It EXPLICITLY says that it does not talk about users changing things on their machines, but wants it to be something the user sets instead of a distro applying by default.

I may choose a distro that specifically looks a certain way - like the one that tries to look just like MacOS. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do. Just as it's perfectly reasonable to regret consistency on a platform that doesn't have distros - as you may want to vary.

"However, if you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that you’re in unsupported territory."

Unsupported territory, for changing a desktop icon, or adding a higher or lower contrast stylesheet? Wow. That's pompous and absurd for me. Doesn't sound like it's explicitly made a reasonable exception though, just piles on a layer of entitlement for a damn brand.

If a distro is committed to modifying the style sheets to look like macOS, then it should be the distro’s responsibility to maintain the applications. Precisely because the distro market for Linux is so varied, it is hard for Gnome app developers to support all possible theme configurations.

Read the banner at the top of the page again. It doesn’t ask users to stop customizing, and it doesn’t say there shouldn’t be distros with custom theming. It just asks distros to stop shipping broken apps as a result of theming, and it asserts that if that’s the route you want to go, then you are on your own.

> it doesn’t say there shouldn’t be distros with custom theming.

Reading carefully between the lines, I think they actually do hint at that:

> Please don’t theme our apps

> This is why we ask respectfully that our applications not be themed.

> On a platform level, we believe GTK should stop forcing a single stylesheet on all apps by default.

> If you are a distribution who changes the system stylesheet and icons, please reconsider this decision.

> If you do, we ask that you please stop theming our apps.

Choosing a Linux distro with a specific theme rather than one using Adwaita or sticking with the pre-installed Windows is the user changing things on their machine.

I'm not sure they're saying that end-users shouldn't make those decisions, simply warning that customised versions of their software won't be supported by upstream to the same degree, and thus distributers should leave the styling as-is. On the first point, to quote the article:

"If you like to tinker with your own system, that’s fine with us. However, if you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that you’re in unsupported territory. Any issues you encounter should be reported to the theme developer, not the app developer."

I think that's the point they're trying to make - there is a certain amount of caveat emptor associated with theming. But they don't make it well when they say "don't them our apps".

They're not addressing this to end users. There is a notice at the top of the article in a bright yellow box.

> Please read the letter all the way to the end. This is aimed at distributions breaking apps by default, not tinkerers playing with their own setup.

> Please read the letter all the way to the end

I did thanks.

"If you like to tinker with your own system, that’s fine with us ... However, if you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that you’re in unsupported territory."

Unsupported territory for choosing a distro that looks unusual, or applies theming, or for changing my own damn desktop icon?

It's unreasonable to expect a developer to support third-party modifications to the software--especially when that software and support are free.

To my view of the world, the reasonable grain of truth in the article is "Don't break our apps when you theme them to match distro". A perfectly reasonable request, and stance that most could support without caveat.

Which is then thoroughly buried by a point of view that feels the app is the only arbiter, and tries to justify that on consistency of brand, icons not representing what the developer wishes etc, and that even individual user customisation is a big favour - an unsupported edge case.

What of the users?

It's reasonable to expect an app to both allow, and to work correctly with any theming built into the platform or distro. Bugs may be on either side. I concede it's mainly the major platforms that have done most to take away choices here, so you can no longer download new iconsets - to transform everything into ST:TNG or whatever. Where a distro seeks to theme everything it's the one app that won't, for brand experience, or developer wishes - that now sticks out like a sore thumb.

That is to be regretted, as much as platforms removing ability to build a custom night mode or extreme low contrast theme, or even add some slight 3d back to Windows. It's the end user who loses out to a worse experience or usability each and every time.

Good thing theming doesn't modify the software. It's reasonable to expect a developer to support software being used in an environment that does not 100% match what they use (to the extent it's reasonable to expect support in the first place).

> Good thing theming doesn't modify the software.

Changing the UI changes the software from the user perspective.

That's why they're users and not developers.

It's always a good sign that you're communicating clearly when you have to add a big yellow disclaimer at the top.

The article isn't complaining about users changing things; it's complaining about the desktop unilaterally applying a style on all apps without testing.

I see your point. But beware that if you make app developers go mad, they can stop using gnome and use some fw that doesn't allow theming (there is only certain level you can piss off the people :).