4 ms·

> Can you imagine if that was for a century? If i had to keep a software stack for a century, i wouldn't pick GNOME. Generally you'd avoid any software project

> Can you imagine if that was for a century? If i had to keep a software stack for a century, i wouldn't pick GNOME. Generally you'd avoid any software project that has the faintest smell of "move fast and break things". -- ex GNOME user

Dalewyn 3y ago
I wouldn't pick anything Linux in general if moving fast and breaking things is problematic.
- blueflow 3y ago
  I'm still looking, do you have recommendations?
  - rakoo 3y ago
    The BSDs, OpenBSD in particular, are built for long-term. Any change is evaluated multiple times before being integrated. From the point of view of Linux they can seem outdated/old/lagging, but from their point of view they just work.
    - dbolgheroni 3y ago
      That's not true. Just because from the user perspective it seems not much is changing, there are tons of changes underneath. They don't guarantee user space stability like Linux does, so they can move faster (including upstreaming changes from ports). They only support the last 2 releases. Considering that there is a release every 6 months, that's 1 year of "LTS".
    - gtirloni 3y ago
      I love BSDs. I started my career with them. However, I don't think this long-term-sh view is actually conscious on their part. They simply have fewer people to work on new things so things lag a lot. It's more of a side effect.
      - dbolgheroni 3y ago
        This is a misconception. The "lag a lot" is very much debatable. For a lot of areas, specifically OpenBSD, is pushing the boundaries[1], not lagging behind. That's why they don't guarantee user space stability or even ABI stability inside the kernel, to move faster. Just check this recent case[2] about Linux is not enforcing IBT/BTI on its binaries and this being a known problem since 2001, while OpenBSD is solving this. But again, people have different conceptions of lagging behind. Some people think not having a graphical installer is to "lag behind", when this is pretty much a design decision and not a problem of fewer people working on new things. [1] https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html [2] https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20230714121907 https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20230714121907
        toyg 3y ago
        It's not about the installer (who even uses those anymore?), it's about features and power. Linux has had a lot of work done to support complex features and scaling in a number of aspects, whereas OpenBSD has not. In fact, the insistence on security and keeping things conceptually simple, almost inevitably means they pass on some significant improvements. When you want pure power, OpenBSD is just not the best choice, for example; and the virtualization stack is very primitive.
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      OpenBSD rather notably and explicitly lacks any notion of "LTS" (all releases are unsupported after a year) and is perfectly happy to break things without much of a grace period (prime example being the switch to a 64-bit time_t for all platforms). That said, the upgrade process (like most things) is thoroughly documented every release, and a given release will continue to chug along for years, so I can see where you're coming from there.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      They guarantee even less stability than Linux, what are you talking about ?
  - hkgjjgjfjfjfjf 3y ago
    [dead]
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    Windows' legendary backward compatibility.
doubled112 3y ago
If we're talking Linux desktops, I've heard Xfce referred to as the Debian of DEs, and I have to agree. Fairly slow incremental changes over time, and no real surprises on a new release. It's incredibly boring, but in the right way.
seltzered_ 3y ago
Maybe the framing shouldn't be "move fast and break things" but more of a computing as pop culture roughly from Alan Kays saying. Gnome has adapted to changes in computing form factors, supporting more mobile setups (touch and tablet) that emerged over the past 15 years while other DEs may mature around a Desktop/Laptop setup. - mostly happy Gnome user
corney91 3y ago
Every time I update to a new GNOME version, the Power menu shifts around. I keep having to relearn where things like the Lock Screen button is. I don't understand who keeps remaking these decisions or why...
- carapace 3y ago
  My theory is that MS pays deep cover moles to infiltrate GNOME and sabotage it from within. It's less sad than thinking that they do it to themselves.

Dalewyn 3y ago

I wouldn't pick anything Linux in general if moving fast and breaking things is problematic.

blueflow 3y ago
I'm still looking, do you have recommendations?
- rakoo 3y ago
  The BSDs, OpenBSD in particular, are built for long-term. Any change is evaluated multiple times before being integrated. From the point of view of Linux they can seem outdated/old/lagging, but from their point of view they just work.
  - dbolgheroni 3y ago
    That's not true. Just because from the user perspective it seems not much is changing, there are tons of changes underneath. They don't guarantee user space stability like Linux does, so they can move faster (including upstreaming changes from ports). They only support the last 2 releases. Considering that there is a release every 6 months, that's 1 year of "LTS".
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    I love BSDs. I started my career with them. However, I don't think this long-term-sh view is actually conscious on their part. They simply have fewer people to work on new things so things lag a lot. It's more of a side effect.
    - dbolgheroni 3y ago
      This is a misconception. The "lag a lot" is very much debatable. For a lot of areas, specifically OpenBSD, is pushing the boundaries[1], not lagging behind. That's why they don't guarantee user space stability or even ABI stability inside the kernel, to move faster. Just check this recent case[2] about Linux is not enforcing IBT/BTI on its binaries and this being a known problem since 2001, while OpenBSD is solving this. But again, people have different conceptions of lagging behind. Some people think not having a graphical installer is to "lag behind", when this is pretty much a design decision and not a problem of fewer people working on new things. [1] https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html [2] https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20230714121907 https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20230714121907
      - toyg 3y ago
        It's not about the installer (who even uses those anymore?), it's about features and power. Linux has had a lot of work done to support complex features and scaling in a number of aspects, whereas OpenBSD has not. In fact, the insistence on security and keeping things conceptually simple, almost inevitably means they pass on some significant improvements. When you want pure power, OpenBSD is just not the best choice, for example; and the virtualization stack is very primitive.
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    OpenBSD rather notably and explicitly lacks any notion of "LTS" (all releases are unsupported after a year) and is perfectly happy to break things without much of a grace period (prime example being the switch to a 64-bit time_t for all platforms). That said, the upgrade process (like most things) is thoroughly documented every release, and a given release will continue to chug along for years, so I can see where you're coming from there.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    They guarantee even less stability than Linux, what are you talking about ?
- hkgjjgjfjfjfjf 3y ago
  [dead]
- gtirloni 3y ago
  Windows' legendary backward compatibility.

doubled112 3y ago

If we're talking Linux desktops, I've heard Xfce referred to as the Debian of DEs, and I have to agree. Fairly slow incremental changes over time, and no real surprises on a new release. It's incredibly boring, but in the right way.

seltzered_ 3y ago

Maybe the framing shouldn't be "move fast and break things" but more of a computing as pop culture roughly from Alan Kays saying. Gnome has adapted to changes in computing form factors, supporting more mobile setups (touch and tablet) that emerged over the past 15 years while other DEs may mature around a Desktop/Laptop setup. - mostly happy Gnome user

corney91 3y ago

Every time I update to a new GNOME version, the Power menu shifts around. I keep having to relearn where things like the Lock Screen button is. I don't understand who keeps remaking these decisions or why...

carapace 3y ago
My theory is that MS pays deep cover moles to infiltrate GNOME and sabotage it from within. It's less sad than thinking that they do it to themselves.