Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, but this fragmentation isn't exactly new. There have always been multiple toolkits on Linux I think that we got a little bit sidetracked. "I want my users to be able to be able to select what borders to have" -> "the user can choose to use GTK or Qt apps" -> "it encourages duplicate work for minor differences" -> "fragmentation isn't exactly new" Fragmentation might not be new but I would really rather not re…
>Fragmentation might not be new but I would really rather not re-write my UI in another toolkit just to offer a second border option. Then don't offer that second option? You can also offer multiple border options within the toolkit. >If you consider the user unbinding C-q from "quit" as broken because "the HIGs won't match" then I would have to say that I disagree. That would be one keybind. Complex apps have many k…
> Again you could provide this as an option if you really wanted but this is a sub-par experience for the user to have to mess with this.
Then don't make them. Just do what every other desktop has done since 1992, give people the option to configure things the way they want, and save your "sub-par user experience" argument for setting the defaults. If corner-cutting starts to affect power users, you need to go back to the drawing board and re-think things. Luckily, this is a pretty easy situation: nothing is broken, nothing needs to be fixed. It's along the lines of GNOME deciding the remove your clipboard history because it was gauche and such an old and ugly feature.
> Well that's not true, you can see some of the motivations for using CSD here
Yeah, real motivation going on there. Of the 4 apps they mention needing CSD, only one got it. Is that really what 3 years of progress should look like for that kind of initiative?
> I'm not sure what you mean, GNOME is its own platform. If you are not a user of that app platform then I don't see why it would matter to you.
GNOME is not Linux, and the issue is that the GNOME developers are making too many decisions on behalf of the end user. I didn't have an issue with the mostly hands-off approach that GTK2 and 3 used. I do take issue when I can't use a desktop environment because my preference for handling packages is apparently verboten, and now they've decided to remove features that I liked. It's a regression on the level of dropping the Unity desktop, but even more user-hostile.
And even still, I have a hard time calling GNOME in it's current state much of a platform. It exhibits constant crashing issues on my Haswell devices which means I can't use it on half my devices, and it only truly functions on one or two distros. Not to go "us vs them", but KDE has no problem maintaining a stable, usable desktop even across major releases. I'm utterly dumbfounded by how the current maintainers of GNOME feel so self-righteous in their redesign, especially considering the state of their recent releases.