5 ms·
With friends likr Gnome, you don’t need enemies anymore. If gnome were to collaborate with others, there would much less necessity for forks (such as in the GTK
by Longhanks 4y ago
With friends likr Gnome, you don’t need enemies anymore. If gnome were to collaborate with others, there would much less necessity for forks (such as in the GTK2 days). But instead, the close any feature request minimally differing their pristine idea of what a desktop should look like, shut down any other discussion about the topic, and god forbid if you mention you want customization like themes or, gasp, tray icons.
Sure, this may come off polemic, but I very much think that gnome is largely to blame for the fragmentation of the Linux desktop.
- yamtaddle 4y agoRedhat. They've made some power-plays (including with Gnome) and have been successful at it. Ubuntu tried to do the same more than once, but fell so hard on their face every time that it can be hard to tell that they were trying to do the same thing.
- johnchristopher 4y agoMeh. No, gnome is not. XFCE was there before gnome 3 and is still here today. Same for all other popular desktop environments.
- LinAGKar 4y agoMate, Cinnamon and Budgie were not.
- johnchristopher 4y agoGnome 3 can't be responsible for Mate, Cinnamon and Budgie adding 3 fragments to the desktop environment space instead of those 3 adding 1 by merging each other. Gnome 3 brushed people the wrong way but blaming it for fragmentation when those 3 went away to do their 3 different things doesn't make sense. Come on, MATE and Cinnamon ? To be consistent Cinnamon shouldn't exist and only MATE would make the cut if Gnome 3 is the problem. Numbers I can find speak for themselves though: https://eylenburg.github.io/de_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/de_comparison.htm There's no fragmentation, only KDE and Gnome.
- ssnistfajen 4y agoThe only "fragmentation" GNOME directly caused was MATE being forked out of GNOME 2. Fragmentation is just the natural evolution of FOSS because there isn't a monopoly shoving license terms down the throat of every customer. GNOME's philosophy is kind of restrictive but they are not the one to blame for the fragmentation of the Linux desktop especially considering DEs and distributions are SEPARATE things and many distributions provide multiple DE options bundled at install.
- still_grokking 4y agoYou need to look further into the past. If Gnome wouldn't had poped up Linux would have a standard desktop named KDE likely today. So the claim that they caused fragmentation seems not completely off.
- wmf 4y agoNah, if GNOME never existed either KDE would have fragmented or people would have invented other DEs. You can't wish away diversity.
- still_grokking 4y agoWhy would KDE fragment, if it actually didn't? Also there are quite some other DEs. Only that there are just two big ones. If one of the big ones would not exist there would be a default one with the greatest market share. Normal people don't reinvent the wheel when there is no need for that… There was no need to split KDE. And Gnome exist solely for political reasons. Like I said, look at the history.
- ssnistfajen 4y agoThere wouldn't be a single standard desktop with >80% usage regardless of whether GNOME existed, and KDE will merely be among one of many desktop environment options. That's just the nature of how things work in this space.
- 4y ago
- javier2 4y agoI dont want themes at all. I just want a vertical dock and tray icons!