3 ms·

Plasma has too many knobs to tweak and their settings menus are too modular, so it’s hard to turn those knobs (there are like 4 keyboard shortcut panels for exa

Plasma has too many knobs to tweak and their settings menus are too modular, so it’s hard to turn those knobs (there are like 4 keyboard shortcut panels for example). IMHO, I find it easier to be keyboard driven in gnome than plasma (at least, as of a year ago)

simion314 7y ago
How is this related with Wayland? I prefer having checkboxes then a regedit or gnome gconfig. About shorcuts, I also like having the GUI there to configure the keyboard layout (like set capslook as Escape) rather then edit xorg configs. Also it makes sense to have a section for Global shortcuts and a section for regular shortcuts. If you do not know what Global shortcuts are maybe you don't need them. Probably GHOME users complain about Firefox's "about:config" because it has too many options and their brain can't fit that many options. The point is the distro gives you some defaults and if you are competent(you know to read and use google) you can change the distro defaults. if you are not competent you find the distro that looks cool and use it as the developers intended and adapt to it not it to you.
- PlutoIsAPlanet 7y ago
  Anything that's shown in main settings has to be QA'd and officially supported, often at a commercial level. Anything hidden in Tweaks or about:config like settings can be classed as "here be dragons". That's one reason GNOME has less settings (not the main one). Less Settings = less to test, less to support.
  - simion314 7y ago
    But why are some GNOME fans get irritated and irrationally in this case complain about the fact that some developers are more capable of supporting more settings. Why you as a user are bothered that application X has options for people more capable then you of using them. I am a developer and I understand the part of more coptions and more code paths means more things to test, but with robust code it is not a big deal. Imagine the wallpaper would be hard coded because the developers are lazzy and won't test with a different wallpaper. As a person with dsabilities I contributed a few patches and it would suck to have them rejected because I would need to bring a proof that there is a majority of users that need those things addressed. Anyway i was not complaining about GNOME removing options or hidding them but complaining that some insecure person for some reason had to complain about KDE into a topic about Wayland support.

simion314 7y ago

How is this related with Wayland? I prefer having checkboxes then a regedit or gnome gconfig. About shorcuts, I also like having the GUI there to configure the keyboard layout (like set capslook as Escape) rather then edit xorg configs. Also it makes sense to have a section for Global shortcuts and a section for regular shortcuts. If you do not know what Global shortcuts are maybe you don't need them. Probably GHOME users complain about Firefox's "about:config" because it has too many options and their brain can't fit that many options. The point is the distro gives you some defaults and if you are competent(you know to read and use google) you can change the distro defaults. if you are not competent you find the distro that looks cool and use it as the developers intended and adapt to it not it to you.

PlutoIsAPlanet 7y ago
Anything that's shown in main settings has to be QA'd and officially supported, often at a commercial level. Anything hidden in Tweaks or about:config like settings can be classed as "here be dragons". That's one reason GNOME has less settings (not the main one). Less Settings = less to test, less to support.
- simion314 7y ago
  But why are some GNOME fans get irritated and irrationally in this case complain about the fact that some developers are more capable of supporting more settings. Why you as a user are bothered that application X has options for people more capable then you of using them. I am a developer and I understand the part of more coptions and more code paths means more things to test, but with robust code it is not a big deal. Imagine the wallpaper would be hard coded because the developers are lazzy and won't test with a different wallpaper. As a person with dsabilities I contributed a few patches and it would suck to have them rejected because I would need to bring a proof that there is a majority of users that need those things addressed. Anyway i was not complaining about GNOME removing options or hidding them but complaining that some insecure person for some reason had to complain about KDE into a topic about Wayland support.