Is there a possibility to remove Google, Facebook and other account providers from the gnome online accounts setting I am not aware of?
I could not find anything regarding this - and therefore opened an issue on their gitlab repository:
The providers can be disabled with the help of dconf:
With that, you can enable/disable providers from showing up in the settings list.
If you want to just have the IMAP provider enabled, the content of `00-goa` needs to look like this:
@puresick If you don't select them, they don't do anything.
@puresick In general, they don't do anything except authenticating your machine so that it can access Google services.
@ITwrx @puresick That's a very näive way of looking at it; those services exist, and people are already using them, with or without GNOME. Thanks to GNOME, though, people can access them through free and open source software.
Sure, it would be great if infrastructure was free an open too; GNOME is not going to prevent that from happening, but GNOME is also not going to provide that kind of infrastructure because it's way beyond what we can offer.
In the issue above, the Developer pointed me at the possibilities of:
1. disabling them on compile time
2. configuring gnome user permissions to hide these for others
Which is awesome, but both options are still not end user friendly.
@puresick @ITwrx "user friendly" is a spectrum, not a static condition. The appropriate "friendliness" level is to allow people to see them, and decide to never use them. Having a toggle to remove them—and then have a way to bring them back—would be counterproductive and, typically, *less* user friendly, because it would add new levels of indirection, new settings, new UI.
I understand you don't want to use them. Don't try to dress up your personal choice with "user friendliness".
Nevertheless, I do not agree with your assumption that this would be counterproductive- that depends on the design and implementation of such a feature. Sure, removing complexity can help the general user experience of software (and often does!), but so does enabling the user having more control over the software he/she uses.
@puresick I have same idea as yours but I cannot phrase it the language you can like that. Thanks for representing me (and I believe, many other people). Thanks.
@ademalsasa Wow, thank you for your kind message! :)