Most of the issues pointed out in part 1 of this series of articles were resolved by part 2 and many of the ones in part 2 were resolved by part 3. But the fun

Most of the issues pointed out in part 1 of this series of articles were resolved by part 2 and many of the ones in part 2 were resolved by part 3. But the fundamental problem with the rant is that it doesn’t attempt to understand what Gnome is. Gnome is not intended to be a final end user DE. There’s a reason the Gnome devs have absolutely refused to release an distro (besides one intended only for Gnome testing and development). It’s because Gnome is intended to provide a baseline DE that can be used by several distros allowing them to build on top of it, select sensible defaults for their distro, be able to distinguish their distro DE from Gnome and other Gnome based distros, while still providing great familiarity to users across Linux distros. So, for example, Canonical could create Unity, and System77 PopOS! which are both based off Gnome, provide significant differentiation, but at the same time a user going from PopOS! to Unity to vanilla Gnome and any other path would barely miss a beat (other than the added features missing altogether). Further, Gnome’s focus for the past several years, which was much overdue (and something most other DEs haven’t even attempted) has been on creating a bunch of cohesive apps based on a single modern framework (GTK 4+ in the case of Gnome). Much effort has been spent rewriting apps in GTK4 and/or creating new app replacements even if they might be under featured for now, because if a distro feels the features in the previous app was more important it can continue using it. This isn’t to say there aren’t a bunch of problems with Gnome, much like there are a bunch of problems with both closed and open projects of all sorts. However, any criticism will be more useful if you understand what Gnome actually is before criticizing it for being something it isn’t.