Return to Answer

The file is incredibly complex. I guess someone has developed a parametrizable image and you have got one of the billions possible versions. The automate which generated your version didn't bother to simplify the result, the image contains a heavy and complex overhead which is interpreted differently in different image viewers. No idea who actually makes or has made mistakes.

The structure can be simplified by applying Extensions > Arrange > Deep Ungroup a few times or by patiently ungrouping all groups. Unfortunately also group level definitions and transformations are lost and soon there's something like your version got in Ubuntu.

Drawing the same looking SVG manually from scratch would generate much simpler file. It's not a big deal to make one if you know which version you want.

I tried one.

There's only a few combined and simple paths, nothing which resembles the spaghetti of the original.

I had a screenshot of your original as a reference (=locked to bottom). The text shapes are taken from your file after applying once Extension > Arrange > Deep Ungroup to find them.

The file is incredibly complex. I guess someone has developed a parametrizable image and you have got one of the billions possible versions. The automate which generated your version didn't bother to simplify the result, the image contains a heavy and complex overhead which is interpreted differently in different image viewers. No idea who actually makes or has made mistakes.

The structure can be simplified by applying Extensions > Arrange > Deep Ungroup a few times or by patiently ungrouping all groups. Unfortunately also group level definitions and transformations are lost and soon there's something like the version you got in Ubuntu (see NOTE1).

Drawing the same looking SVG manually from scratch would generate much simpler file. It's not a big deal to make one if you know which version you want.

I tried one.

There's only a few combined and simple paths, nothing which resembles the spaghetti of the original.

I had a screenshot of your original as a reference (=locked to bottom). The text shapes are taken from your file after applying once Extension > Arrange > Deep Ungroup to find them.

NOTE1: Ungrouping finally reveals also the geometric shapes. Their proportions were right, but the sizes, placements and colors must be set manually.

The file is incredibly complex. I guess someone has developed a parametrizable image and you have got one of the billions possible versions. The automate which generated your version didn't bother to simplify the result, the image contains a heavy and complex overhead which is interpreted differently in different image viewers. No idea who actually makes or has made mistakes. The image is far too complex to be analyzed by us non-programmers.

Drawing the same looking SVG manually from scratch would generate much simpler file. It's not a big deal to make one if you know which version you want.

I tried one.

There's only a few combined and simple paths, nothing which resembles the spaghetti of the original.

I had a screenshot of your original as a reference (=locked to bottom). The text shapes are taken from your file after applying once Extension > Arrange > Deep Ungroup to find them.

The file is incredibly complex. I guess someone has developed a parametrizable image and you have got one of the billions possible versions. The automate which generated your version didn't bother to simplify the result, the image contains a heavy and complex overhead which is interpreted differently in different image viewers. No idea who actually makes or has made mistakes. 

The structure can be simplified by applying Extensions > Arrange > Deep Ungroup a few times or by patiently ungrouping all groups. Unfortunately also group level definitions and transformations are lost and soon there's something like your version got in Ubuntu.

Drawing the same looking SVG manually from scratch would generate much simpler file. It's not a big deal to make one if you know which version you want.

I tried one.

There's only a few combined and simple paths, nothing which resembles the spaghetti of the original.

I had a screenshot of your original as a reference (=locked to bottom). The text shapes are taken from your file after applying once Extension > Arrange > Deep Ungroup to find them.

The file is incredibly complex. There's a structure which with different rendering parameters would give totally different images. I guess it's a remnant from the automate which generated your SVG. Different browsers and viewers interpret it differently.

Drawing the same looking SVG manually from scratch would generate much simpler file. It's not a big deal to make one if you know which version you want.

I tried one.

There's only a few combined and simple paths, nothing which resembles the spaghetti of the original.

I had a screenshot of your original as a reference (=locked to bottom). The text shapes are taken from your file after applying once Extension > Arrange > Deep Ungroup to find them.

The file is incredibly complex. I guess someone has developed a parametrizable image and you have got one of the billions possible versions. The automate which generated your version didn't bother to simplify the result, the image contains a heavy and complex overhead which is interpreted differently in different image viewers. No idea who actually makes or has made mistakes. The image is far too complex to be analyzed by us non-programmers.

Drawing the same looking SVG manually from scratch would generate much simpler file. It's not a big deal to make one if you know which version you want.

I tried one.

There's only a few combined and simple paths, nothing which resembles the spaghetti of the original.

I had a screenshot of your original as a reference (=locked to bottom). The text shapes are taken from your file after applying once Extension > Arrange > Deep Ungroup to find them.