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.

  • @the_q
    link
    1
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • @patatahooligan
        link
        41 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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!

          • @patatahooligan
            link
            21 year ago

            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            Although I do think that desktop icons in general are outdated because they’re designed around a desktop metaphor that is itself outdated.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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              0
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s fair. Like I said, I mostly don’t use them. But if I really need to remember something in the short term, I’ll put it on the desktop. Or if I don’t really have any other place to put it I’ll put it there.

              My point is that it’s useful to have when you need it, even if you don’t normally use it. Although I suppose it wouldn’t be difficult necessarily to find a new workflow. Still, to most everyday people I imagine desktop icons are kind of a non-issue.

              I have opened in a tab that article you sent me. If keeping such an otherwise minor feature available is such a problem for future development for developers, I will have to read that. Because it otherwise seems almost inconsequentially small a detail when compared to the OS / file system experience as a whole.

      • @the_q
        link
        3
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        deleted by creator