• Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I don’t say much about it because it’s stupid to argue, but I’ve used a LOT of different desktop interfaces over the past 45+ years (yeah, really!), and GNOME…well, GNOME sucks. When Gnome3 was first released we all had high hopes for it improving on Gnome2 (which for those of us on Unix systems was a huge improvement over CDE), and instead it was buggy, clunky, awkward, and an enormous resource hog. Oh yeah, and it was massively unconfigurable. AND it continued to not improve for many many years, until most people I know switched to KDE or one of the other environments (MATE, Cinnamon, and xfce were very popular).

    Gnome 4x added a touchscreen paradigm, whether you had a touchscreen or not, and made the experience worse in the process.

    If you like it, great! Use it and love it all you want! I’ll play with it once every year or so just to see if someone has finally designed something that doesn’t suck so badly, but for a functional desktop, no thanks.

    I think the fact that most of the ‘fringe’ desktops are well-known in the community because of people trying to escape GNOME is pretty telling.

    • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Gnome x.x added a <whatever they got excited about lately> paradigm, whether you need it or not, and made the experience worse in the process.

      There. The last couple decades of GNOME development in a nutshell.