Why don't GNOME/KDE/others use a seperate icon filetype?

[Fzang]

Sorry, I am not sure where else I could get some sort of an answer, so I'm posting here.

First, tl;dr - Why doesn't Linux use a real icon format instead of .svg and .png?

Now to the wall...

Why in the world does Linux desktop environments use .svg and .png for icons throughout the system? Both Windows and Mac OS use specific icon files to store multiple icons in one. The advantages of an icon file such as .ico and .icns is that they contain all the icon images in one file, instead of 3 or 4 separate images in many separate directories, for 16px, 32px, 48px and above. As Linux is highly customizable in every aspect I don't see why we have to change the icon in 5 different locations to see the full effect.

I understand that .svg is scalable and can be upscaled to enormous sizes if desired, but is this really necessary? .ico and .icns can contain small and sharp sizes as well as large and detailed sizes.

[juancarlospaco]

Because on Linux, File extension doesn't matter.
Can be .png .svg .ubuntu .lol .nothing

It uses magic numbers.

[JillSwift]

Why write a whole new decoder library for an icon image format when all those other open standard libraries already exist? Why create a new editor for icon formats when GIMP and InkScape already exist?

SVG, being vector graphics, are so much smaller than raster graphic files, and scale well enough to cover the range very well, so it saves a lot of space.

On the whole, given reduced coding time, reduced library clutter, and reduced need for specialty applications, I think the GNOME/KDE/etc. way is a bit better.

[Mark76]

I'd like to know why they don't just use .svgs by default and get rid of all those redundant .png and .xpm icons in different sizes.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I will also say that I think the Linux icon format is better then Windows or OSX because you dont need a special editor to edit the icons on your system.

I'd like to know why they don't just use .svgs by default and get rid of all those redundant .png and .xpm icons in different sizes.

I dunno there might be some good reason for keeping .png and .xpm

[JillSwift]

I'd like to know why they don't just use .svgs by default and get rid of all those redundant .png and .xpm icons in different sizes.

I thought that's the way it was all headed, for a bit there. Then the .png files came rushing back in. Perhaps the artists just like GIMP (or other raster image program) better.

[RiceMonster]

Yeah I think it would make a lot of sense, so having a bunch of files for different sizes could be eliminated, but the disadvantage would be what SunnyRabbiera said here:

I will also say that I think the Linux icon format is better then Windows or OSX because you dont need a special editor to edit the icons on your system.

However, I wonder how hard this would be to have implemented in inkscape or the gimp or something? Probably not too hard. I could see it being implemented if freedesktop.org adopted it as a standard. Who knows?

[Dragonbite]

I like the .svg idea.

The only reason I could see going with a .ico is if there is a difference in rendering speed or weight on the desktop environment.

[Skripka]

SVG, being vector graphics, are so much smaller than raster graphic files, and scale well enough to cover the range very well, so it saves a lot of space.

Vector graphics, by definition, scale infinitely

[Fzang]

If your system runs slower because it has to render .ico instead of .svg you really really REALLY need a new computer. 1 MB more or less system-wide does not matter in 2009.

And I don't know what's meant with "special editor". It's only special because no one has made it yet. Mac OS comes with all the tools (except an actual image editor like PS or GIMP) to view icons in different sizes and compose them together. Windows fails with the preinstalled software, like always.

I don't see why these "special editors" are somehow impossible to develop for Linux.