Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnomeluvscorpo | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps with all these changes to GUI since initial Shell release their goal is to enter some niche mobile market and call job done. Because nothing else explains all this interface gutting out they did over 14 years.

Once they finish sucking donations and other forms of financial support they'll probably announce it's time to "sunset" Gnome/gtk because it sadly didn't met unspecified expectations of unspecified group of people.

Gnome team, what they did and what they still want to do, their attitude towards users - especially those who dare to criticize them is THE result of polluting FOSS with corporate style of software development.

Theming and customization of Linux is half-dead because of what happens at Gnome.

View on HN

Chasing after The Year of Linux on the Desktop is the community's great white whale. The thinking seems to be that if Linux can be made to look enough like the major mainstream OSes, the masses will flood into Linux and the people who lead them there will get to be the heroes of the day. Problem is the mainstream OSes make UI decisions for many reasons, and the end user often isn't the main concern. Linux could, and in the past did, make itself the OS of user empowerment and choice instead of being a watered down version of whatever is in fashion with the PMs at Microsoft, Apple, and Google.

This opinion of "Gnome is killing customization" is something I see quite a lot, but which I think people take the wrong way. It's absolutely true that Gnome is designed to be less themeable than other DEs like KDE, or individual WMs - and by extension, GTK apps and apps designed to be used on Gnome are harder to customize/break more when you do theme them. But I disagree that "customization of Linux [being] half-dead" is a bad thing; on the contrary, I support the lack of theming options, and I like that there's someone on the Linux desktop that pushes this hard for consistency.

To make my biases clear: I'm a software developer that uses Gnome daily, and is developing a GTK/Adwaita app. I used to rice a lot back in the i3 days, but I don't particularly care about that nowadays, and stick to the defaults when I can. For my purposes, GNOME and Adwaita is perfect since it's very opinionated by default, and you can make good looking apps with minimal effort. Since all Adwaita apps are supposed to look similar and follow the same HIG, most of my desktop apps have the same look - but more importantly, the developers of the apps can also be confident that their apps look correct on my desktop. This is something that developers in the GTK space generally want, and for good reason[0].

One argument is that you as a user of the desktop should be able to have the final say on how your apps look, which is a totally valid take! And there are DEs, WMs, and apps which give you this freedom like Hyprland. But this doesn't guarantee that those apps will look good, or look consistent with each other, or even act consistently across apps. On the other hand, I as an app developer want to guarantee that my app looks good on your desktop, and the easiest way to achieve that is to target a single desktop environment, rather than an infinite combination of possibly-similar-but-maybe-completely-different desktops. Every preference has a cost[1][2], and when you take this philosophy beyond just preferences and expand it to color schemes, padding, margin, iconography, typography, it becomes unmanageable.

This isn't to say that GNOME is perfect, and I disagree with the project on some fundamental technical things like not supporting xdg-layer-shell[3], and refusing to accommodate server-side decorations for apps which don't want to render decorations themselves. (On the cultural side I can't comment, since I have no experience with that.) But in my opinion, this is the project that can deliver a usable and consistent Linux desktop to the average person the most effectively.

[0]: https://stopthemingmy.app/

[1]: https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2021/07/13/community-power-...

[2]: https://ometer.com/preferences.html

[3]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/1141

Much of the frustration inspired by GNOME/GTK’s unthemability comes down to not having a few very simple knobs for users to tweak. Point in case, one of the primary reasons I used to theme GNOME desktops was to clean up Adwaita’s padding, which is utterly egregious for desktop usage. If GNOME just had a padding slider with 3-5 notches that’d go a long way and wouldn’t impair developers’ ability to build consistent apps in the least. Affordances like these are rarely given however and have to be fought for.

Aside from that, consistency and themability are not at all mutually exclusive. Back in the early days of OS X, theming by hacking system resource files (or patching them in memory via haxies[0]) was quite popular and for the most part, worked very well — generally, the only apps that didn’t play nice with themes were those sitting in the uncanny valley between native and custom, using bits of both, which tended to not be the highest quality applications anyway. This was way before Apple started pushing devs to parameterize their apps, too, and so similar theming capabilities today would work even better since themes can just tweak the parameterized fonts, colors, etc as needed to maintain coherence and usablity.

The real problem with GNOME/GTK is simply that it wasn’t designed with user customization in mind even as a remote possibility. A UI framework that did keep these things in mind combined with a strong dev culture of parametrization would make for a desktop that’s both customizable and consistent.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsanity

Interesting, I didn't know there was a theming presence on OS X! I agree with you in that consistency and themability can exist together (and I suppose your example proves that), and that had GNOME decided to prioritize themability we could have had something like that on the Linux desktop. I suppose this is a question of priority and where to allocate effort, rather than what is technically possible and not. Building a UI framework and HIG is already not an easy task, and making it customizable in the way you describe would be an even bigger burden on developers - many of which are, I assume, doing this work for free. But admittedly I haven't looked much into GNOME's funding or organizational structure, so maybe they are capable of it, but just haven't bothered.

> I as an app developer want to guarantee that my app looks good on your desktop

When your app doesn't follow how my desktop looks it doesn't look good on my desktop. And unsurprisingly most modern Gtk3 and especially Gtk4 apps do not look good on my desktop.

What you actually mean here is that you want to guarantee that your app looks good on your desktop, not mine.

Yeah, I should have clarified that by "your desktop" I mean "your GNOME desktop" - i.e. "if you run GNOME, it'll look good no matter your preferences". But wrt "your desktop" - even if I wanted to, I couldn't guarantee that my app looks good on your desktop specifically, because I have no clue what your desktop looks like! Which is why I want to target a large common denominator of desktops instead, where I know it can look good.

The counter argument to that is "so let the user theme the app, to suit their own desktop", which would be a decent solution, but:

1. My vision for my app might conflict with your vision for your desktop. Maybe I want this button to be a light blue because it meshes well with some other elements in the app, but you want it to be a darker blue because it fits with your desktop's color scheme. What happens then?

2. This still doesn't guarantee that the app will look good. If you theme my app's home page, but don't theme the rest of the pages, then sure it'll look good at the home page - but as soon as you start using it, the look will fall apart. Or, what if I push an update to my app which adds a new page with a new kind of UI element? Do you really want to be maintaining your desktop theme for every single app you have?

3. This adds a burden on me as the developer to make parts customizable. This is the least convincing argument in this list IMO, since if there was better tooling and infrastructure for theming in GTK this wouldn't be a problem - but there isn't, so it is still a problem.

As a practical example, my app makes use of a WebViewGTK to display some info. I inject some custom CSS into this web view to make it look like Adwaita. This touches on points 2 and 3:

2. The webview has some UI widgets which aren't present in the rest of GTK, like a sticky header bar. You would have to manually maintain a stylesheet for this single element.

3. I now need to write a way to let users theme the custom CSS inside the webview, rather than just the CSS of the GTK widgets themselves. (I have already written this, but it's still a maintenance burden.)

> My vision for my app might conflict with your vision for your desktop. Maybe I want this button to be a light blue because it meshes well with some other elements in the app, but you want it to be a darker blue because it fits with your desktop's color scheme. What happens then?

The user trying to make your app match their desktop should 'win'. Your responsibility is to ship out an app and make sure it works in the way you want it to work.

If the people need to do more work to make it look good on their desktop (as I likely would running awesoemwm), that shouldn't be prevented, but it also need not be encouraged. It should at the least though be facilitated, certainly to a better extent than it is.

Probably something similar to how Apple platforms handle colors. Instead of providing a single static light blue, you have a couple options:

1. Use a “system color”, which is pre-tuned for optimal contrast, appearance, and usability and adjusts automatically when e.g. the user switches between light/dark mode or enables an accessibility setting related to color or vision

2. Define a light blue that’s actually multiple variants of the color bundled together, with each being optimal to various environments, with the UI framework choosing the right one depending on the situation

Arguably developers should be doing these things anyway for accessibility reasons. It’s not been good practice to use e.g. bare color hexes for quite some time now.

Isn't this what the accent colours do in newer GTK/Libadwaita?

I generally prefer to live with defaults, so the lack of theming and user interface customization in Gnome is a good thing in my opinion. I tend to take the view that software that requires too much customization is poorly suited to my needs.

I suspect the thing that rubs a lot of people the wrong way with Gnome isn't so much the lack of customization or theming, but actual decisions behind how the user interface should work. People simply complain about the inability to customize Gnome as a reflection of how powerless they are to do anything about those decisions.

> People simply complain about the inability to customize Gnome as a reflection of how powerless they are to do anything about those decisions.

But also that the Gnome philosophy "leaks" into the wider ecosystem, thanks to the dominance of Gtk.

(I use GtkWave as a waveform viewer. I have it installed systemwide, and it has proper menus. If I activate the oss-cad-suite environment [which is superb - this isn't a dig at that project] I have to remember to specify its full path when running it, otherwise I get a newer build shipped with oss-cad-suite, which has hamburger menus.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com