5 ms·

"GNOME is huge and kind of bloated, and it's hard to disable various unwanted components. GNOME Shell is amazing, but a lot of the other components of GNOME are

• its-summertime 3y ago
  The article is about removing such components from GNOME. Windows doesn't ask before installing its components. Both break subtly when you go around removing/disabling things that arn't meant to be removed/disabled
• midoridensha 3y ago
  >Let me choose my own apps rather than trying to be a kitchen sink with its own default apps: >Windows lets me disable optional components, why not GNOME? Because that isn't in-line with the Gnome devs' vision, or how they want you to use Gnome. If you don't agree with their vision, then why are you using their software? If you want a desktop environment that lets you configure it the way you want and disable things you don't want, Gnome simply isn't the DE for you. I really don't understand why this is so difficult a concept for so many Linux users. It's been like this for well over 10 years now (Gnome3 was released in 2011), it's not something new. The Gnome devs have infamously been hostile to users who want to do things differently from their vision.
  • idle_zealot 3y ago
    I'd wager that a large portion of desktop Linux users choose Linux because they want configurability and to fiddle with their system to tune it to their preferences. Encountering such an opinionated software suite on the platform is a culture shock for those people.
    • thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
      >> Encountering such an opinionated software suite on the platform is a culture shock for those people. Exactly. It is worse when such opinionated software is the only available corporate default that cannot be changed.
    • coffeeling 3y ago
      It's not even it being opinionated, it's being _so hideously_ opinionated. Windows is a pretty good spot, IME - KDE is a little much, macOS maybe a smidge too little, but GNOME just feels like a straitjacket.
  • thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    >> Because that isn't in-line with the Gnome devs' vision, or how they want you to use Gnome. If you don't agree with their vision, then why are you using their software? Sometimes you don't get to choose. If GNOME is the only desktop environment on your employer's enterprise Linux distro and you do not have root or other window manager choices due to corporate security policies then the GNOME devs' vision is what you get. GNOME 2 was fine. It was customizable and did not shove opinions down your throat. GNOME 3 and 4 have gone the way of MacOS and Windows 11, but worse because there are fewer customizations and bizarre defaults.
    • midoridensha 3y ago
      >If GNOME is the only desktop environment on your employer's enterprise Linux distro and you do not have root or other window manager choices due to corporate security policies then the GNOME devs' vision is what you get. That's part of the job. If you don't like it, too bad. I've had to use Windows at many jobs, and that sure as hell wasn't configurable the way I wanted, but it was part of the job. Part of considering a job offer is what the work environment is like, and another part of work is usually putting up with stuff you don't like. It sucks, but nothing's perfect. Personally, I've been using Linux at work for ages and have never been forced to use Gnome; I've always been able to switch to something else, though it's not so well supported. >GNOME 2 was fine. It was customizable and did not shove opinions down your throat. Gnome2 was run by a totally different group of people. This is like comparing Twitter 10 years ago to Twitter today. Unfortunately, this kind of thing can happen with any organization over time. >GNOME 3 and 4 have gone the way of MacOS and Windows 11, but worse because there are fewer customizations and bizarre defaults. Yep, exactly.
• jdiff 3y ago
  That's entirely up to your distro. The core GNOME shell doesn't require hardly any of this.
  • bombolo 3y ago
    gnome developers claim that gnome is a single block and actively fight splitting it into packages. They'd rather have one single "gnome" package containing all of it.
    • soraminazuki 3y ago
      Are there any sources for this? I have a hard time believing that GNOME devs actively fight distros to make *checks note* gnome-boxes a required install on GNOME desktops.
      • bombolo 3y ago
        Remember when gnome developers claimed that the gnome calculator absolutely needed the network-manager to manage the network? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681834 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681834
        • jdiff 3y ago
          That's not what's happening in this report. This is answering the question of whether an all-encompassing metapackage should prefer to match upstream or integrate more with Debian's philosophy. "Upstream only tests with NM and only supports NM for some features" vs "if it's not a hard runtime dependency, it's a Recommends or Suggests, not a Depends." It's packaging trivia. Decade-old-plus packaging trivia for a single distro. You can install gnome-calculator without any of the rest of the GNOME shell so this is a horrifically disingenuous comment you've got here.
          • bombolo 3y ago
            Ah I didn't know I was supposed to link every single relevant email from the mailing list.
• johnny22 3y ago
  only some of those choices are actually required by gnome. not the whole evolution program especially, although the data-server portion might be.