One of the often seen comments on this forum, and across the web is that Gnome is considered to be user-friendly.
Being a scientifically minded person, I have the annoying habit of questioning things, especially assumptions. I question claims that are made - and repeated, most often when they fly in the face of Evidence.
Gnome, as a base D.E., lacks the user-friendly features that other D.E.s have. To this end, independent developers create Gnome-Extensions in order to restore functionality. How is this considered to be user-friendly?
Most interesting: Gnome Developers intensely dislike gnome-extensions and are moving to put a stop to their existence.
Unlike other D.E.'s, Gnome hides settings. It is not unusual that new Gnome Users visit the forum looking for how to change settings, not something complex or coding-intensive. Yet, it is far less often we see such questions from Other D.E. users. How is this user-friendly? How is it user-friendly that the GUI settings often lack the settings found in gsettings or dconf?
@swarfendor437 clearly remembers when I migrated from Windows to Zorin Core. It was a constant struggle. I complained often and often wished I could return to Windows. I was often on the forum asking question after question just to get the simplest things configured. I was constantly fighting this bug or that bug - known bugs, years old - unfixed.
Then, I switched to Zorin OS Lite, and all that changed. The struggle, the constant bugs... gone, I began to actually Enjoy using Linux. Now, while my anecdotal experience is just One, I am certainly not alone in this.
Gnome was the most difficult and unfriendly D.E. and it took other D.E.'s to restore my confidence in Linux as a whole. How is this user-friendly to new users?
Even longtime and regular Gnome users state that they avoid Gnome-Software because it is so buggy. They state that it is the Gnome-Extensions that make it usable, without which Gnome would be far less usable - and reminder: Gnome Development Group wishes to put a stop to Gnome-Extensions...
Gnome is remarkably inconsistent in function and in appearance. Open Gnome-Boxes, then open nautilus and then open Gnome-Sound-recorder: They all have different sized titlebars. The corners on some will all be rounded, whereas on others, only the titlebar top corners are rounded and the bottom square. On some apps, the entire titlebar will be rounded but the window will be a square window stack with no rounded corners (A very strange appearance) causing gaps between the stack and the titlebar. This is not user-friendly.
Open gnome-terminal: It has a menubar. Open any other gnome-app - it does not have a menubar.
Such inconsistencies are confusing to any user, much less a new one.
When unstable, Gnome tends to crash without giving an error that says why like other desktops do. Gnome is harder to troubleshoot.
And remember those Gnome-extensions? They interfere with gnome apps, gnome-shell and with eachother... and the only way to troubleshoot them is to disable them all, then go one by one on each extension enabling it and hoping it is the one causing the problem. And when it is... your only course of action is to either try reinstalling it... or remove it entirely. How is that user-friendly?
On other desktop,s if a plugin goes wrong, you know which one it is right away.
So how do users justify the statement that Gnome is User-Friendly? What are the reasons? What does Gnome offer that makes it so?