4 ms·

> Honestly GNOME is there because of inertia more than quality of the changes. I have heard this explanation before for why GNOME is so popular despite the fac

> Honestly GNOME is there because of inertia more than quality of the changes. I have heard this explanation before for why GNOME is so popular despite the fact that so many people vocally dislike it. It's certainly possible, but I find it implausible. For one thing, this would imply that we see a slow downward trend in GNOME usage which does not seem to be the case. For another thing, Linux users in particular seem less likely than most to just "go with what everyone else uses" since that would mean not using Linux in the first place. Finally, it doesn't seem like Linux desktop environments have enough of a moat to create serious inertia, at least not compared to things like mobile operating systems. Programs written for one Linux desktop environments typically work with only minor aesthetic issues in others, so that should not be a major impediment to distro-hopping. I think it's worth considering an alternative hypothesis, that many people have evaluated multiple options and legitimately prefer GNOME to the alternatives on intrinsic merits such as design, stability, extensions, etc. I would also find it plausible that some of its popularity is due to many popular distributions choosing it as their default, but then the question is why those distributions do so, and again the most plausible explanation to me is that they are making the decision for pragmatic rather than legacy reasons.

ilyt 4y ago
> I have heard this explanation before for why GNOME is so popular despite the fact that so many people vocally dislike it. It's certainly possible, but I find it implausible. It's also a default for few prominent Linux distributions. Ubuntu, Debian and the Red Hat variants all come with GNOME since forever (aside the Ubuntu's Unity endeavour > I think it's worth considering an alternative hypothesis, that many people have evaluated multiple options and legitimately prefer GNOME to the alternatives on intrinsic merits such as design, stability, extensions, etc. Or that just most people use GNOME so distros pick it as default and so most people use GNOME. Why most people use bash while it can be argued that zsh is wholly better replacement ? Also "better" doesn't matter if improvement is small enough that it doesn't improve your workflow, or small enough that it is not worth the effort to re-learn everything. GNOME isn't really "bad" as much as "a bunch of developers changing shit that worked just fine for mostly imaginary gains (or just plain old "generating work to stay employed")", which just pisses off people that were entirely fine with it and now got a bunch of annoyances to re-learn after updating their machines. > For another thing, Linux users in particular seem less likely than most to just "go with what everyone else uses" since that would mean not using Linux in the first place. Right but the fact it's higher on average doesn't mean that on average majority will still just use Ubuntu with whatever default DE it is coming with. > Programs written for one Linux desktop environments typically work with only minor aesthetic issues in others, so that should not be a major impediment to distro-hopping. I mean I use i3 and it has been a bit of a PITA to have both KDE and GNOME side to not look shit (especially with dark theme... altho that part became a bit easier) without installing the entirety of both environments just to change settings, so dunno about that.

ilyt 4y ago

> I have heard this explanation before for why GNOME is so popular despite the fact that so many people vocally dislike it. It's certainly possible, but I find it implausible. It's also a default for few prominent Linux distributions. Ubuntu, Debian and the Red Hat variants all come with GNOME since forever (aside the Ubuntu's Unity endeavour > I think it's worth considering an alternative hypothesis, that many people have evaluated multiple options and legitimately prefer GNOME to the alternatives on intrinsic merits such as design, stability, extensions, etc. Or that just most people use GNOME so distros pick it as default and so most people use GNOME. Why most people use bash while it can be argued that zsh is wholly better replacement ? Also "better" doesn't matter if improvement is small enough that it doesn't improve your workflow, or small enough that it is not worth the effort to re-learn everything. GNOME isn't really "bad" as much as "a bunch of developers changing shit that worked just fine for mostly imaginary gains (or just plain old "generating work to stay employed")", which just pisses off people that were entirely fine with it and now got a bunch of annoyances to re-learn after updating their machines. > For another thing, Linux users in particular seem less likely than most to just "go with what everyone else uses" since that would mean not using Linux in the first place. Right but the fact it's higher on average doesn't mean that on average majority will still just use Ubuntu with whatever default DE it is coming with. > Programs written for one Linux desktop environments typically work with only minor aesthetic issues in others, so that should not be a major impediment to distro-hopping. I mean I use i3 and it has been a bit of a PITA to have both KDE and GNOME side to not look shit (especially with dark theme... altho that part became a bit easier) without installing the entirety of both environments just to change settings, so dunno about that.