This article was written in the sense of bashing gnome but yet some points seem to be valid. It explains the history of gtk 1 to 4 and the influence of gnome in gtk. I’m not saying gnome is bad here, instead I find this an interesting to read and I’m sharing it.
That KDE Plasma 5 is finally usable and stable, after having decided to stop pushing the ridiculous plasmoids on the user […] is like having an old whore finally becoming a respectable woman.
Yeah, I stopped reading here.
what the actual fuck
Wow that’s pretty gross
Why on Earth are these nonsense blog rants constantly upvoted here?
It is essentially an unlettered rant that conflates the author’s UI and toolkit preferences with an objective view.
It doesn’t even provide a useful comparison to the evolution of QT to provide for a meaningful reference of its implied assertion that the evolution of GTK is too rapid for devs.
Most of the GTK environments seem to be doing fine. Most of them seem headed to Wayland as well with the maturity of GTK in Wayland making that easier. Cinnamon will be ready for Wayland in a few months with both XFCE and MATE likely to have something out next year.
Incredibly, GIMP itself may finally get off GTK+ 2. They claim that GIMP 3 will launch in February. We will see how long it takes to get to GTK4. I think the transition will be easier. The jump from 2 to 3 was a big one.
COSMIC of course is going its own way with the Iced toolkit.
On the app side, GTK seems to still be a very popular option.
In terms of conclusions, I do not see mainstream resistance to new GTK versions. Some people balked at GNOME 3 but GNOME today seems more popular than ever. MATE faithfully kept the old GNOME experience but has migrated to newer GTK. It was not a rebellion against the toolkit.
Not sure about the similarities here, but I actually love GTK when it comes to app design. It’s one of the things I miss about Linux in Windows. (Yes, I’m a Windows user—not by choice, though.) About the only thing I hate about it is that for some reason a lot of GTK app designers think a simpler design should mean less functionality. Gimme my damn right-click context menus dammit! >_<
There are right click menus in Fragments, I don’t see why other apps don’t have them.
If I develop anything with a GUI I use GTK4. It has a bit of a learning curve to it but honestly I’ve come to like it.
I am currently creating a program for simulating networks and the drawing area is great for drawing the actual simulation because it basically allows you to have a cairo area as a widget so your possibilities there are basically unlimited and cairo is just a great drawing API.
Also gtk is basically the only modern GUI toolkit that can be used with C, which is great because it is pretty much the only language I know well enough to program a big application with. (But GObject still feels like black magic to me)
I recently started exploring wayland and arch, installing a compositor (Hyprland) and module by module as a go. It’s unnecessarily hard but I’m learning a lot from it.
The thing that surprised me the most is the amount of components and projects that are GTK based. I always thought that GTK was a Gnome thing, but it’s very much alive outside it as well.
(seriously, tldr. also, wat, GTK is better than ever and has a bright future.)
the person who wrote this post is so full of hate and contempt. I find myself quite disinterested in reading.
GNOME isn’t based around GTK, it uses a fork of Clutter that now lives inside of Mutter.
The article is very long and going in all directions, can I get a tldr of the point the author is trying to make?
No, as you observed, it goes in all directions and doesn’t have a real point that can be summarized. This is not a recommendation to read it.
If you love gtk2 so much why don’t you marry it?
:P I love developing with Qt but Ill take gnome over KDE most days.
I’ve been using GNOME for like a decade, and recently switched to hyprland, but KDE 6 looks really promising, looking forward to trying it out.
I know I’m part of the minority in liking the Gnome 3+ designs, but with so many people lamenting the death of GTK+2, why don’t they fork the toolkit? It’s not as if you’ll break any compatibility by backporting fixes and extending the classic UI components.
Perhaps you’ll need to rename your project (except for the system libraries) to avoid trademark issues, but if all the developers came together, I’m sure you could write a drop-in replacement for the old GTK+2 libraries. Such a project may have some difficult tasks ahead of it (bringing Wayland support and fractional scaling, for example) but they can copy Gnome’s homework, they don’t need to invent everything from scratch.
deleted by creator
Clickbait title, no thanks. GTK is alive and doing very well, considering all the major distributions use GNOME or a fork of it.
KDE has major Windows syndrome. No amount of polishing that turd will make me ignore the fundamental user unfriendliness that is nested text drop-downs.
No amount of polishing that turd will make me ignore the fundamental user unfriendliness that is nested text drop-downs.
Can you give me an example of this? From my perspective, using something like Kate, the extremely user friendly experience of discovery is vastly better than something like vi. In Kate, I appreciate the discoverability of having a list of options. I recently learned it can interact with LSP’s because of the menus. I don’t use it for that all that much, but it was cool to even know it could do that. Maybe vi is bad comparison, but off the top of my head GTK apps just have the hamburger menu, that then opens up the list of text menu options. Seems like its just hiding the option menus by nesting them in an additional layer of a button.
For the record, I haven’t used a windows computer as anything more than an appliance in over a decade, so maybe the influence is lost on me.
“I’m not saying gnome is bad here”… but it lacks basic DE features, pushed useless crap like the activity view to people and slow animations that can’t be completely turned off. To top things they try to reinvent the desktop experience every 2 or 3 years and end up making things worse (like when they decided to remove the desktop icons).
All for a “design and usability view” that doesn’t amount to anything productive.
You left off the part about this being just your opinion and a lot of people like gnome.
Also, what kind of monster has desktop icons or files in 2023?
Also, what kind of monster has desktop icons or files in 2023?
Most people.
No wonder you guys say you don’t like Gnome. You like clutter and lack organizational skills. It’s ok though. We all have our burdens to bear.
Do not misunderstand me. I don’t generally use a lot of desktop icons. For the most part, the fewer icons are on my desktop the better, but I do have a few.
But back when Ubuntu briefly got rid of them, it sucked because occasionally I do want some icons on my desktop.
In short: if you don’t wanna use any, you don’t have to; just gimme the damn option.
Also, I never said I dislike Gnome.
just gimme the damn option.
That’s what they did initially. Unfortunately, keeping around an antiquated optional feature that no developer wants to work on isn’t free. It ends up being a hurdle for improving other stuff and at the same time it doesn’t work as well as the user would expect. There is more context here if you’re interested.
Antiquated? Hardly. Lots of people still use desktop icons.
(Unless you’re referring to Gnome users; maybe it’s different with that subset. I’m more referring to computer users in general.)
Also, that is interesting! I’ll read it sometime! Thanks!
Clarification: In my previous comment I meant that the implementation was antiquated, which is why it was causing many problems.
Although I do think that desktop icons in general are outdated because they’re designed around a desktop metaphor that is itself outdated. Our use of computers has changed vastly over time and the original metaphors are irrelevant to today’s newcomers. Yet most desktop environments are still replicating the same 30 year old ideas. It’s because we’re used to them (which I understand is a valid reason), not because they are necessarily the most pleasant or the most efficient.
Oh I know I’m just being purposefully jerky. That’s the best part about Linux; options!
You left off the part about this being just your opinion and a lot of people like gnome.
Do you know why there’s KDE, XFCE and others? Because there’s also a lot of people who dislike GNOME.
I don’t dislike GNOME, I just know for a fact that most of what they do is trying to “reinvent the wheel” every three years.
Umm well akshually 🤓👆: KDE doesn’t exist because people don’t like GNOME lol. GNOME was made because KDE uses QT, which used to be proprietary.
Yeah I remember those early days. KDE had a 1.0 version out in the late 90s, which was perfectly usable as a standalone desktop environment, while at the same time Gnome was little more than a panel with a foot. Early Gnome was an unholy mess and remained so until the late 2.x versions in the mid 2000s. Like how many window managers and file managers did they go through? I believe they even had Enlightenment as the default window manager for a while, and then there was that weird Ximian desktop phase.
Hold your horses, when I said “exist because” I was implying any particular time frame, I was just saying that if GNOME was really that superior everything else would’ve already died out without users / developers.
Do you know why there’s KDE, XFCE and others? Because there’s also a lot of people who dislike GNOME.
If we are getting pedantic here, the above quote is clearly implying that alternatives exist and are actively developed because people dislike GNOME. Your statement does not take in to account the possibility that people just like the other alternatives, and may still like GNOME as well, or feel indifference towards it.
No one is claiming that GNOME has the superior desktop experience. Rather, GNOME has a more opinionated experience, that suits some people, and not others. For some people, it will be superior. For others, they will prefer KDE, XFCE etc.
they try to reinvent the desktop experience every 2 or 3 years
GNOME 3 was released 12 years ago, and hasn’t changed that much (unless you consider horizontal virtual workspaces are a major paradigm shift somehow).
Just use something else if you don’t like it; no one’s “pushing” anything on to you. Clearly, other people do like it.
horizontal virtual workspaces are a major paradigm shift somehow
Yes. I also consider the removal of desktop icons, the default change to going into the activity view and whatnot important shifts and attempts at reinventing things.
Well, then I’d highly suggest you just use Xfce and not worry about GNOME so much. Xfce hasn’t changed much in years.
pushed useless crap like the activity view to people
This is easily the best part of GNOME. I wish macOS implemented mission control as well as GNOME has implemented Activity Overview, because using macOS feels like typing with one hand tied behind my back.
slow animations that can’t be completely turned off.
Go to GNOME Control Centre > Accessibility > Seeing > Reduce Animation. It also sets it globally so websites can choose to respect this setting. What animations remain?
They try to reinvent the desktop experience every 2 or 3 years and end up making things worse (like when they decided to remove the desktop icons).
They removed it because nobody wanted to maintain the code, which was generally agreed to be subpar, and it was blocking development elsewhere in Nautilus. They acknowledge it was a dumb idea to implement this functionality inside of Nautilus in the first place when they should have done it in the shell. They realized they were leaving users in the lurch here, so offered a few solutions like installing Nemo Desktop. They even developed a GNOME shell extension prototype before removing it that users could move straight to.
Wait, this is not GNOME, this is Nautilus as a file manager app. There are more providers of desktop icons, namely nemo-desktop is one of the best and you can use that together with Nautilus and the rest of GNOME. Why would you use a worse provider of that functionality?
It wasn’t part of some grand design decision that precluded desktop icons. They just made a bad technical decision 20 years ago that ended up accumulating a lot of technical debt.
Now, if you wanted to complain about something, shell extensions are certainly a horse worth beating. Or only letting you set shortcuts for the first four workspaces and forcing you to use Dconf for more. This is really dumb design.
