3 ms·

And yet, KDE, XFCE, even Gnome forks like MATE and Cinnamon manage to handle having loads more customization options than Gnome, despite having equivalent or in

And yet, KDE, XFCE, even Gnome forks like MATE and Cinnamon manage to handle having loads more customization options than Gnome, despite having equivalent or inferior time and financial resources. I have very little patience for the, "It's open source and maintained by volunteers," argument when other projects which are equally open source and maintained by fewer volunteers somehow manage to deliver more functionality.

QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
All of those alternatives are notorious for having a release schedule slower than molasses, or for having outdated tech, or for having a lot of bugs. That's the price you pay, nothing is for free in this world. You mentioned they had more functionality in some ways but you neglected to mention why that is. Also it's funny that you think GNOME has any spare time or financial resources. Every GNOME developer I've ever talked to has been overloaded with low-paying or non-paying work, same as any open source developer. The rest of your comment is dangerously close to toxic entitlement. You don't get to say you have no patience. Or rather, you can say it, but it's completely meaningless for you to do so unless you were trying to antagonize some volunteers. Avoid that line of thinking. These are all volunteers who can spend their time as they want.
- quanticle 4y ago
  I don't know about bugs. I haven't really noticed very many bugs in KDE, XFCE or MATE. Those pieces of software seem to be no buggier than Gnome. And I'm not sure why "modern tech" or a rapid release schedule is a good thing in and of itself. Modern tech and rapid releases are good only when they result in good things. Otherwise they're just churn. Change for the sake of change. Maybe if Gnome didn't have so much "modern tech", (like DBus, for example) the Gnome devs wouldn't be so overworked.
  - QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
    The change may be in areas you don't see. Refactoring is something visible only to developers but it has to be done continuously to be able to pay down tech debt. FYI dbus is also used by KDE, XFCE and MATE. Please avoid making more criticisms like this. Volunteers really aren't going to listen to you if you can't even get the basic facts right.
    - quanticle 4y ago
      Well, it's not as if the Gnome devs are listening to me as it is, so I don't really see the difference.
      - QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
        I think they would, if you met them where they were at.
        chris_wot 4y ago
        You’re a Gnome dev, right? You seem very defensive.
        QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
        No I'm just a user of GNOME who doesn't appreciate seeing the near-constant flames and misinformation from non-users of the software whenever I try to discuss it online in certain places. It's low-quality commenting and it poisons the discussion. You're misinterpreting an aversion to bad discussion as "defensiveness." If you were doing this same thing for KDE I'd be asking you to stop too.
        chris_wot 4y ago
        You aren’t doing the Gnome project any favours.
- suryaya 4y ago
  Cinnamon is waaay more configurable than GNOME and they have far less dev resources, and they are fairly bug-free. KDE is still kind of janky but has improved very quickly and continues to improve due to more corporate funding over the last year or two. Tbh there's no excuse, especially when GNOME devs REMOVE features that are already there that have no maintenance cost for no reason (https://discourse.gnome.org/t/icon-view-sizes-in-nautilus-43/11240 https://discourse.gnome.org/t/icon-view-sizes-in-nautilus-43...).
  - QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
    Cinnamon is also way behind on the tech. They're still stuck on GTK3 and X11. The resources going to KDE to reduce jankiness is only going to KDE. It isn't going to GNOME. I can't see why you think that would have any effect on anything else. Did you bother to read that whole thread? The developer gives a long explanation with the reasons: https://discourse.gnome.org/t/icon-view-sizes-in-nautilus-43/11240/32 https://discourse.gnome.org/t/icon-view-sizes-in-nautilus-43...

QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago

All of those alternatives are notorious for having a release schedule slower than molasses, or for having outdated tech, or for having a lot of bugs. That's the price you pay, nothing is for free in this world. You mentioned they had more functionality in some ways but you neglected to mention why that is. Also it's funny that you think GNOME has any spare time or financial resources. Every GNOME developer I've ever talked to has been overloaded with low-paying or non-paying work, same as any open source developer. The rest of your comment is dangerously close to toxic entitlement. You don't get to say you have no patience. Or rather, you can say it, but it's completely meaningless for you to do so unless you were trying to antagonize some volunteers. Avoid that line of thinking. These are all volunteers who can spend their time as they want.

quanticle 4y ago
I don't know about bugs. I haven't really noticed very many bugs in KDE, XFCE or MATE. Those pieces of software seem to be no buggier than Gnome. And I'm not sure why "modern tech" or a rapid release schedule is a good thing in and of itself. Modern tech and rapid releases are good only when they result in good things. Otherwise they're just churn. Change for the sake of change. Maybe if Gnome didn't have so much "modern tech", (like DBus, for example) the Gnome devs wouldn't be so overworked.
- QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
  The change may be in areas you don't see. Refactoring is something visible only to developers but it has to be done continuously to be able to pay down tech debt. FYI dbus is also used by KDE, XFCE and MATE. Please avoid making more criticisms like this. Volunteers really aren't going to listen to you if you can't even get the basic facts right.
  - quanticle 4y ago
    Well, it's not as if the Gnome devs are listening to me as it is, so I don't really see the difference.
    - QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
      I think they would, if you met them where they were at.
      - chris_wot 4y ago
        You’re a Gnome dev, right? You seem very defensive.
        QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
        No I'm just a user of GNOME who doesn't appreciate seeing the near-constant flames and misinformation from non-users of the software whenever I try to discuss it online in certain places. It's low-quality commenting and it poisons the discussion. You're misinterpreting an aversion to bad discussion as "defensiveness." If you were doing this same thing for KDE I'd be asking you to stop too.
        chris_wot 4y ago
        You aren’t doing the Gnome project any favours.
suryaya 4y ago
Cinnamon is waaay more configurable than GNOME and they have far less dev resources, and they are fairly bug-free. KDE is still kind of janky but has improved very quickly and continues to improve due to more corporate funding over the last year or two. Tbh there's no excuse, especially when GNOME devs REMOVE features that are already there that have no maintenance cost for no reason (https://discourse.gnome.org/t/icon-view-sizes-in-nautilus-43/11240 https://discourse.gnome.org/t/icon-view-sizes-in-nautilus-43...).
- QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
  Cinnamon is also way behind on the tech. They're still stuck on GTK3 and X11. The resources going to KDE to reduce jankiness is only going to KDE. It isn't going to GNOME. I can't see why you think that would have any effect on anything else. Did you bother to read that whole thread? The developer gives a long explanation with the reasons: https://discourse.gnome.org/t/icon-view-sizes-in-nautilus-43/11240/32 https://discourse.gnome.org/t/icon-view-sizes-in-nautilus-43...