What do you think about the new GTK way?

[Danielsan]

Some time ago the Gnome team decided to mess up the GTK development deciding to breaking the API/ABI every 6 month, in their blogs they try to explain confusedly that this is the best for everyone and will speed up for sure the development.

https://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2016/06/1 ... not-gtk-4/
https://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2016/06/1 ... not-gtk-5/

Basically the third party devs should be wait every two years to port a software from a version to a newer because the breaking.
Finally someone starts to realize or to complain that that choice is pretty foolish and can be a very pain for the devs.

http://fossboss.com/2016/07/08/are-gtk- ... eir-plans/

However I am not a dev but as simple user than I can just take notice in these last years the sense of community is lacking a bit and people have been starting to cooperate less: Ubuntu for its way, Gnome for its way, Mint for its etc... Which can appear like do-ocracy but it isn't seems more an insane arm wrestling between communities, with the communities sponsored by a Corporation doing the bullying against the others. Like the recent example of systemd.

[4D696B65]

People got upset when gtk1 moved to gtk2. So whats your point? Progress sucks?

[Danielsan]

No all we were agreed that GTK2 need to be updated, now the problem is keeping compatibility through all the development cycle or breaking the compatibility every new development release, that is the point. Gnome decide for breaking.

Eventually is not a pain also for devs but for the Debian maintainers as well I guess.

[stevepusser]

There's many Qt applications that can be built either with Qt 4 or 5, such as VLC; they didn't end up breaking their APIs like GTK...

[Danielsan]

Yes it same point of the author of the complaining, as I far I know I haven't see any reaction for example from the Xfce4 team...

[deborah-and-ian]

But the new system addresses exactly your concern: There will be LTS-like releases that don't break ABIs,
so e.g. if you're on Debian Stable or some other system that doesn't change very often, you (if you're developing)
can finally base your programmes or GTK themes around a stable branch that won't change for two or more years.
Do you know the broken xfce gtk3 themes? If we had this system now, you could still use them properly.
Now they're just broken.

Likewise, the distros can also ship both versions, so e.g. if you're using Debian Testing, you'll be able to use
both the programmes that didn't adjust for new GTK versions (which in the past meant buggy UI or even bugs),
as well as the ones that use the fresher version bumps.

I think this is a commendable move by a group of developers that, since Gnome 3, have rather listened to people
who were only OK with their ideas and ignored others. They've understood that GTK is not only Gnome, e.g.
that Mate or Xfce are also moving to GTK3 and that certain projects like Gimp or Inkscape have since hesitated
to move because of the constant API breakage.

[Danielsan]

I think only Gnome can take real benefits from this behavior, at any release they can introduce nice features, resolving bugs, rewriting code and they will be the only which can take advantage of this the 3rd-parties must wait two years every release just for starting debugging or trying to follow every break.

But if nobody cares about it, fine. Fortunately there are a plenty of nice options beside Gnome and GTK.

[deborah-and-ian]

I think only Gnome can take real benefits from this behavior

You think so based on evidence or just your conjecture? Because I think there are a load of nice new features within GTK3,
like CSS themeing instead of obscure own code (which opens themeing up to a whole set of already existing web developers).

, at any release they can introduce nice features, resolving bugs, rewriting code and they will be the only which can take advantage of this

No. As written, they are reaching out to the community and trying to find a middle ground. Mate and Xfce prove that the conversion of GTK2
looks and behaviour can be done in GTK3. Besides, it's free software and thus forkable if it gets too closed in development.

the 3rd-parties must wait two years every release just for starting debugging or trying to follow every break.

Who said this? Sounds very wrong.

But if nobody cares about it, fine.

Again, who said that?

[Danielsan]

Every all I have written is my opinion as no developer, however you doesn't explain anything but saying I am wrong.
What the Gnome team said about it is something to their convenience and is highly arguable however the QT libraries do not break compatibility so they still continues to use the same approach evidently they consider is better than breaking the compatibility.

I know that everyone can fork whatever they want but this is not a point to stop comment about what happens in Debian or outside Debian, however I posted a link where a python developer is very concerned about this choice, have you read this post?

[Magnusmaster]

Breaking the ABI and API every six months is crazy, and the "stable" version they will release every two years will not only be ignored by the GTK+ devs, but will still break the API way too often for developers. Developers can't port apps to a new version of GTK+ every two years, some apps still haven't been ported to GTK+ 3. This API breakage will either kill all GTK+ apps other than those made by GNOME, or cause more bloat by forcing everyone to have many installations of GTK+.

[edbarx]

Every all I have written is my opinion as no developer, however you doesn't explain anything but saying I am wrong.
What the Gnome team said about it is something to their convenience and is highly arguable however the QT libraries do not break compatibility so they still continues to use the same approach evidently they consider is better than breaking the compatibility.

I know that everyone can fork whatever they want but this is not a point to stop comment about what happens in Debian or outside Debian, however I posted a link where a python developer is very concerned about this choice, have you read this post?

Breaking the ABI and API every six months is crazy, and the "stable" version they will release every two years will not only be ignored by the GTK+ devs, but will still break the API way too often for developers. Developers can't port apps to a new version of GTK+ every two years, some apps still haven't been ported to GTK+ 3. This API breakage will either kill all GTK+ apps other than those made by GNOME, or cause more bloat by forcing everyone to have many installations of GTK+.

If both of you don't want breakages and bloat due to multiple libraries being used simultaneously, seriously consider your options. Telling Debian they shouldn't do this on their English forum, didn't help, is not helping, and apparently, will not help.

Use those distributions that make an effort not to break what works and are contrary to using more than one version of the same library.

It is useless to preach to the puppet instead of preaching to the puppeteer. Be aware the puppeteer has a very strong motive not to listen.

[Danielsan]

This is the very last time that I open a thread like that, for every comments, the answer is forking. Nobody can ask, nobody can express an opinion, we must stay in silence because we can't fork.

Fine, it will be.

[GarryRicketson]

People got upset when gtk1 moved to gtk2. So whats your point? Progress sucks?

And people got upset when systemd came along, as well.
I am one person that is not to happy with the direction a lot of so called "progress"
is taking, it often seems like it is taking steps back words, (to me), how ever on the other hand often progress is good, and comes up with new things that work well.
With that said, and just a note, it is not that I "don't care", I do , perhaps more
then most people realize, but trying to convince one side , that they are wrong,
and then the other side, does the same, in other words wasting time and energy
on arguments, that neither side will agree on, to me is totally pointless.
But some people find it entertaining.
To me it is just plain boreing. I prefer to spend my time trying to devlope my own system, using what is available, and I am grateful to the developers, that provide
the "peices" and a base to work with.
Nobody forces me to use the "newest" results of progress, if they don't work well
for me , I don't use them, when they do work well, well that is great, and thanks to
the developers that spend their time working on these things, instead of wasting their time arguing about this is better then that, BS,......... I don't care about the BS, and gossip, ...
For example, maybe I am not very fond of systemd, however many people are now
using it, since one of my goals is to be able to help people fix their system when they
have problems, then it stands to reason I should make a effort to learn more about systemd , so I can help them,...and they need it.
The same with GTK, ... and the progress it has made, anyone that is involved
in developing programs, etc. needs to learn how to work with the progress, and
again, instead of wasting time and energy on silly arguments, dedicate the time and energy to real solutions.
Some times it is like the 2 clowns, and they have a flat tire, and spend hours arguing
over which wrench to use to change the tire, the "left handed" monkey wrench, or the
"right handed" monkey wrench,... and neither one notices there is a real "lug nut wrench" designed to remove the lug nuts,...
There was one time, at work, that a clown, tried to start telling me I was holding the
shovel with the wrong hand, ... I hit him in the head with shovel (not really), but wanted
to, he was just wasting my time, trying to start a silly argument, I did tell him if
he didn't shut up and start helping, I would hit him with the shovel, and he went away,
crying to the boss, that he couldn't work with me, because I threatened him,... in the mean time I finished digging the ditch we were supposed to dig.
A few days later, the guy was no longer working with us, so that was the end
of the problem.

[cpoakes]

People got upset when gtk1 moved to gtk2. So whats your point? Progress sucks?

Contrary to popular perception and initial developer claims, GTK3 is simply an incremented version number, NOT progress or an improvement of the GTK2. Why?

GTK3 themes are not simpler. While using the common syntax of CSS, they are not easier to write. The number of elements, their complexity, and the required number of graphic assets (when used) is greater than GTK2.

GTK3 themes are not CSS. GTK3 supports a subset of CSS selectors and properties plus many special purpose ones specific to GTK3. For designers familiar with styling web pages, trying to apply that experience and account for the significant differences is frustrating.

GTK3 themes are unstable. Basic theme implementations are incompatible at each incremental release: 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 3.10, 3.12, and 3.14! Old themes consistently break and can even crash the UI (see Arch Shiki-Nouveau GTK3 theme comments). Though released in 2011, the the theme interface is still considered experimental (not stable, with the recent LTS designation attempting to address some shortcomings).

GTK3 is not compatible with Windows. The first Windows implementation rolled out four *years* after first stable and is both incomplete and outdated at v3.8. Developers targeting a single application to multiple operating systems avoid GTK3. Some continue with GTK2 like Gimp. Some have opted for QT like Wireshark and Subsurface. Audacious has even changed back to GTK2 and is preparing to migrate to QT. Others have chosen to roll their own: Chrome/Chromium has built their own widget set (like OpenOffice) rather than migrate from GTK2 to GTK3.

GTK3 has not obsoleted GTK2. GTK2 is in the repositories for all major distros (including bleeding edge, quick to move on Arch) and not scheduled for removal. Application developers have opted to continue with GTK2. The stable (4.10), and current (4.12) versions of XFCE still use GTK2; the ONLY feature of 4.14 is the port to GTK3 because the change is so complex (BTW a significant number of developers opted out rather than take on this headache). The next version of Gimp (2.10) uses GTK2 and the ONLY feature of Gimp 3.0 is a port to GTK3 (for the same reasons). Ardour retains GTK2. Midori, Transmission, Roxterm, and Abiword support both GTK2 and GTK3 configurations (though Debian generally opts to compile for GTK3). In short few applications have committed to GTK3 and most maintain GTK2 compatibility, save for those with gnome roots like the Gnome3 and Elementary applications. Even Unity is abandoning GTK3 for QT.

GTK+ originated as the Gimp Took Kit, a flexible, highly configurable, generic widget set. It was adopted by Gnome, XFCE, and LXDE as well as by cross-platform developers for those specific attributes. GTK3 is specifically crafted to the design goals of the version 3 Gnome Desktop and Gnome Shell, NOT as a generic toolkit or improvement to GTK2. GTK3 is unstable, less flexible and less configurable than GTK2. The Gnome developers have been resistant to suggestions and requests to stablize the theme API (until the recent LTS designation). As a stable and generic widget toolkit, GTK3 remains inferior to GTK2.

The new GTK(3) way seems too little, too late.

[JLloyd13]

GTK3 remains inferior to GTK2.

Well, in your opinion. Clearly the Gnome developers thought differently. And now apparently the Mate developers as well, because they're moving what was formerly Gnome 2 to gtk3 as well.

[deborah-and-ian]

you doesn't explain anything but saying I am wrong.

Because you've put out a few claims and haven't marked them as a suspicion or opinion. I've only conveyed what the GTK devs have proposed with the new system. Are they bullshitting us? Could be. We'll see in a year or so when the new system kicks in.

What the Gnome team said about it is something to their convenience and is highly arguable however the QT libraries do not break compatibility so they still continues to use the same approach evidently they consider is better than breaking the compatibility.

I agree that QT has a much better development model.

I know that everyone can fork whatever they want but this is not a point to stop comment about what happens in Debian or outside Debian, however I posted a link where a python developer is very concerned about this choice, have you read this post?

I don't have to read it as I agree with this. If I did a new programme for Linux, I'd only choose GTK if I made something for the Gnome desktop (and then it's pretty easy because you just use their entire IDE and let them fix it. You just bump up the version number). For any other case, and especially where cross-platform solutions are important, I'd choose QT. It's very modern, very lean and works on pretty much any platform you can dream of. Of course, through the bugginess of KDE, it undeservingly gets a bad wrap.

But yeah, forking sadly is the only answer sometimes. What if Mate hadn't forked Gnome2? I mean, yeah, you can get close with Xfce, but it's missing a lot of the features from Gnome. Sometimes communication sadly doesn't work.

My point is in no way to defend the choices made with GTK. I like some of the GUI simplification in the Gnome desktop apps, but that's about it. I realise that the Gnome people are notoriously hard to work with. However, I also wanted to point out that, with the new system, they are at least trying.

The new GTK(3) way seems too little, too late.

I hope you're wrong, especially since a few programmes I depend on like Inkscape and Gimp are moving to it.

[deborah-and-ian]

And now apparently the Mate developers as well, because they're moving what was formerly Gnome 2 to gtk3 as well.

In that case I think it's more along the lines of GTK2 just not being supported any more and Mate depending on the Gnome stack for e.g. hardware abstraction layers, virtual filesystems, etc. So it makes the most sense just to port it to GTK3.

[JLloyd13]

And now apparently the Mate developers as well, because they're moving what was formerly Gnome 2 to gtk3 as well.

In that case I think it's more along the lines of GTK2 just not being supported any more and Mate depending on the Gnome stack for e.g. hardware abstraction layers, virtual filesystems, etc. So it makes the most sense just to port it to GTK3.

I have no doubt that's a factor, but what I'm pointing out is things don't happen if at least someone doesn't want them to. No matter how stupid we might think something is, it's pointless to make large sweeping statements like 'gtk3 is inferior to gtk2' when that is clearly an opinion.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

I quite like GTK3 'cos I get working close buttons with tiling window managers

[JLloyd13]

I quite like GTK3 'cos I get working close buttons with tiling window managers

I totally agree, those are very nice