3 ms·
My current gut idea is that all of these discussions are woefully incomplete without "following the money" (and or power?) For example, I don't think you can a
by jrm4 2y ago
My current gut idea is that all of these discussions are woefully incomplete without "following the money" (and or power?)
For example, I don't think you can adequately explain GNOME's "popularity" without taking into account inertia from Red Hat and other companies, given how much it arguably sucks, and un-arguably doesn't play nice with other stuff.
- NekkoDroid 2y agoI guess the least bias statisic for the popularity of DEs would be Arch's pkgstats [1] and considering I would classify arch more of a tinkerer distro I would still say this is biased twards KDE from the type of user, but that is just my specualtion. [1]: https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/fun/Desktop%20Environments/current https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/fun/Desktop%20Environments/cur...
- johnny22 2y agothe thing is, it doesn't suck for a lot of people. I definitely have some minor issues with it, but it encodes the workflow i was already using in GNOME 2 as the expected workflow.
- jrm4 2y agoFine if you like it, but this is literally the first I've ever heard of anyone suggesting that GNOME 3 was a favorable continuation of GNOME 2; you hear that far more about MATE.
- Nab443 2y agoIt's about their workflow they where using, not Gnome 2 workflow. And.. you can add me to the list ;-)
- Ekaros 2y agoThings are popular when they are only or first option that get automatically installed. Defaults over power things most of the time. This can explain lot of choices that happen.