Re: GTK+3 configuration
On 3/30/18, Saul A. Peebsen via gtk-list <gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> O'brother. So this insanity is known and nobody cares. It appears I
Users care and maybe it has become possible to disable all but select
entries via user config, but I'm unaware of such a thing. Patching GTK+
isn't good idea, but what can you do.
The pieces adding network drives and less useful (clutter) mount points
are easy to disable in the C file if you decide to patch. Let's hope
my admission to patching it won't be used an excuse to make patching
harder in GTK+4.
> must go patching then. For illustration:
> I'd like to keep only entries I have added and remove all forced ones.
That's the sane behavior for "advanced users" which hasn't been the
target of popular mainstream desktop environment and commercial desktop
operating systems for quite a few years now. Anytime someones asks me
why I use a window manager and Emacs, not a collection of Electron clients
and KDE or GNOME, I can only say this: my config has been working untouched
for one or more decades just the way I want it. Heck, my FVWM config still
works like it did 20 years ago. That's enough venting from me, none of
it meant personal or as an offense towards a particular project. Design
decisions that make sense for some are big regressions for others, that's
the conundrum. It becomes painful if KDE/GNOME Desktop ideas spill over
to Qt and GTK+ when one doesn't want/need a desktop environment.
> Some are even duplicates and still user has no control over it? Just
> wondering, what's the rationale behind this mess?
I can only speculate so I can't answer that.
gtk-list mailing list