The letter is about distributions not end users. It says end users are allowed to do as they wish. So that accessibility concern is covered.

It says distributions should not theme because it doesn't work. If theming doesn't work when a distribution does it, it doesn't work either when an end user does it for accessibility.

"Doesn't work" is far too broad a statement. An end user might choose a theme that works fine for the handful of particular applications they care about; yet that same theme might disrupt many other applications on the same distribution.

End users can make that choice with regard to the extremely limited set of applications and use-cases that matter to them. A distribution has a far wider landscape to consider.

> "Doesn't work" is far too broad a statement.

If you consider something that does not work reliably to work, you're right. I don't.

A distribution has to consider more applications and use cases, but it also has more resources. Doing things at the distribution level is much more efficient than each user doing their own thing, that's why they exist.

Expecting distro maintainers to test every GUI feature on every piece of software on Linux is a tad unrealistic don’t you think?

You’d expect (hope) core applications would be tested but what about stuff that’s not in the official repos? Or stuff that is but had a new feature unbeknown to the distro maintainers?

On HN last week there was a GUI bug in a core OSX utility being discussed that slipped through Apples testing. If they managed to overlook something in their own OS, then a smaller team of people, likely working for free in their spare time (remember a lot of the distros that ship non-standard themes as a default are spin offs) is unlikely to test every GUI form and dialog that can be rendered o. Linux.

Actually no that’s not what it said. Or at least not in the way that your terse paraphrased summary suggests.

What it actually does is list a number of reasons why distro themes are bad (in their opinion). Some of those reasons amarettos equally true for end users theming and some of those reasons are not. The letter also does say that end users are welcome to theme themselves but they should do so under the knowledge that there be (potential) dragons.

What it doesn’t say is that theming “doesn’t work”

Personally speaking, I’m on the fence about whether I agree that distro theming is bad. However I do think their points are perfectly valid and that a considerable number of HN commentators have taken the letter completely out of context.

Edit: and I’m also a little peeved that there is so much knee jerk down voting of comments on here. Particularly when those comments are quite literally correct. It’s a really pity you guys couldn’t be bothered to read the letter before abusing your right to moderate.

One of the reasons they cite for distro theming being bad is that it that it makes applications unusable. I think that can be validly summarized as "theming doesn't work".

“Can” is not the same as “does”.

Theming literally can break the UI in unexpected ways, however if often doesn’t. But if one manages the theme themselves then they are able to manage those edge cases themselves. If a distro does it then they can’t guarantee the end users are even aware that the unexpected UI is the fault of the distro.

That point was clearly laid out in the letter too. If people had bothered to read it.