This... is not Gnome.
Gnome takes what is good... Out. It removes it.
And remains the Heaviest resource user of all Linux Desktops.
This... is not Gnome.
Gnome takes what is good... Out. It removes it.
And remains the Heaviest resource user of all Linux Desktops.
I'm thinking in human resources.
I think the gnome desktop is relatively good, it's not like an issue for anyone using an average machine, maybe for an older machine. But it's not like before when Ubuntu just switched.
And it terms of taking away features I think that is pretty nice actually. KDE can do customization then Gnome can just deliver on having the best desktop experience out of the box.
And then other people can use resources to customize gnome.
Stuff like XFCE, LXDE and window managers are usually feels kind of cheap to most people used to the mac and windows ecosystems. Although Zorin does a very good job on the lite version, and probably even better on the upcoming lite version.
When I have a perspective on these things i have in mind like normal people and like having human friendly design. And that it can be used by my friends and not only by myself.
But gnome is so much more than their desktop, it's a whole ecosystem of Gnome/GTK software that is generally of way higher quality in every regard than the KDE/QT one.
Define this Quality.
You call it professional. This is an opinion word. Undefined and not relatable.
You call... well pretty much everything that isn't gnome "Cheap." Why? What's cheap about it? How do you define this? Why is only gnome, not cheap?
Where are your statistics to demonstrate that
How did you learn that "most people" feel this way? Your statement does not even make any sense considering that Window Managers look far, far closer to Windows with its window manager than Gnome does with its lack of a window manager.
I bet if you actually performed statistical polls, these "most people" you just called forth as evidence would disagree with you.
Gnome has one of the largest development teams in Linux desktops, yet is floundering due to their resource intensive desktop not delivering functionality and features. Other Independent Developers need to constantly patch Gnome just to make it work - just to make it User Friendly.
Gnome-Extensions. As Zorin Destkop and many other Gnome-using distros must do just to make it work.
Forks of Gnome, like Budgie.
Well, I dislike features being pulled out from under my feet leaving me flat on my butt. It's not nice, at all.
Gnome, Like Apple, Google and Microsoft, wants to control decisions that belong to the user, then tell us to Love Them For it. That is not how I define "nice."
Because I am running Zorin OS 16 PRO, it came with Gnome, and since I didn't install a different DE, I am obviously running Gnome. Aravisian is right, know why? You see that part up there where he talks about needs everything patched and extensions to make it work good?
Well, yep, you guessed it, I am running extensions. Why? Cause there are features I need, like CPU POWER MANAGER, Nvidia PRIME INDICATOR, and DASH TO DOCK, among other things.
The question we must ask ourselves, if Gnome is to be considered a fully featured ready to go DE, then, why is it missing a bunch of features that should already come loaded by default? Why do I have to install extensions to achieve what I want?
Food for thought.
And how often is it that these extensions break? And are broken by a Gnome Update?
How often is it we must disable extensions, One By One, trying to figure out why it is weirdly interfering with some other aspect of Gnome?
Talk about painstaking troubleshooting. And WHY?
I mean, I put the responsibility to the OS to bring full finished experience. Gnome fulfills what they promise and have never promised to do anything of that you set the bar for them to meet. It's very strange to judge the software on personal goals and ambitions and then use software that are at odds with your own goals and ambitions for software.
Seems super self-centered if you ask me. It's just saying you don't like gnome because they don't pander to you specifically.
"The worlds fastest guitar picker is bad because I don't like his music"
I'd at least acknowledge that the guitarplayer picks strings really fast.
You guys seem to ask for the grounds for why I can state what I say. Although I personally feel you are both unbearably and insufferably wrong on this. You could use Gentoo but you are in the Zorin forum talking about how gnome is lacking. Zorin is basicly gnome based using the gnome desktop and mostly gnome apps with the packages that come pre-installed.
Now I know Aravisian uses the Lite version of Zorin though
But like, I think it should be self-evident when I talk about what a cheap experience is and what most people feel or think. You can't seriously tell me that you don't see what I mean without having to acknowledge you live on the moon lol
Personally at least I'd like to use Linux without feeling I'm running some amateur software that is unstable, awfully maintained and terrible design elements, UI and branding.
I don't care about idealistic software. For me pragmatism and practicality is king, therefore I am really interested in gnome. The most "elite" software doesn't mean it's the best necessarily if it's only the best to like 12 people, but I'd argue that gnome brings the most utility to the most people in the linux ecosystem right now. Seems like it's what most linux users use anyway with all the most popular distros using gnome or something based on gnome.
So I feel it's difficult not to acknowledge that gnome isn't being the most strategic when it comes to these things. At least have a difference between elitism and utility.
It definitely isn't; especially when Linux Mint in either Cinnamon or XFCE is one of the Top Ranking Downloaded Distributions.
The numbers say that your assumption is not... self-evident.
When you argue in favor of the Desktop that repeatedly removes utilities?
You even suggested that this should be supported by dumping responsibility of the desktop onto Other Developers just like Gnome regularly does:
So does Gnome removing the elements from gtk4that other desktops rely on, in order to put Gnome On top by, as I put it earlier, letting the air out of the tires of the competing race car.
So does Gnome dumping responsibility for LibAdwaita onto Canonical, Debian, System76 an others; though Gnome conceived of, developed and implemented LibAdwaita for the purpose of limiting what users and distros can do on their desktop.
That is about as anti-FOSS as it can possibly get.
That is Pure Microsoft or Mac mentality, not Free Open Source.
That is "super self-centered."
Most importantly, the changes in Gnome are a matter of constant removals and regressions. We are not talking about a desktop that happens to be different from other Linux Desktop.s Gnome has actively changed from a useful, well supported and functional desktop into one that must be patched by everyone else because it does not deliver.
Others must patch it with extensions- that are often breakable or interfere with the shell.
With what points, though?
Where is the evidence?
What utility does Gnome actually offer?
Especially when compared to other full-featured desktops that do not dump responsibility onto other developers; even as their teams are Much Smaller than Gnomes?
Elitism = LibAdwaita.
Whether you like or enjoy Gnome and I do not is not that point. That kind of diversity is a great thing. You have your choice, I have mine.
The problem is that Gnome is affecting the removal of not just features and functions in Gnome, but of other distros and other desktops- removing MY choice and leaving ONLY yours, which is Mac, Microsoft. Monopolizing. Proprietary behavior.
Yeah, back when I was in school, MAC computer's were seen exactly that way. Simple utility. Nobody customized the MAC desktops in my school. Every machine was as identical on the outside, as they were identical on the inside.
But that was normal, they were school computers, they has a singular goal in mind. And because nobody trusted school kids to NOT mess up the machines, we ran AT EASE on them.
It was a good piece of software, because it was basically a launcher program. It allowed kids to launch software that was installed on the computer that they were allowed to use, and they had no access to the FINDER to screw things up.
And as it is, software installed rarely changed on those machines. What we did more often then not, was run Norton Disk Doctor on them, cause those hard drives were always filling up with errors.
Much like how Windows filing system allows for file fragmentation, and requires constant monthly defragmentation, which also wears out the drive more to do BTW.
Aravisian and I are just coming from the more full access to system perspective, less utilitarian in that aspect. Truth is, if I had one of those MAC computers still running today, I would customize the heck out of it.
Thats cause, its not for school, it doesn't have to follow the dictatorship rules where every machine must be Z same! lol Speaking of customization, thats something I like to do.
I turned my Zorin machine into a Star Labs machine by installing a complete system wide theme replacement.
Yeah, and I think it's fine to want freedom. You seem more reasonable too.
It just seems unnecessary to demand full customization at every level in opensource software. Gnome doesn't need to have all those features out of the box and looking at KDE which is a good desktop it's a much more lacking ecosystem.
Now I think KDE is good for the general ecosystem ecosystem and gives diversity, but that I really believe if Gnome became just another KDE clone with customization we would have a smaller and even worse community.
Gnome is better at building a ecosystem for development around it which KDE seems to not even have.
For people like you two you could even just change the desktop which is why I brought up Arch and Gentoo. You, him and me are not bound by how the system is set up like "normal" people are. We can just change it because we want.
Just seems futile and not worth the effort to have to pander so to us when we know we can set it up like how we like it and even code in missing features if we needed to.
We can currently, yes, only because gtk4 has not trickled down - it was only just released.
Yet, this action by Gnome turns all gtk utilizing desktops into Gnome-Clones... and that is acceptable? How?
That this choice we have that you just referenced is being removed speaks against your referencing that choice.
It's not pandering to the users to provide a Full Desktop on a Desktop.
Are you a gnome Developer? Because you sure sound like how they talk.
"It's System76's fault for not getting onboard with Gnome Libadwaita why System76 is put off by Libadwaita."
And the battered spouse makes the abuser do the hitting, right?
Customization is fine, but what about the removal of the tools, the menus, the toolbars, the scrollbars/steppers and everything else? That's not customization.
Sure I'm totally a gnome developer here. I'm among the sheep and I do not act with reason nor am I self-aware.
"Taking away utilities from a piece of software means the utility of the software is lessened" xD
I feel like this is resolving to:
"this is kind of mindset is self-centered" being answered with "well the software has a microsoft and apple-like mindset - while being fully opensource and therefore 100% customizable - being selfcentered."
I don't think we need to have this discussion, Asavisian.
I agree. It is exceptionally difficult to help users that do not understand FOSS or Support FOSS on a Linux forum.
Oh, I don't understand FOSS now? Personally I like to call it FLOSS
Yeah, I rather not have any arguing in here either. So I am just going to leave this...
If I was a user who was deeply interested in being able to rely on the makers of my desktop to remain FOSS, this article would leave me in serious doubt.
Does LibAdwaita stick to the tenets of Free Open Source?
Does Gnome stick to the Unix Philosphy of "Do one thing and do it well?" You already acknowledge that it does not; (Gnome extensions, distros configuring and adding to Gnome in order to make it user friendly) and excused it with:
That is one of several times that Gnome tried to pull out of GnuGPL.
well, if I'm not a full FOSS-guy even though I EVEN run the opensource drivers, you guys are one person less. Then all 12 of you can cosy up around the fire and sing your combaya
It's just disappointing. It's really just gatekeeping and a very poor reasoning for doing it in the first place.
But I am proud to not be included, because it seems it means better software and a better more brighter future for FLOSS that will have a positive impact on 'most people's' lives.
At least I don't up the salty one in the end and that gives me some extra joy in life xD
Does FLOSS stand for something (an acronym) or is it just a meaningless mock of FOSS?
Its "Free, Libre & Opensource Software". Coined by Richard Stallman to make a clearer distinction between 'free' as in beer and 'free' as in speech.
Ok. I just was not sure if it was a mock on FOSS.
After-all, you won't answer about LibAdwaita.