On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:52:17 -0800 Keith Lofstrom <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:54:25 -0800 > Keith Lofstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > However, I vaguely recall being told that gnome3 can be > > configured to behave very much like gnome2. > > > > Is this true? WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE???? > ... > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 02:29:35PM -0800, Tom wrote: > Tom> > https://linuxreviews.org/GNOME_Developers_have_Made_Their_Moves_against_Themes > > KL: frightening! > > Tom> There are lots of good libraries for developing gtk2 like > Tom> perl-gtk2 on CPAN and wxglade. > > KL: ... and no doubt some of the third party tools I use depend on > them. I haven't gotten beyond borked xterms yet, much less testing > other apps. > > Tom> I have spent a great deal of time on finding myself a good > Tom> solution to this problem over years and have settled on forking > Tom> and maintaining myself various standalone gtk2 and QT components > Tom> to have a complete desktop environment which I use as a daily > Tom> driver. I would be more than happy to share any software and > Tom> recommendations I have running. I've got my entire system up and > Tom> running smooth on GCC9 and glibc 2.29-r3 as well as the Devuan > Tom> base system. > > KL: Sounds wonderful! Time for an /un/fork? What's the > easiest way to accomodate your valiant efforts in the long > term? What are the security risks? What corporate users > are also faced with quicksand under their working tools, > and might help you and me keep all this working for years > or decades? Second-tier electronics CAD companies might > also be facing this cliff, as well as large academic tool- > makers. > > Perhaps call the result gnome2+s, which is gnome2 plus > security patches and bug fixes forever. As time goes on, > those should asymptote towards zero, which is why I prefer > proven older tools. > > I've been using "Scientific Linux" for many years, which > is mostly CentOS with extra scientific tools, and a support > community focused entirely on stability. They aren't going > to shut down the Large Hadron Collider or multi-YEAR > computation jobs at Los Alamos because some clown at Redhat > wants code for his "smartphone" AKA dodopaddle. However, > Scientific Linux did get shut down by clueless managers at > Fermilabs who don't want to pay for "duplication". Sigh. > > Keith > the GTK+2 library itself does not actually need a lot of work. If you clone the upstream repo, despite it being 'unsupported' is does still receive security patches and bugfixes. There's also the fact that since the software has been around for so long there just is not the need for constant fixes as the software has matured. Which itself is more than adequate if gtk+2 already has all the features you need. Regarding the name, If there was a need to fork the toolkit lib itself, I'd like to call it gtk-ng. In similar convention to iptraf-ng, airemon-ng, or cap-ng. Although in this case it can have a double meaning. "Next-Generation" or far more likely, "Not-Gnomed". -- _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
