3 ms·

What I don't like about Gnome is the lack of options. It's all so barebones, things have to work just one way and if you don't like it you have to resort to a l

What I don't like about Gnome is the lack of options. It's all so barebones, things have to work just one way and if you don't like it you have to resort to a load of plugins that often don't work right with the latest versions and/or cause issues when working together. I don't understand why lack of choice is meant to be 'modern'. It's not an iPad I just use for facebook. It's a computer. Apple has put the opinionated software paradigm on the map but it's not the be-all-end-all. Especially for desktops. For screen-constrained mobiles it works a lot better. Systemd I don't like because it's so heavy. I really like lightweight systems. I use FreeBSD for that reason though I have other reasons too. And Alpine when I need Linux. Alpine is working on an init system based on s6 that will be more lightweight and I will give that a chance. I'm not against progress. I just like having options. And Wayland, I don't mind it too much but I do miss the network transparency badly.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Every boolean option you add to a system doubles the possible configurations of the system, and the possible interactions and bugs. Add just ten new flag options and you've increased the configuration state by 2*10 or 1024 times. That's why options are a bad thing.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  For developers maybe but not for users :) And these are the ones you're developing for. And look at other systems accomplishing this very well. Like KDE which has a ton of options and they don't suffer this problem.
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    KDE suffers a quality problem that Gnome does not. I had countless bugs and random issues last time I tried KDE but I have pretty much never had an issue with the core Gnome desktop experience (the bundled programs are another matter). At first the lack of options on gnome bothered me but then I just accepted the default config and found that it isn't actually important to be able to tweak every single bit of layout and the default config gnome ships is actually really good.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      That’s abusive to users. They constantly change random things, and optimized the desktop for mobile regardless of if I’m mobile or not. I don’t want to be stuck with a crappy desktop environment that I don’t like if I left windows for the same problems, and I doubt most people want to be forced into someone else’s narrow workflow as well.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      >I had countless bugs and random issues last time I tried KDE Would you mind saying when was this? This is important as the KDE crew is delivering new features and bug fixes on a rapid cadence. So your experience from a year ago, might not be valid today. Also, a lot of the issues KDE suffers from are out of the hands of the KDE devs, as some issues stem form GNOME devs enforcing their agenda on the Linux DE community as the defacto standard on how things should work, leaving the KDE devs to fix the jank they create.
  - Hegel3DReloaded 5y ago
    The statement about booleans is a total fallacy. In real life, this MAY be the case for some cases (to introduce a bug in some combinations), and totally harmless for other cases. It depends on the context. Even then, you cannot make the omelet if you don't break the eggs. That said, GNOME is one nice whole egg.
- Hegel3DReloaded 5y ago
  NHF, but I must ask: Are you a GNOME developer?

chrisseaton 5y ago

Every boolean option you add to a system doubles the possible configurations of the system, and the possible interactions and bugs. Add just ten new flag options and you've increased the configuration state by 2*10 or 1024 times. That's why options are a bad thing.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
For developers maybe but not for users :) And these are the ones you're developing for. And look at other systems accomplishing this very well. Like KDE which has a ton of options and they don't suffer this problem.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  KDE suffers a quality problem that Gnome does not. I had countless bugs and random issues last time I tried KDE but I have pretty much never had an issue with the core Gnome desktop experience (the bundled programs are another matter). At first the lack of options on gnome bothered me but then I just accepted the default config and found that it isn't actually important to be able to tweak every single bit of layout and the default config gnome ships is actually really good.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    That’s abusive to users. They constantly change random things, and optimized the desktop for mobile regardless of if I’m mobile or not. I don’t want to be stuck with a crappy desktop environment that I don’t like if I left windows for the same problems, and I doubt most people want to be forced into someone else’s narrow workflow as well.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >I had countless bugs and random issues last time I tried KDE Would you mind saying when was this? This is important as the KDE crew is delivering new features and bug fixes on a rapid cadence. So your experience from a year ago, might not be valid today. Also, a lot of the issues KDE suffers from are out of the hands of the KDE devs, as some issues stem form GNOME devs enforcing their agenda on the Linux DE community as the defacto standard on how things should work, leaving the KDE devs to fix the jank they create.
- Hegel3DReloaded 5y ago
  The statement about booleans is a total fallacy. In real life, this MAY be the case for some cases (to introduce a bug in some combinations), and totally harmless for other cases. It depends on the context. Even then, you cannot make the omelet if you don't break the eggs. That said, GNOME is one nice whole egg.
Hegel3DReloaded 5y ago
NHF, but I must ask: Are you a GNOME developer?