5 ms·

KDE, MATE, and Cinnamon seem like great desktop environments and potentially better implementations of the "Windows-style" (i.e. Windows 95 through Windows 7) d

KDE, MATE, and Cinnamon seem like great desktop environments and potentially better implementations of the "Windows-style" (i.e. Windows 95 through Windows 7) desktop environment than Windows these days. I'm glad they exist even if I don't personally use them. But I'm also glad that the GNOME folks have decided to chart a different path even when that results in the occasional (or not-so-occasional) design misstep. Trying new approaches and making mistakes is the only way to create something new. And in a world where KDE, MATE, and Cinnamon exist, turning GNOME into yet another Windows-style desktop environment for Linux seems like a colossal waste of effort. Having said that, it is puzzling to me why so many Linux distributions have chosen GNOME as their default shell instead of one of the more conservative desktop environments. Possibly Red Hat's influence?

superkuh 4y ago
Red Hat only pays people to work on GTK4, which GNOME's desktop has switched too. All the other DEs still use GTK3, which they broke (2014-2015) and froze broken, never to be fixed.
pid-1 4y ago
GNOME by far the most supported and mature desktop environment for Linux. KDE et al might look and feel better, but you have annoyances like bad multi monitor support, bad dock support, etc... So while I agree with many feeling others have expressed, I'm happy to use a distro that ships a DE that just works.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  It can be. Then again, if you're using an Nvidia machine you'll be treated to random segfaults on GNOME regardless of which driver you use. The reason for this is simply because they never wrote a proper Mutter backend for Nvidia, which doesn't really confer "just works" to me.
- asoneth 4y ago
  That's unfortunate, we could use healthy competition between desktop environments. With respect to distros picking a conservative default, it does look like Red Hat Enterprise Linux ships with GNOME Classic by default, so perhaps that's one way to address that point.
smoldesu 4y ago
> But I'm also glad that the GNOME folks have decided to chart a different path even when that results in the occasional (or not-so-occasional) design misstep I would agree with this if GNOME also didn't treat their own technologies as an all-or-nothing scenario. One of the biggest problems I have is that GNOME is genuinely incapable of admitting when they're wrong; to a lesser extent with stuff like implementing EGLStream in GBM, and to a larger extent things like ignoring tickets because they don't fit their personal agenda. I'd argue that GNOME's development philosophy is what's holding back technologies like Wayland, Flatpak and even PipeWire. Their refusal to make modest concessions in the name of usability end up whittling down their desktop environment to little more than an iPad. They're welcome to design whatever they want, but forcing everyone else to jump through their hoops and threatening downstream vendors is simply not a good look.
- asoneth 4y ago
  Is there an example you have in mind where they were objectively wrong and did not admit it? In the examples I've seen their decisions generally seem reasonable and well-considered, even in cases where I disagreed with the outcome. The most I can say is that it might benefit some contributors to consider tone and messaging a little. With respect to closing tickets, unless someone is paying for the work I generally close feature requests that aren't compatible with a project's vision. Focusing is about saying "no" and building every feature every user requests eventually results in a bloated, unmaintainable project. Finally, with respect to downstream vendors and projects that incorporate pieces of the GNOME shell into their own software the GNOME team has made it pretty clear that (for better or worse) their focus is their own desktop environment. Asking contributors if they're willing to do additional work to support outside projects is reasonable, but demanding that they do so is not a good look.
  - lokedhs 4y ago
    I can think of one specific case. At some point, it all of a sudden wasn't possibly to disable cursor blinking in gnome-terminal anymore. It's fixed now, but it took years and absolutely no admission that perhaps they didn't handle it very well. The entire story is outlined here. https://geoff.greer.fm/2016/08/26/gnome-terminal-cursor-blinking-saga/ https://geoff.greer.fm/2016/08/26/gnome-terminal-cursor-blin...

superkuh 4y ago

Red Hat only pays people to work on GTK4, which GNOME's desktop has switched too. All the other DEs still use GTK3, which they broke (2014-2015) and froze broken, never to be fixed.

pid-1 4y ago

GNOME by far the most supported and mature desktop environment for Linux. KDE et al might look and feel better, but you have annoyances like bad multi monitor support, bad dock support, etc... So while I agree with many feeling others have expressed, I'm happy to use a distro that ships a DE that just works.

smoldesu 4y ago
It can be. Then again, if you're using an Nvidia machine you'll be treated to random segfaults on GNOME regardless of which driver you use. The reason for this is simply because they never wrote a proper Mutter backend for Nvidia, which doesn't really confer "just works" to me.
asoneth 4y ago
That's unfortunate, we could use healthy competition between desktop environments. With respect to distros picking a conservative default, it does look like Red Hat Enterprise Linux ships with GNOME Classic by default, so perhaps that's one way to address that point.

smoldesu 4y ago

> But I'm also glad that the GNOME folks have decided to chart a different path even when that results in the occasional (or not-so-occasional) design misstep I would agree with this if GNOME also didn't treat their own technologies as an all-or-nothing scenario. One of the biggest problems I have is that GNOME is genuinely incapable of admitting when they're wrong; to a lesser extent with stuff like implementing EGLStream in GBM, and to a larger extent things like ignoring tickets because they don't fit their personal agenda. I'd argue that GNOME's development philosophy is what's holding back technologies like Wayland, Flatpak and even PipeWire. Their refusal to make modest concessions in the name of usability end up whittling down their desktop environment to little more than an iPad. They're welcome to design whatever they want, but forcing everyone else to jump through their hoops and threatening downstream vendors is simply not a good look.

asoneth 4y ago
Is there an example you have in mind where they were objectively wrong and did not admit it? In the examples I've seen their decisions generally seem reasonable and well-considered, even in cases where I disagreed with the outcome. The most I can say is that it might benefit some contributors to consider tone and messaging a little. With respect to closing tickets, unless someone is paying for the work I generally close feature requests that aren't compatible with a project's vision. Focusing is about saying "no" and building every feature every user requests eventually results in a bloated, unmaintainable project. Finally, with respect to downstream vendors and projects that incorporate pieces of the GNOME shell into their own software the GNOME team has made it pretty clear that (for better or worse) their focus is their own desktop environment. Asking contributors if they're willing to do additional work to support outside projects is reasonable, but demanding that they do so is not a good look.
- lokedhs 4y ago
  I can think of one specific case. At some point, it all of a sudden wasn't possibly to disable cursor blinking in gnome-terminal anymore. It's fixed now, but it took years and absolutely no admission that perhaps they didn't handle it very well. The entire story is outlined here. https://geoff.greer.fm/2016/08/26/gnome-terminal-cursor-blinking-saga/ https://geoff.greer.fm/2016/08/26/gnome-terminal-cursor-blin...