for the rant, but I do feel better now 
6 Likes
Important in Linux user always have a choice of freedom any GUI on distribution and customization.
3 Likes
If I were able to show new Linux users how many features have been removed in the just the gnome files application since gnome 3.0 I think they would very be surprised. The features were removed to simplify the code and because developers simply decided without any input from the user base that they weren't needed.
3 Likes
I've said this before, I will say it again. Gnome needs to be cut loose, they need to be fired from the Linux community. Kick their butts out of it. They have violated FOSS in so many ways. It is obviously they want to be the next Microsoft, or at least, be just like Microsoft.
I don't think Gnome deserves to be operating in the FOSS community any longer. They need to be kicked out, boycotted. I am sick and tired of them constantly going against FOSS, and doing shady stuff like removing functionality and saying the GPT license is stifling them.
3 Likes
I second that. More options might seem like a good thing, but that is not always true. If you are a reader like me...Consider reading this article which is not related to this thread.
EDIT:
Ok I did not read this post by FrenchPress before posting my comment. Seems like you already have something to read but the article I posted is also worth looking into, so you can read that as well.
For me what I can sayed to developer is best from users if it comes for some way like M$ then linux start loosing a people to developer and it will be only some people. What diffrents will be if Linux=M$? Maybe it comes to anarchy? If linux evolved from some stable distribution then it must be continuity - to many new distros with new code could gived more chaos and confuse in user sociality. The choice distribution is good but important a code and gui will be compatible, many diffrents code will be unstable for me and lower security.