2 other responses I got confirmed that such thing happens and you say otherwise. Doesn’t Gnome breaks third party extensions that provides users basic functionality that should be in gnome in the first place but the devs don’t want to implement? Is the meme wrong?
Not that guy but phrases like “basic functionality” are just hard to pin down. What you need for your workflow and can’t live without is probably irrelevant fluff to a whole other class of folks.
I haven’t run into anything I need a third-party extension for yet, so I guess it works for some of us, although admittedly I do very few things on that machine so I could easily be missing something vital for most people.
How much do you use your OS, though? I’d characterize it more as it works best by staying out of the way.
I turn the computer on, load a game or an occasional productive application, and I don’t think about it any more than that. My only real interaction with it beyond picking some initial settings is super+search for the thing I actually want to interact with.
The fucking system tray. Which literally every other DE and mainstream OS out there supports because some apps depend on it and break if it doesn’t exist.
Last I checked GNOME devs said “no, we will never support it, because we’ve DePRecATeD the tray in GTK”.
It’s functionality so basic I have 3-6 apps which depend on it at any time on my work machine. Anyone saying it doesn’t fall under “basic functionality” is either a GNOME dev or a troll.
Swear I’m neither of those things, but you’re talking about the system tray as in that little bucket of icons that sits in the lower-right of a taskbar usually?
This seems like it’d fall pretty neatly in the “you use it, so you think it’s required basic functionally; other people don’t, so they don’t care about it” realm. I do not miss the bucket. It doesn’t seem like awesome functionality (to me) to have to access application features through a bucket of tiny icons instead of the application itself and to be unable to access those features in the application.
I can see how frustrating it’d be if there’s something you like to use or have to use that only works if it can be in a system tray, but it’s not a ubiquitous feature requirement across all applications, so maybe GNOME is for people that don’t care for apps that require this and all the other mainstream OS options are for folks that do? Man that’s an annoying sentence to read; no wonder people get so angry about what seems like pointless minutiae.
I assume I dislike it because my work machine (windows, no choice there) always has about 30 things in its pointless icon bucket that can’t be closed by a basic user and do nothing beyond cluttering the taskbar and getting in the way. I get nothing out of a bucket of icons that exist only to silently scream “I’m running in the background still! Just in case anyone cares!” Not having to see that crap on my personal machine is a relief rather than a frustration for me.
It’s not as bad nowadays that apps yielded to GNOME’s bullshit. Back when GTK2 apps were still common… Urgh. Plenty of apps were broken without it for no good reason.
I like opinionated UX - I use sway - but GNOME’s approach is incompatible with “general use” and only works (for now) because of canonical’s weight and ability to impose their vision as the only vision.
Also they didn’t replace the tray with a better way to manage background apps, so they can suck a dick on the UX front.
Ah okay I would likely have missed those days since until this year I kept hoping windows wouldn’t completely shit the bed for my gaming PC.
I’ll have to take a look sway; think I’m still figuring out what I like best and GNOME felt familiar to the MacBook I like using for productivity (although now that I think about it, even Apple has a system-tray-like thing on the top of the screen). KDE was also fine but if I have a choice I usually like picking something with a spotlight-search equivalent; GNOME’s just looks more like spotlight so it activates the dumb part of my brain that likes familiarity.
Thanks for sticking with me through this conversation. Sometimes it’s hard to convey over text that I’m more ignorant than asshole on most Linux things.
I wouldn’t recommend sway to someone who isn’t actively looking for a tiling WM, I would recommend finding a good spotlight equivalent to use on KDE as that will still be less customization work than it would require on barebones sway (which is hardly usable).
Basic functionality, as in Server Side Decorations(SSD) along with Client Side Decorations(CSD); features both users & application devs expect to be there. Gnome Wayland lacks SSD which is a big problem for devs that build applications without CSD, e.g. especially Game devs, and it even causes negative effects across the rest of Linux ecosystem. Literally everything; KDE Plasma, Weston, Windows, MacOS and so on have both SSD & CSD; that’s how ubiquitously important this feature set is; delivering the best of both in a manner that gives developers flexibility while keeping consistency for the end user. In fact, Gnome not having both is damaging for accessibility (e.g. users with limited vision) across the Linux ecosystem as well.
basic functionality that should be in gnome in the first place
Who gets to decide what’s “basic” functionality? Each desktop’s team has their vision for what they want to implement. Something that might be basic to one person might not be in someone else’s vision or…
the devs don’t want to implement
…is being worked on but needs design. GNOME is design-oriented. It doesn’t matter how much you scream that something needs implementing if no one designs how that implementation will work and why it should be implemented in the first place. It’s not about “not wanting”, it’s about making sure that when something is implemented, that it’ll work well both now and in the future.
Their whole attitude towards development is similar, down to not working with other dekstops and insisting on doing things the way that works best for them regardless if it’s worse for the linux ecosystem overall.
I guess congratulations on proving the point I made on my other post?
Gnome’s attitude towards everything seems to be “$#¨$ you, like just actually go &%$# yourself. You do things our way or you use something else. We have decided these things are useless, if you think they are necessary you are a $&@# and %$#$ you and the horse you rode in on”
Nah, GNOME is worse mostly because it’s the default on a ton of distros, so them having this attitude actively get’s in the way of cross-desktop development instead of just being annoying.
If you refuse to understand I’ll just refuse to engage further then, keep wasting your time on pointless discussions on free software built by volunteers and what they spend their time on. I’ll go back to actually working on them in whatever way I can.
2 other responses I got confirmed that such thing happens and you say otherwise. Doesn’t Gnome breaks third party extensions that provides users basic functionality that should be in gnome in the first place but the devs don’t want to implement? Is the meme wrong?
Not that guy but phrases like “basic functionality” are just hard to pin down. What you need for your workflow and can’t live without is probably irrelevant fluff to a whole other class of folks.
I haven’t run into anything I need a third-party extension for yet, so I guess it works for some of us, although admittedly I do very few things on that machine so I could easily be missing something vital for most people.
GNOME works the best when not used. Got it.
That was pretty effing funny.
How much do you use your OS, though? I’d characterize it more as it works best by staying out of the way.
I turn the computer on, load a game or an occasional productive application, and I don’t think about it any more than that. My only real interaction with it beyond picking some initial settings is super+search for the thing I actually want to interact with.
I am using it for work (programming) and for games. Usually about 12 hours daily, except weekends.
I liked GNOME shell until they managed to kill systray extensions for good. I didn’t want to fight it no more so I left.
Fair enough. I don’t know what those are, so I guess I can’t miss them.
The fucking system tray. Which literally every other DE and mainstream OS out there supports because some apps depend on it and break if it doesn’t exist.
Last I checked GNOME devs said “no, we will never support it, because we’ve DePRecATeD the tray in GTK”.
It’s functionality so basic I have 3-6 apps which depend on it at any time on my work machine. Anyone saying it doesn’t fall under “basic functionality” is either a GNOME dev or a troll.
Swear I’m neither of those things, but you’re talking about the system tray as in that little bucket of icons that sits in the lower-right of a taskbar usually?
This seems like it’d fall pretty neatly in the “you use it, so you think it’s required basic functionally; other people don’t, so they don’t care about it” realm. I do not miss the bucket. It doesn’t seem like awesome functionality (to me) to have to access application features through a bucket of tiny icons instead of the application itself and to be unable to access those features in the application.
I can see how frustrating it’d be if there’s something you like to use or have to use that only works if it can be in a system tray, but it’s not a ubiquitous feature requirement across all applications, so maybe GNOME is for people that don’t care for apps that require this and all the other mainstream OS options are for folks that do? Man that’s an annoying sentence to read; no wonder people get so angry about what seems like pointless minutiae.
I assume I dislike it because my work machine (windows, no choice there) always has about 30 things in its pointless icon bucket that can’t be closed by a basic user and do nothing beyond cluttering the taskbar and getting in the way. I get nothing out of a bucket of icons that exist only to silently scream “I’m running in the background still! Just in case anyone cares!” Not having to see that crap on my personal machine is a relief rather than a frustration for me.
It’s not as bad nowadays that apps yielded to GNOME’s bullshit. Back when GTK2 apps were still common… Urgh. Plenty of apps were broken without it for no good reason.
I like opinionated UX - I use sway - but GNOME’s approach is incompatible with “general use” and only works (for now) because of canonical’s weight and ability to impose their vision as the only vision.
Also they didn’t replace the tray with a better way to manage background apps, so they can suck a dick on the UX front.
Ah okay I would likely have missed those days since until this year I kept hoping windows wouldn’t completely shit the bed for my gaming PC.
I’ll have to take a look sway; think I’m still figuring out what I like best and GNOME felt familiar to the MacBook I like using for productivity (although now that I think about it, even Apple has a system-tray-like thing on the top of the screen). KDE was also fine but if I have a choice I usually like picking something with a spotlight-search equivalent; GNOME’s just looks more like spotlight so it activates the dumb part of my brain that likes familiarity.
Thanks for sticking with me through this conversation. Sometimes it’s hard to convey over text that I’m more ignorant than asshole on most Linux things.
I wouldn’t recommend sway to someone who isn’t actively looking for a tiling WM, I would recommend finding a good spotlight equivalent to use on KDE as that will still be less customization work than it would require on barebones sway (which is hardly usable).
Basic functionality, as in Server Side Decorations(SSD) along with Client Side Decorations(CSD); features both users & application devs expect to be there. Gnome Wayland lacks SSD which is a big problem for devs that build applications without CSD, e.g. especially Game devs, and it even causes negative effects across the rest of Linux ecosystem. Literally everything; KDE Plasma, Weston, Windows, MacOS and so on have both SSD & CSD; that’s how ubiquitously important this feature set is; delivering the best of both in a manner that gives developers flexibility while keeping consistency for the end user. In fact, Gnome not having both is damaging for accessibility (e.g. users with limited vision) across the Linux ecosystem as well.
Server Side Decorations Are Non-Negotiable
Yes, it is.
Who gets to decide what’s “basic” functionality? Each desktop’s team has their vision for what they want to implement. Something that might be basic to one person might not be in someone else’s vision or…
…is being worked on but needs design. GNOME is design-oriented. It doesn’t matter how much you scream that something needs implementing if no one designs how that implementation will work and why it should be implemented in the first place. It’s not about “not wanting”, it’s about making sure that when something is implemented, that it’ll work well both now and in the future.
Gnome, the Apple of Linux
I can’t think of a single thing about gnome that remotely resembles apple, outside of some UI patterns…
Their whole attitude towards development is similar, down to not working with other dekstops and insisting on doing things the way that works best for them regardless if it’s worse for the linux ecosystem overall.
I guess congratulations on proving the point I made on my other post?
That’s just FOSS in general. If you don’t like something, you create a fork or use something else.
Nah, GNOME is worse mostly because it’s the default on a ton of distros, so them having this attitude actively get’s in the way of cross-desktop development instead of just being annoying.
Yeah, and when you do, it’s because you don’t like things about the original, and here people are saying what they don’t like.
Nobody disagrees that you can choose something else, but that’s not a reason to be uncritical.
If you refuse to understand I’ll just refuse to engage further then, keep wasting your time on pointless discussions on free software built by volunteers and what they spend their time on. I’ll go back to actually working on them in whatever way I can.