244 karma · joined November 15, 2020
Also, something that I did not mention before
> ...but that your views are considered problematic by quite a lot of people?
This is not a justification for toxicity.
Are you referring to some specific event?
And it's not as if reddit does not have its own share of similar forums.
> ...but that your views are considered problematic by quite a lot of people?
You do not know what my views are. It's as if you are trying to prove me right honestly. (btw, I am not posting on reddit nor on twitter, nor 4chan for that matter)
Plus the same could be said for the toxic interactions that you had on there.
> Perhaps that could be some cause for self reflection before you universally declare the entire platform here hostile and toxic.
Again, same thing for you. "Perhaps that could be some cause for self reflection before you universally declare the entire platform there hostile and toxic."
Or well, not acting evil.
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-write my UI in another toolkit just to offer a second border option.
> that will be broken if you use it outside the recommended environment as the HIGs won't match
Depends on your definition of broken I guess. 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. If the user wants to make "breaking" chances to my applications they should be free, especially since I don't believe that any big issues will be caused. If some minor issues are caused at certain configurations then that's fine, after all the user could revert to the default config if they encounter an issue that breaks their use-case or makes the interaction feel inferior to the default one.
> Well, no it doesn't
Thank you for the correction, I take it back. I guess if I go with gtk4 I would have to use a mix of gtk4+libdecor in order to have "native" borders in all WMs, is that correct?
> Most older apps aren't like this.
What do you mean by "older apps"? Motif-era, gtk2-era, or gtk3-era? I do not think that I had a big issue with any of them but I could be forgetting something.
> GNOME is not a tiling WM
Well, yeah, because GNOME is not a WM :p
By "going out of their way" I meant specifically the decision to implement CSD.
In general I think that GNOME should be able to do whatever it wants, I just wish that they would play better with the other players (and well, the users).
> The way you're phrasing is confusing. To me it's like saying "every vehicle has four wheels except bicycles". Well I guess you could say that for some subset of vehicles, but I don't understand what the distinction here is supposed to be, or why that even matters.
More like "all (relevant) C compilers except MSVC support C99 VLAs", or "all mobile phones in the EU except apple's use a standard charger". The point is that while xdg-decoration might be an optional extension in reality it is pretty much standard except in two WMs that require special handling.
That's... not what I meant by it. I find this dangerous as it encourages duplicate work for minor differences.
I would rather not have to make both a GTK and a Qt version of my program just so my users can have the ability to do some basic customization.
> So making it all configurable is just guaranteeing that the app is broken out of the box
Not sure why you think that. You just put the existing choices as the defaults.
> You may have to accept that some apps are not built to work in a tiling WM
What about my apps then? As a programmer I want my programs to be friendly for both tiling and non-tiling WMs. This by itself excludes gtk as an option for me.
As for some apps not built to work in tiling WMs, the changes needed to make them work properly are usually extremely minor. To be honest it feels like the GNOME team is going out of their way to degrade the usability of their apps (and apps using gtk) for tiled WMs.
> In my experience, you will have a lot of trouble with some apps for various other reasons too
Some apps might have some minor issues that can usually be solved without a lot of effort, but even if they are not they don't usually pose any problem.
> I'm confused, you said everything supports it, but then immediately listed something that didn't support it.
Yes? Everything except mutter supports it as far as I know. Is there something difficult to understand here?
Edit: I heard that Enlightenment does not support it either.
I personally don't care as one can use flatpak portals nowadays (qt makes it really easy for non-flatpak applications to use, but I haven't seen how I can do it in non-flatpak gtk applications).
Surely the choice should fall on the user.
> That's a good way to ensure you get conflicting gestures/keybinds, inconsistent theming, and just a general lack of consistency.
Which is why we would like all of these to be configurable.
> The common ground would be drawing your own decorations because that's the way any Wayland server works by default
What if I, as a user of a tiling wm don't want any decorations?
> Xdg-decoration is an optional extension
That everything supports it afaik. (except mutter?)
This is false, I posted this before:
> Just look at all these people who went to jail for crimes related to illegal numbers (eg. piracy). Or people like Mildred Gillars. Or the various whistleblowers.
This is false.
Of course it is. Anyway, I mentioned more cases where there is no voluntarily agreement.
> You also dont get jailed for speech but for the act of breaching some agreement or other law.
You can claim that for everyone who got jailed for speech.
I did not say that. I am sure that CRConrad is acting in good faith.
> but you are fine with
Yes, I explained why I said it in the post that you are replying to. My biggest mistake was using sarcasm to convey the message I guess.
Anyway, it would be nice if you focused on the essence of my post instead of the weak presentation of my last point.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
> Yes, then of course GP should shut it down
I would say that this is debatable.
> You go to jail because what you said is actually a crime to say
Sounds like the US. Just look at all these people who went to jail for crimes related to illegal numbers (eg. piracy). Or people like Mildred Gillars. Or the various whistleblowers.
This is a bold and unsubstantiated claim.
> And there is no doubt she would be free in every state in the US.
For this specific action? Sure. For other actions that are protected under the 1st amendment? Depends on whether there is a law against it and if she pissed off someone "important" or enough people. There are various such cases.
edit: will respond to the replies after the rate-limit expires
Everybody? Not really, some people are really vocal about how "data wants to be free".
The whole point of projects like freenet is to let people communicate data between each other without censorship and without being identified, no matter what that data is. If you disagree with that principle then I believe that freenet is probably not for you.
> That does not really do much to convince me running it is a good thing, you know?
Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?
I think that you are stretching it a bit here. Claiming that individualism is responsible for that seems unsubstantiated.