3 ms·
Yes, because confusing, inconsistent, space-ineffective UIs that have serious usability issues like no default drag and drop, weird GTK3 two-menu system with to
by kunai 13y ago
Yes, because confusing, inconsistent, space-ineffective UIs that have serious usability issues like no default drag and drop, weird GTK3 two-menu system with tons of redundancy, loss of keyboard shortcuts, inefficient application launching systems, and a loss of customization are what everyone wants, and if people don't want it, they're Luddian curmudgeons who need to be exiled from the Linux community and put down in front of a BSD system.
Right?
The problem extends further than just GNOME's stupidity. When you have forks, you get a lot of fragmentation. Now, nobody can figure out whether to develop for GTK2, GTK3, Qt, or goddamned xaw because there is just so much fragmentation in the desktop environments. If GNOME had just been sane, there would be no MATE, there would be no Cinnamon, there would be no Unity, and we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
- nuclear_eclipse 13y agoIn all seriousness, Unity was a thing from Canonical long before anyone knew the direction Gnome 3 and Gnome Shell was heading. Canonical wanted their own desktop experience that they could drive in the direction they wanted to go, and they would have never gotten that from Gnome or KDE or any other existing project. The fact that they're switching Unity from a Gtk to a Qt backend in order to support their mobile efforts and their desire to have a single UX everywhere is just further proof of this strategy.