this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
48149 readers
771 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Both of those would, to me, seem like negatives.
Desktop icons have no benefit for me and would look ugly. Opening in the desktop would mean that I would have to press super before launching all my apps, which would be annoying.
Since GNOME disabled desktop icons years ago, I liked it so much that I disable them in every OS I use, even on Windows.
They are just ugly and make the whole system feel messy. I do t need that. I can use the search or a favourites thing in a hidden drawer like the start menu or the gnome dock.
I spent the past three months with desktop icons and disabled them two days ago when I realized I was almost never using them.
Why can't we just have toggles under settings (like we did in the past for desktop icons), works for you, works for me. Everyone will be happy.
Because it takes manpower to develop and maintain these features?
Especially desktop icons are difficult to get right (see workarounds like "ReIcon" on Windows). E. g. keeping icon positions across multiple monitors and varying resolutions and displays (which can be unplugged at any time). They can also be a privacy-issue, e. g. when doing a presentation.
But most importantly: GNOME doesn't want to be a traditional (Windows-like) desktop, so why would they implement features that don't align with their ideas for a desktop experience?
There are lots of other desktops, like Cinnamon, that offer a traditional desktop experience within the GTK ecosystem. There is also plenty of room for desktops, like GNOME, that have a different philosophy and feature set.
In my opinion it would be boring, if every desktop tried to do the same thing. And there wouldn't be any innovation, if no one tried to do things differently.
This doesn't just affect desktop icons, icons in general suck under Linux. Things have strange behaviors when selected, long names don't work properly etc.
Because GNOME is the only DE with some potential and by not having 2 or 3 simple optional features aren't getting more traction. I bet half of the KDE users would be glad to use GNOME only if it had desktop icons. Using other DE doesn't make much sense as you'll inevitable run in GTK and parts of GNOME and having to mix and match to get a working desktop experience.
Again, GNOME had icons, v3.28 discontinued them for no other purpose than trying to re-inveting something that worked for a ton of people.
But everyone has different requirements and my "2 or 3 simple optional features" that are missing are completely different than what you think is missing. I couldn't care less about desktop icons or system trays. I even prefer not having a system tray, as this functionality should be provided via notifications and regular application shortcuts in my opinion.
But in the end, a software project only has a limited amount of resources available and developers have to decide where they want to focus on. GNOME chose not to focus on desktop icons:
Because the code was "old and unmaintained" and probably no one was willing to modernise and maintain it. Desktop icons were already disabled by default before 3.28, so they didn't "re-invent" this feature with the removal of the code in Nautilus.
I use GNOME and KDE and use the same applications (as Flatpaks) on both desktops: I use GNOME Calculator on KDE, because I dislike both KDE calculators, and I use Ark on GNOME with a Nautilus script, as File Roller doesn't allow me to set the compression ratio (I need to create zip files with 0 compression for modding games). So for me it has become the norm to mix applications created with different toolkits. Thanks to Flatpak I still have a "clean" base system though.
Btw. I am getting tired of these re-occurring complaints that GNOME works differently than other desktops. I am not constantly complaining about what features KDE is, in my opinion, missing all the time either (e. g. dynamic workspaces, same wallpaper and desktop configuration across all existing and new monitors, online account integration, command line config tool, etc.), instead I accept that this is how it is at the moment and either use KDE the way it is (like I do on my desktop PC) or use something that better suits my needs (like I do on all my laptops).
Innovation or regression? Gnome used to have optional desktop icons. They removed them. Let's settle on gnome is progressing, while keeping in mind, that progress is neither necessarily nor inherently good.
Innovation doesn't necessarily mean that all past functionality needs to be carried over. Actually innovation often means that past technology becomes obsolete and gets replaced with something new.
They removed them because with GNOME Shell those icons no longer made sense. There was no longer a concept of dragging apps from a panel menu to a desktop, instead apps were now pinned from the fullscreen app overview to the dash.
Since the code was no longer used by the default GNOME experience, it became unmaintained and eventually got removed.