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 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