I'm soo happy to see that KDE and GNOME are finally working closer together. This should have happened years ago. I hope it is not too late to build a bigger app ecosystem together https://www.zdnet.com/article/gnome-and-kde-work-together-on-the-linux-desktop/
@Karlitschek I am a bit skeptical. Just a few month ago some Gnome app developers explicitly wanted no theme-ing of their apps because that would destroy the supposed app experience and now the same people should work together to build a common ecosystem?
In that case, their software is not open source. Can you give specific examples?
Besides, the point of theming *is* to “destroy” the app's default experience, and it is not for the author to question the reasons for it.
Ok, it is a reasoned request not a restriction. I don't see any problem with that.
@0 Yeah, it is a request, but I fail to see why it is any app developers business whether a distro wants to have Xfce or Mate or Cinnamon or KDE and not vanilla GNOME. I personally will not use any of these apps anymore and will advice people not to use them if asked.
> but I fail to see why it is any app developers business whether a distro wants to have Xfce or Mate or Cinnamon or KDE and not vanilla GNOME.
What does this have to do with anything above? What you are talking about is distributions re-skinning the applications to be orange or brown... Nobody asked them to ship gnome instead of kde, or even vanilla GNOME...
There are a lot more downstream deviations than just the stylesheet and icon pack used.
@alatiera @0 No, they ask that their apps will look like vanilla gnome, i.e. no custom themes, icons or colors. That will break any effort to have anything other than a vanilla Gnome desktop since all apps should be themed the same.
They ask to ship a KDE distro where all Gnome apps look like vanilla Gnome within KDE? That is effectively telling people not to use KDE. The same goes for Ubuntu's version of Gnome or Cinnamon.
From Ubuntu, over LinuxMint to Manjaro all of them violate that.
So what about FlatHub instead that claim to ship "apps for Linux" while there are apps "designed for GNOME only" according to their respective developers that refuse to support any other Linux DE? Is it responsible? Doesn't it break the experience since one doesn't know what a "Linux app" is supposed to be?
Indeed, but knowing that FlatHub is mainly by people closer to GNOME, I found odd the discussion on themes with an argument about the optimal UX while on FlatHub there is no reference to GNOME but it seems the most general repo possible for GNU/Linux...
In my opinion a distro that ships Plasma and FlatHub repo by default would cause more troubles than one with custom themes.
If one wants GNOME-first apps in his Plasma (or anything else) should consciously enable an additional repo.
@alexl Sure, but it's no different than a distro repo in that regard.
This has nothing to do with Flatpak/Flathub, it's a general problem with anything-goes repositories vs. platform-targeted app stores, like e.g. elementary has.
So why are GNOME app developers so worried that their apps got themed to make a website but it's okay that their apps are distributed in generic repositories combined with DEs that are not GNOME?
@alexl It's not that the latter isn't a problem, but it's a less important one. The potential breakage from running apps outside GNOME is usually less severe than from theming, and there are many more users on Ubuntu et al than on non-GNOME distros.