Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: vallor Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Fedora proposing to remove X11 Gnome Date: 29 Apr 2025 00:11:43 GMT Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: <1irOP.851750$d51.585824@fx46.iad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net p2GM0y7IL2lt+BoiZLHmsQVWsl+YexAedk+3px2XhnejJBaNWa Cancel-Lock: sha1:QPASG27/+E8kIsfzs0ZWe1Ykxsk= sha256:YfpKpBh+mT0mwOFkWQqhoQNvXBjwfEDM1dcjDJ33Y/c= X-Face: +McU)#<-H?9lTb(Th!zR`EpVrp<0)1p5CmPu.kOscy8LRp_\u`:tW;dxPo./(fCl CaKku`)]}.V/"6rISCIDP` User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Hmm4; 100b1318; Linux-6.14.4) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:689637 On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 07:42:25 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote in : > On 2025-04-27, CrudeSausage wrote: >> On 4/27/25 02:45, RonB wrote: >>> On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>> On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote: >>>>> On 2025-04-26, Borax Man wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but >>>>>>>> you can't just throw out decades of work and break it because its >>>>>>>> hard. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody >>>>>>> does, then yes, the existing developers are quite justified in >>>>>>> saying “that’s not worth it, let’s just drop it”. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some >>>>>> degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs >>>>>> work on what the want to work on, not what people need. >>>>>> >>>>>> In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make >>>>>> sense, but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and >>>>>> again. We also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication. >>>>> >>>>> Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they >>>>> knew better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they >>>>> knew better than the user what the *should* want. That's basically >>>>> why Linux Mint took off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users >>>>> wanted, not Gnome 3 or Unity. >>>> >>>> In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing >>>> things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for >>>> Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out >>>> in Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right >>>> direction. >>>> Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people >>>> would have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to >>>> move away from X11. >>> >>> Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that >>> customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that >>> broke with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take >>> it or leave it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but, >>> still, when you ask about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask >>> why Gnome 3 doesn't a provide a method to do that, you get snarky >>> responses claiming this the top position is "somehow" superior. I >>> don't like it there, it feels "claustrophobic" to me. I always moved >>> the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins are supposed to fix this, but >>> usually they only work for such and such version and are often >>> abandoned. >> >> You're right about the extensions. I abandoned the idea of using them >> when I noticed that they ceased to function the moment the version of >> Gnome increased. >> >>> As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and >>> Unity vs Gnome 2 debate. >> >> It's not the same debate but a similar one. People hated on Mir simply >> because Canonical introduced it. The company is apparently not allowed >> to introduce its own technology if the community already developed >> something similar. For example, Snap is hated even though it came out >> before Flatpak did and is an improvement on AppImage. I'm not a fan of >> Snap myself (I prefer Flatpak because of the software library and how >> it updates), but I can't say that it's bad. > > I think the reason that people don't like Snaps is because Canonical > made the Snap servers proprietary, under their control. It goes against > the whole point of Linux, that it be open source. And I don't agree that > Snaps are better than AppImages. I prefer AppImages over both Snaps and > Flatpaks. This is indeed the case. You can't bring up your own snap server. Snaps are anti-free-software. I much prefer flatpaks, but rarely use even those. -- -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti OS: Linux 6.14.4 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G "Philosophy: unintelligible answers to insoluble problems"