> > Can you please take your conspiracy theories, mis-information and > top-posting elsewhere, like /dev/null? Thanks.
I'm not sure where exactly my statements were conspiracy theories or mis-information. Or you just don't like my opinion because it's kind of different from the mainstream that you're used to? Please point out one or more of my statements that you think is false. On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 10:42 PM Michael Gratton <m...@vee.net> wrote: > > On 26 October 2020 01:06:59 Pál Tamás Ács <palikac...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Technically, Gtk2 and Gtk3 are two different toolkits with a similar >> name. It's a completely different thing that Red Hat is trying to make us >> believe that GTK3 is an improved successor of GTK2. It isn't. It never has >> been. >> >> GTK3 has been very much unstable, full of API breaks and annoyances from >> the get-go. It's slower due to CPU bloat under certain circumstances, eats >> up more RAM and is suffering from a serious UX dumbing down to the level of >> consumer devices like smartphones thus being made less suitable for >> desktop. Anti-features like mandatory recursive search >> <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/839> in File Dialog have >> also been introduced. >> >> GTK3 was marked stable in many distros despite it wasn't stable at all. >> Software creators and package maintainers didn't want to migrate to a >> poorly designed, underdeveloped, buggy graphical toolkit. They either moved >> forward to Qt or stayed with Gtk2. A famous precedent case is the cancelled >> GTK3 migration of Audacious. They went back to Gtk2 then moved forward >> toward Qt. >> >> There must be a cooperation among Linux maintainters outside of Red Hat >> to save Gtk2 and provide security updates and some critical bug fixes on >> the maintainer level >> > > Can you please take your conspiracy theories, mis-information and > top-posting elsewhere, like /dev/null? Thanks. > > — Mike > >
