I’m noticing more and more Apps actively trying to avoid Themes and instead opting for the fixed default look. Even some of the Default Gnome Apps. And then there are initiatives like Please don’t theme our apps. Is this the slow death of GTK Themes, and if yes, why?

  • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I find the whole idea of “unthemeable” apps annoying. One big motivating factor of using Linux for me is the ability to create a custom and cohesive aesthetic. I actually actively avoid apps that take it upon themselves to override and create their own (often ugly) decorations, menus, popups, etc. They’re almost never flattering, and they typically stand out like a sore thumb in my workflow.

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I’m on the opposite side. I prefer a monolithic, immutable theme where you can only change color accents and that’s it. This provides a consistent experience across all installations from one PC to another.

      Look at Mac or Windows users. If someone is used to using these Desktop environments, when they use another computer with the same OS, they know what to expect. They know how to operate the system right away and immediately be efficient and get things done.

      In a Linux desktop, not only there are a LOT of various desktop environments, AND they can also be customized to hell to a point they’re not even recognizable. From one desktop PC to another you can get wildly different experiences.

      I worked in a Linux company once and when someone asked for assistance or I had to show someone something on their PC, I often couldn’t even use them because I couldn’t find the apps or features I needed. Going from then standard default Gnome 2, to some tile based desktop, to some oddly customized Enlightenment desktop or a KDE environment themed to look like a Mac, it was hell.

      Some people have the opinion that allowing people that freedom is awesome. I think it scares the vast majority of the people away from using a Linux based desktop OS because of this. It looks too complicated for them. And that’s just for desktop environments. Then you get into the whole application management thing with various package managers and snaps and flatpaks. It’s too much. (Edit: Appimages could fix that issue for desktop applications.)

      All of this should be standardized into one simple system. Then we could have Gnome OS, KDE OS, XFCE OS based on Linux, just like we have Mac OS based on Free BSD.

      But that’s my opinion. And I know it’s unpopular among the Linux community, even if I’m right. ;)

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Look at Mac or Windows users.

        Mac, maybe. Windows? No. Not by a long shot. I have the pleasure of using Windows 11 for work, and it’s just as bad as the fragmentation between Linux applications using GTK vs those using Qt—except it’s all made by one single corporation.

        Microsoft just can’t commit to a design language. You have modernized applications made with WinSDK using WinUI, and then you have the “classic” applications made with the Win32 API. And, their designs could not be more diametrically opposed. WinUI applications are crammed full of blank space and animations, whereas Win32 applications look like “and the kitchen sink” Windows XP programs with a coat of paint slapped on top. You have system legacy applications that came straight out of Windows NT and use the same L&F since Windows 8, full of stacking popup models and design decisions made to work around limitations, you have a couple of “modern” applications that use the “my first time making a Flash game” Metro design language of Windows 8, a few more applications that use squared-edge and small border design from Windows 10, and then, finally, the Windows 11 design.

        That’s four entire generations of designs crammed into a single operating system, and unless you only use it to browse the web, you are going to see all of them at some point. Fuck, the modern Settings application still opens the control panel for some things.

        And again, that is just Microsoft’s programs. How about third-party software? You have some programs still using Win32 because they’re built on the bones of your ancestors, other programs using Win32 because WinUI 3 only has official support for C++ or C#, some programs in Qt for cross-platform support, even more programs using Electron because it’s more cost-effective to churn out HTML that looks like Windows than to maintain multiple frontends, and even programs that use Unity or Unreal Engine as a goddamn GUI toolkit.

        Seriously, fuck that. Linux might be mostly split across two GUI frameworks and proprietary pity-offerings that only exist because the company was already using Electron, but at least it’s consistent within them.

      • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I see the value in your opinion. I agree to an extent, because I’m a fan of reliable best practices and strict-ish design philosophies. However, there’s no way I could give up all the wonderful flavors of things, such as WMs.

      • TheV2@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        If the workflow at a workplace requires a consistent experience across all PCs…why doesn’t that workplace enforce that consistency?

        I understand your frustrations, but corporate or organizational needs should not technically limit the personal needs of using a personal computer.

        (And when people, used to a strict environment, are overwhelmed by the amount of freedom in their new environment, I think it’s better to guide them through the options instead of just taking away everyone’s freedom)

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Because GNOME aren’t interested in building a desktop that works well with non-GNOME programs.

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          One day, GNOME will be seen as those arseholes who tried to fragment further an already small and fragmented environment, for petty reasons like “i has a vizhun”.

          That day was yesterday, by the way.

            • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Days, years, they’re all in the bottomless past. Might as well never have happened.

              (Serious now, as the above is just me being silly: 13 years, with the release of GNOME 3.0.)

            • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Do you have further info? That’s a thing that I’d like to dig further into - why GNOME went from “decent but heavy desktop environment” to “oh look «those guys» /me facepalms”.

              • InstallGentoo@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 month ago

                The main devs at the center of every gnome related drama consist of a few particular individuals who are paid by red hat. I believe the original developer Miguel de Icaza left the gnome project and joined microsoft, and from that point the project made it’s focus on replicating mac os and blindly follow some supposed “vision” where concepts like theming don’t exist. They even explicitly stated they don’t care about cross desktop compatibility and would rather have a separate operating system for gnome. Any further than this and they’ll call you a conspiracy theorist.

                • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Thank you for the info. That’s… sad, really.

                  Any further than this and they’ll call you a conspiracy theorist.

                  I’m probably one now - it was inevitable to connect GNOME’s obtuseness to Red Hat violating the GPL. It sounds a lot like IBM trying to make its own operating system, lacking the means to do so, and exploiting open source to do it for them.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            non-GTK

            What do you mean?

            Gnome Software Store, Gnome Settings, System Monitor

            All of these programs use GTK.

      • calm.like.a.bomb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Because they created libadwaita and don’t care for anything else. In fact GNOME developers haven’t cared about users for a long time…

      • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        it’s just that gnome devs are super fast pace crazy scientists. anything that sounds wild, they gotta try it and often they have to abandon something that worked fine to do the new experiments. they had custom theme engine plugins as shared object files, JS window management, CSS themes, SVG icons, app specific buttons in title bars, JS extensions and they’re not gonna quit. if you use gnome and you rice your desktop, you better prepare to port your theme at least twice per year.

  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    The fact that https://stopthemingmy.app/ isn’t a joke…

    App Icons are the identity of an app. Changing an app’s icon denies the developer the possibility to control their brand.

    FOSS is built around the principle of software being free, as in freedom. If you want to restrict how a user interacts with your software for the sake of a corporate identity, fuck right off and go to an Apple platform. We won’t miss you.

    Appstream Screenshots (the screenshots used in GNOME Software or Flathub) are not very useful if they look nothing like the real app does once you install it.

    Oh no, how tragic. Your application doesn’t look like your screenshots when running on my customized system. You know what would be more tragic? Your application sticking out like a sore thumb.

    User Help and Documentation are similarly useless if UI elements on your system are different from the ones described in the documentation.

    I’m really struggling to understand their perspective here. Is their documentation really that bad, to the point where it would be impossible to follow if the background color is wrong or if the buttons look like slightly-different buttons?

    The only reasonable complaints they had are with broken styling or icon sets replacing icons in a way that changes their meaning. The rest of this is just straight up stupid.

    • lastweakness@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      That site specifically mentions that tinkerers can do what they want as long as they understand the consequences. So just more pointless hate towards that site as has been seen forever since the website first came up…

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        They do, but then go on to contradict themselves:

        On a platform level, we believe GTK should stop forcing a single stylesheet on all apps by default. Instead of apps having to opt out of this by hardcoding a stylesheet, they should use the platform stylesheet unless they opt in to something else. We realize this is a complicated issue, but assuming every app works with every stylesheet is a bad default.

        Emphasis theirs. They are explicitly saying that their belief is for applications to use the [original GNOME] platform stylesheet by default, and making the ability to reskin an application opt-in by the application [developer]. I agree that a one size fits all stylesheet is bad, but the solution should be to provide more granular selectors at the toolkit level to allow themes to fix what they break, not force defaults onto everyone.

  • Luci@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    I solved this issue by avoiding GTK/Gnome apps where possible.

  • Brickardo@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    If you like to tinker with your own system, that’s fine with us.

    This claim therefore completely invalidates the rest of the website.

    /thread?

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    Themes break things and libadwaita isn’t backwards compatible with old GTK themes. However, libadwaita is actually pretty easy to theme so we might see a comeback at some point