3 ms·
They are incompetent, but it's not (totally) their fault. They were never exposed to the powerful and highly configurable classic Unix window managers and desk
by bityard 4y ago
They are incompetent, but it's not (totally) their fault.
They were never exposed to the powerful and highly configurable classic Unix window managers and desktops, only Windows, Mac, and iOS. Yes, these old desktops all had their warts and configuration was not always a straightforward affair but they packed a lot of functionally into a small package.
It's like asking an otherwise experienced programmer to write an IDE when all they ever used was notepad.exe and a command-line compiler.
- viraptor 4y agoI'd like to put a huge "citation needed" on the claim that gnome designers have not been exposed to the classic window managers. Where did you get that information? How many of them is that confirmed for?
- addicted 4y agoGnome developers actually appear to look at Linux as an operating system and an ecosystem. Linux development and use had become unimaginably complicated and fragmented. Choice in Linux is a good thing, so I’m not against the fragmentation. At the same time, choice also means I should be able to choose an OS that keeps things simple for both devs and users. And that’s what Gnome (and others such as the Fedora devs) appear to be aiming for. Ubuntu used to play this role, but Canonical has built a consistent reputation of creating an alternative, splitting the community, and then abandoning it a few years down the road.
- jdub 4y agoIf you knew the GNOME project or any of its contributors over a long period of time, you'd know that this is absolute poppycock. If anything, the GNOME 2.0 approach was an allergic reaction to years of overcomplicated nerd software. Consider that, prior to 2.0, Enlightenment was once the official GNOME window manager.
- dapids 4y agoEnlightenment was truly the worst I have even used.