Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:19:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Fedora proposing to remove X11 Gnome
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
References: <oG5OP.1820195$BrX.647879@fx12.iad>
 <slrn100kcgb.ds7.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.home>
 <slrn100kfa7.edd.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> <1irOP.851750$d51.585824@fx46.iad>
 <slrn100mumt.dkd.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> <vuh558$11toh$3@dont-email.me>
 <slrn100obf3.pd6.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
 <slrn100oj38.81kf.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.home>
 <V74PP.2709395$OrR5.911761@fx18.iad>
 <slrn100rkkh.bh86.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.home>
 <HTuPP.2635138$eNx6.1862988@fx14.iad>
 <slrn100ucb4.cuiu.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.home> <m7ajpvFq366U2@mid.individual.net>
From: % <pursent100@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 17:20:03 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m7ajpvFq366U2@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 250428-8, 2025-4-28), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Message-ID: <XMqcnbF8Kqmyho31nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 83
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-VBuOTpIXyaQUtut+kXhwubS/X29I1c79siOSzc9H/naEd6BNX3oJUQekaocdJeWSsx0aeyMtlEBpOBc!84By14exvg11nAGz2wCA/8YXl7VcRphVM3n0UOpqC57UAM/FtT33sjB0WdLI4BMXV7G7rIaeKoI7
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

vallor wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 07:42:25 -0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
> wrote in <slrn100ucb4.cuiu.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.home>:
> 
>> On 2025-04-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 4/27/25 02:45, RonB wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> 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.
> 
and your posts still look the same here