3 ms·

Please, no. One of the biggest problems IMO for Linux desktops is that everyone decides to rewrite most of it from scratch. (e.g. gnome 2 -> 3, Ubuntu's varied

Please, no. One of the biggest problems IMO for Linux desktops is that everyone decides to rewrite most of it from scratch. (e.g. gnome 2 -> 3, Ubuntu's varied and changeable desktop UIs, etc...) No-one can be bothered to fix bugs in the existing desktop environments because they are all too busy working on a rewrite that will be the new 'perfect' desktop, with its own set of annoying bugs and missing features compared to the previous revisions. Linux needs desktops that get incrementally improved, fixing the countless minor but irritating 'paper cut' kind of bugs that hinder users. But the problem is, that kind of development work is boring, and the people who spend their free time writing open-source desktops naturally want to work on their own interesting projects instead. Reading and fixing existing code is just not fun. This all sounds very harsh and unfair on the OSS developers, but it is just a fact of life; if you are volunteering your time and effort on a project, you probably don't want to do the boring and dull bug fixing work.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
That is not entirely correct, f.i. there is http://trinitydesktop.org/ http://trinitydesktop.org/ which continues to support KDE3 in current systems, respectively porting it to later versions of QT, fixing (security) bugs in the bitrotten external libraries, and so on. Compared to contemporary DEs it flies! The question remains if this makes sense, because countless other WMs can be made to fly also, which one could also use, and not lose that much functionality at all, given the lack of available software which would utilize anything that the old KDE3 has to offer. So one way or another, the Linux desktop experience remains ghettoish.