This article was written in the sense of bashing gnome but yet some points seem to be valid. It explains the history of gtk 1 to 4 and the influence of gnome in gtk. I’m not saying gnome is bad here, instead I find this an interesting to read and I’m sharing it.

  • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Do not misunderstand me. I don’t generally use a lot of desktop icons. For the most part, the fewer icons are on my desktop the better, but I do have a few.

    But back when Ubuntu briefly got rid of them, it sucked because occasionally I do want some icons on my desktop.

    In short: if you don’t wanna use any, you don’t have to; just gimme the damn option.

    Also, I never said I dislike Gnome.

    • the_q@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Oh I know I’m just being purposefully jerky. That’s the best part about Linux; options!

    • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      just gimme the damn option.

      That’s what they did initially. Unfortunately, keeping around an antiquated optional feature that no developer wants to work on isn’t free. It ends up being a hurdle for improving other stuff and at the same time it doesn’t work as well as the user would expect. There is more context here if you’re interested.

      • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Antiquated? Hardly. Lots of people still use desktop icons.

        (Unless you’re referring to Gnome users; maybe it’s different with that subset. I’m more referring to computer users in general.)

        Also, that is interesting! I’ll read it sometime! Thanks!

        • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Clarification: In my previous comment I meant that the implementation was antiquated, which is why it was causing many problems.

          Although I do think that desktop icons in general are outdated because they’re designed around a desktop metaphor that is itself outdated. Our use of computers has changed vastly over time and the original metaphors are irrelevant to today’s newcomers. Yet most desktop environments are still replicating the same 30 year old ideas. It’s because we’re used to them (which I understand is a valid reason), not because they are necessarily the most pleasant or the most efficient.

          • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            That’s fair. Like I said, I mostly don’t use them. But if I really need to remember something in the short term, I’ll put it on the desktop. Or if I don’t really have any other place to put it I’ll put it there.

            My point is that it’s useful to have when you need it, even if you don’t normally use it. Although I suppose it wouldn’t be difficult necessarily to find a new workflow. Still, to most everyday people I imagine desktop icons are kind of a non-issue.

            I have opened in a tab that article you sent me. If keeping such an otherwise minor feature available is such a problem for future development for developers, I will have to read that. Because it otherwise seems almost inconsequentially small a detail when compared to the OS / file system experience as a whole.