Gtk cucks on SUICIDE WATCH

>>55260405
ayyyyyyyy

>>55260405
GTK IS FINISHED AND BANKRUPT

> backwards compatibility out the door
Just like the OS.

This is why Windows dominated the market.

>>55260836
>Use bangblows 8.1
>Get cucked by forced upgrade
>Fresh install removes speccy
>Fresh install doesn't run NVidia drivers
>Fresh install doesn't have a working start search

LMAO nice try

>>55260869
> gtk3 apps won't work on gtk4
> gtk3 apps will look different if reimplemented on gtk4
Windows themes and APIs from bloody XP, still supported in Win8.1.

Loonux can't even handle a minor update without breaking app compat. And you guys wonder why no businesses use lunix.

They communicated it in the worst possible way.
Just say you will release a stable version every 2 years and meanwhile experimental versions more often and give it a different name. Everything works in parallel thus no fuss for the end-user nor the program developer.
Instead they commit public sudoku by accentuating the fuck fest in the worst manner possible.

>>55261056
There are some XP programs that don't work in compatibility mode. Not much that is worth using, but it is out there. There is an XP PC at work kept in stasis because it is literally the only machine in the company that is capable of running foxpro, and god forbid that we need to maintain that one ancient foxpro app.

>And you guys wonder why no businesses use lunix.
Businesses do use linux. That doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Businesses are the best cesspool for shit software. See above anecdote about foxpro.

> gtk3 apps won't work on gtk4
> gtk3 apps will look different if reimplemented on gtk4
Gnome project solves backwards compatibility by requiring you to keep all major versions installed at once. This is not a new practice for them. gtk2 is still a dependency for many apps. Accelerated release cycle just means more of the same bullshit. Thanks gnome.

>>55260869
>Fresh install removes speccy
You should stay in your containment general.

>>55261480
It seems like a horrible idea in general.
Why consider 4.6 stable and not 4 or 5? Why reinvent the wheel? Also, judging by how 3 was handled, it'll be pointless to develop anything on a rolling distro.

>>55260405
That's awful, but I can understand why they decided to do this. I think it's the wrong decision though with regard to deprecation and version numbering.

Backward incompatible changes should stay in major version releases.