Re: Fedora proposing to remove X11 Gnome

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.

--
-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"