15 ms·

Oooh, coopted? That makes sense. I've always felt like Gnome's direction is exactly the pathetic outcome that would occur when 20 devs in a trenchcoat try to ac

• amaranth 3y ago
  GNOME started down their current path through a combination of Easel (started by the people who designed the Macintosh) designing nautilus and icon sets and trying to get the desktop to be more cohesive and Sun pushing hard on accessibility which also meant making things clear and consistent. Those influences were boiled down into the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines which all apps are supposed to follow. The easiest way to make things clear and consistent is to have less things, the idea is you have a clean base then figure out how to add the things people are still wanting the most. If you had whole development teams working on these things then that would work (see macOS) but without that people implement the simplest parts and avoid the rest due to it not being fun, not having an agreed design for them, the design being too contentious, or just a lack of time.
• asdlfkjasdlfjkh 3y ago
  yeah. gnome become this mess exactly by the time most laptops OEM were jumping in on the netbook fad... and some of them started to ship laptops boasting linux in the marketing campaign, because, well, they needed something that ran well on low powered 2003 devices with little batteries. most used ubuntu, which was ubuntu the company's goal at the time btw. then gnome was coopted and took a nosedive and OEM went back to using microsoft for everything. and ubuntu had to write their own shell to survive because gnome tought it would be smart to ship a broken 2.x version with no settings app