3 ms·

I like the GNOME experience, but to say that it's a more powerful way to use computers is just plain wrong. The only reason I use KDE instead is the inability (

by _cenw 2y ago

I like the GNOME experience, but to say that it's a more powerful way to use computers is just plain wrong. The only reason I use KDE instead is the inability (or additional hoops) to configure GNOME. That starts at fractional scaling and ends with something as trivial as setting different time to suspend on battery or switching to suspend-then-hibernate. It probably is enough for the vast majority of computer users. But the ones that aren't likely to run Linux to begin with.

jampekka 2y ago
If you want to configure Gnome, learn to read and write text files and use dconf/gsettings. And possibly write Gnome shell extensions. Gnome though usually just works and has well thought out defaults, so you're usually just hampering yourself with changing them. For navigating the desktop and windows I rarely have to touch the keyboard, and it works so well I don't even have the need for a secondary or larger display. KDE et all OTOH have tend to have poorly thought out defaults leading to inconsistent mess of an inteface littered with random configuration options. A big reason for this is likely the user community who like to be "power users" by clicking buttons and refusing to learn text configuration, let alone extensions. And the DE devs then give in to the users demanding a configuration option to select a specific cat picture as the menubar background.
- _cenw 2y ago
  You could've at least checked if the examples I listed are configurable via the mechanisms listed. Aside from fractional scaling (which was my example for "hoops"), they're not. You can replace suspend with suspend-then-hibernate by linking over the suspend systemd unit. But that's most definitely not a GNOME option and prevents you from suspending. Not to mention the numerous settings that have appeared and disappeared over the years in GNOME, not just from the graphical configuration, but also from code. I don't understand why you want an easy to use DE with intuitiveness and then are okay with hiding configuration away somewhere between the Arch Wiki and the GNOME source code. But hey, I'm glad it works for you. Doesn't for me though, even though I wish it did!

by _cenw 2y ago

jampekka 2y ago

If you want to configure Gnome, learn to read and write text files and use dconf/gsettings. And possibly write Gnome shell extensions. Gnome though usually just works and has well thought out defaults, so you're usually just hampering yourself with changing them. For navigating the desktop and windows I rarely have to touch the keyboard, and it works so well I don't even have the need for a secondary or larger display. KDE et all OTOH have tend to have poorly thought out defaults leading to inconsistent mess of an inteface littered with random configuration options. A big reason for this is likely the user community who like to be "power users" by clicking buttons and refusing to learn text configuration, let alone extensions. And the DE devs then give in to the users demanding a configuration option to select a specific cat picture as the menubar background.

_cenw 2y ago
You could've at least checked if the examples I listed are configurable via the mechanisms listed. Aside from fractional scaling (which was my example for "hoops"), they're not. You can replace suspend with suspend-then-hibernate by linking over the suspend systemd unit. But that's most definitely not a GNOME option and prevents you from suspending. Not to mention the numerous settings that have appeared and disappeared over the years in GNOME, not just from the graphical configuration, but also from code. I don't understand why you want an easy to use DE with intuitiveness and then are okay with hiding configuration away somewhere between the Arch Wiki and the GNOME source code. But hey, I'm glad it works for you. Doesn't for me though, even though I wish it did!