• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I already mentioned in my comment why the “just have it as an API” point wouldn’t really work unless extensions became severely hampered in terms of what you can do with them.

    • Eugenia@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s more acceptable than to have them break every 6 months.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        No it isn’t.

        And practically, they don’t break every 6 months. Almost all extensions are patched weeks before the new version is even released.

        E: so people actively want extensions to be practically useless and barely be able to change anything? You are lying. If they implemented that all we’d here is “hur dur Gnome wants to lock the system down”

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You actually want extensions to be useless. What’s the point of them if they can hardly do anything?

        You’re fundamentally not understanding how extensions work. They cannot be even nearly as useful as they are now if they have to go through a standardised API. No docks, no window management, etc.

        • Eugenia@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You can always provide them with enough standardized APIs that don’t break, to make them useful. The situation that’s right now is unacceptable.