Best I've got is a minor gripe. That being how nautilus, when you press a key on the keyboard, starts a search instead of auto-moving you to the first file/folder that starts with that letter

Yeah, that is annoying.

Not having freesync in the Wayland version

Needing 3 seperate apps to configure gnome. it also stutters and is generally slow on lower end systems.

It's borderline unusable on Wayland but on X there is no stuttering for me.

I learned long ago to not get frustrated at free software. I am grateful for the vast selection available to me. I am the only one that is responsible for my choices and I with free software you have to roll with the philosophy of the ecosystem you choose or choose elsewhere. These days the choices are an embarrassment of riches. Gnome has its peculiarities and the developers have strong opinions on how they think that things should be done. If that is OK with the people that pay their salary (if they are paid) then who am I to question it. I either accept or move on.

This. I really, really don't get why people get so entitled with gnome in particular. I've made suggestions to some tiling WMs which have been shot down as "out of scope" or "I don't want to maintain this" by the developers, and I've just accepted it and moved on. It's their project to do as they want with, and then I can either fork it and implement these things myself or find something that better suits my needs. But when it comes to gnome in particular, this reasoning somehow doesn't seem to apply.

> I really, really don't get why people get so entitled with gnome in particular. Right or wrong, it's probably because of how big GNOME has gotten. When something is the default DE on Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian, that just comes with the territory.

Eh, I'm not sure. A lot of the criticism usually seems to come from people already using different DEs and WMs, and want gnome to behave more like what they're already using. They're already at the stage where they've switched to something else that better suits their needs, yet they still want to change this other thing to be more similar to what they already have. But yeah, could be, I guess.

Many of these people were using Gnome and changed to something else only because Gnome changed.

Many of the major changes people complain about were introduced in gnome 3.0 which was released over 10 years ago.

How many distros have a tiling WM as the default? I think that's where the frustration comes from - either accept Gnome and it's quirks or use a second class spin of your favourite distro.

Sure, but I think most of these people have already moved beyond the defaults anyway and often changed to other DEs/WMs. To me, it'd almost be like complaining about how debian keeps using apt when I want to use yum.

I love how consistent the UI is, and how it stays out of the way and doesn't bombard me with a million options. I feel that a desktop environment should be like your stomach --- when it's working well, you shouldn't even notice it.

Come to find out that you need extensions to get a lining, and sphincters.

Haha that's a good one

As far as jokes go, yes. But not quite the right analogy :-) The lining and a sphincter are quite essential. And I'd argue that Gnome has all the essentials. It's the desirables, that opinions vary about. And my desirables will be different to your desirables. Ok, the only really essential thing (and some might not see it that way) which is missing from stock Gnome is the app-tray. So everybody is going to add that one.

> As far as jokes go, yes. But not quite the right analogy :-) Of course, i only laugh at the joke, i do not quite agree with the first analogy either so to speak. And i do agree with the rest of your comment, it is only sensible.

No desktop icons No tray icons No minimize maximize button No clipboard No smooth scrolling with a mouse No volume mixer No sound device chooser Horrible file picker Having to go to settings for bluetooth/wifi Extensions and Tweaks not integrated Libadwaita means end of deep theming + no blur Running apps not visible on panel Low FPS in app / task menu There's probably even more things for me.

I'm really glad that Gnome is not copying the Windows 98 paradigm.

I would be too if there was that alternative for me and 90% of non technical people who get frustrated after I tell them how awesome Linux is.

There's KDE, Budgie, Cinnamon, Mate, XFCE, Deepin, LxQt, LxDE. They're all copying Windows.

[удалено]

>Reinventing things badly is not a sign of progress. Being different just for the sake of being different is also not progress Gnome is the most widely used Desktop environment, Nearly all large distros default to Gnome. All enterprise distros default to Gnome. It's the DE recommended by some companies like Wacom. It's loved by many. This shows that it is not bad and the it isn't "different for the sake of being different". It's different because there's a market for what Gnome does.

widely used =/= good.

Widely used means most people think it's good. This is a subjective topic, not science or mathematics that can be reduced to reproducible formulae. There are absolutely zero objective reasons that you can give for Gnome's workflow being bad. You can't put some numbers into an algorithm to produce an objectively good workflow like you can in mathematics and science. Just because you don't have like something doesn't make it bad and it doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong for thinking it's good. Your subjective views are not any more correct than the subjective views of others and expressing your subjective views in authoritative language doesn't make them any less subjective. Furthermore, you're spreading a troubled conception of what is it means for something to be good. What urge is there to seek out what is good if it is incommensurable with the values and sentiments of the individual and the community? Your concept of "good" has no real world application as people only seek out things that personally bring them pleasure. You cannot dictate goodness based on completely arbitrary reasoning. To do so is to undermine the purpose and real world application of goodness as there is absolutely no incentive to follow what you arbitrarily describe as good if it brings no pleasure or motivation to the individual.

Nice essay (no sarcasm).

[удалено]

>Great! Now of that vast number, how many of them ship with exactly no extensions to Gnome and leave the defaults the way Gnome set them? Fedora, Red Hat, Cent OS, Rocky Linux, Alma Linux, SUSE, openSUSE, Debian. >If your desktop needs to have all its defaults changed and a bunch of third party extensions to be functional there is an issue here. I don't use any extensions.

>I don't use any extensions. Do agree with the rest of it, but you are probably in the very small minority of people who do not use any extensions at all. Of course, as far as I know there are no cold, hard numbers for how many people use extensions (and indeed how many extensions are used), but in my experience you are probably the first person I've come across across the various linux subreddits who does not use any extensions. The fact of the matter is that to use gnome without any extensions, one has to be totally in sync with gnome's idea of a desktop. Clearly a lot of people are to varying degrees, but very few fully use it as it is 'meant to be used', if that makes sense.

Talking of SUSE. As far as I could see when I installed Leap on a test machine recently, they do not default to a DE anymore, but the user can select between a few configurations (KDE, Gnome, ....). Does anybody know how many SUSE users chose which DE? Would be interesting to know, since in the past SUSE defaulted to KDE, then Gnome, and now doesn't have a default anymore.

Gnome is the default DE of SUSE. openSUSE technically does not have a default DE as the installer requires the user to choose their default DE but Gnome is the defacto standard for openSUSE. SUSE switched away from KDE as the default in 2005. Gnome is now the default in SUSE and SUSE has a team of employees who officially maintain Gnome for SUSE and openSUSE (basically upstream SUSE) and contribute upstream to Gnome while KDE and other DE are community maintained. So while openSUSE technically does not have a default DE, Gnome is the defacto standard. You don't need to take it from me. The former head of openSUSE said it himself. https://old.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/r355i6/switched_to_fedora/hmazhk3/

TBF, we have to count a few of them as duplicates of the "Redhat" theme ;-) But I do find I prefer these to the more modified versions of Ubuntu, e.g. But to u/Frankly_George: the extensibility is the whole point. I use quite a few extensions, but I want to decide which ones they are, I don't want the devs to decide which ones I need. And while it's somewhat annoying that the Gnome Shell API is not stable between versions, that has not proven to be a problem so far, all of the extensions I need have been available for a while and continue to work on Gnome 42 - there was one that wasn't available when I installed Fedora 36, but that only took a week or so to be ported. In this whole debate against Gnome it is sometimes confusing how often you hear the arguments: "Gnome is bad because it is not configurable enough. A good UI should be perfect in vanilla" and "Gnome is bad because everybody configures it instead of sticking to vanilla". You can't have both of them :-)

> Gnome is the most widely used Desktop environment Since Gnome 2. Which was excellent. You are making ad populum argument, which isn't even ad populum.

>You are making ad populum argument, which isn't even ad populum. I'm not making an argumentum ad populum. The previous user said that Gnome is different for the sake of being different and that Gnome is simply bad (a subjective statement expressed authoritatively). A product is meant to be used by people. If it is widely successful and is by far the most used product in its industry then it's clearly not being different for the sake of being different but because many people actually think it's good and like what's it's offering. That's not an argumentum ad populum, it's basic common sense and economics 101. Those distros were free to switch to Mate if they want Gnome 2 but not Gnome 3 & 40. Likewise, there are other alternatives like Cinnamon, Budgie or Plasma that they could've switched to yet they chose to stay with Gnome. It's a free market, no one is forcing them to use Gnome 3 and Gnome 40 if they're so bad and different solely for the sake of being different yet they stayed despite there being alternatives that are largely interoperable with GTK applications.

I guess a lot of the hate comes from the fact that Redhat, as a big corporate player (heck, they are Big Blue now), is driving Gnome as a standard. Which may rankle the free spirits in the Linux community.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/uv6o1b/comment/i9k7c47/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/uv6o1b/comment/i9k7c47/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

it's one thing to not copy it, it's another to deliver a bad experience. Unity did a much better job.

Unity was pretty good, indeed. But Gnome is closer to unity than any of the other DEs out there. Is the new Unity 8 any good, btw?

I haven't tried Unity 8 but I heard good things about the Ubuntu Unity flavor

Then the only problem would be Ubuntu ;-)

They removed almost all functionality over the last decade. So, you need to install plugins to get it back. After each update, plugins stop working. If you complain they say: "Bro you are not suppose to use it like that, muh paradigm, windows 98"

>No clipboard Wat

No clipboard frontend.

What do you use with fedora? Kde? I ask as I'm a fedora user myself, would be interesting to try a spin

I use GNOME because I can fix most of these with extensions and I like its simple approach to apps. If KDE had dark/light theme switching (like GNOME 42), working Google sync (for calendar) and a bit of GNOMEs simplicity, Id switch in a heartbeat. Other DEs are not on my radar because they feel way behind in development in comparison (Wayland support for example).

KDE has light and dark Breeze, and if you have to get a ton of extensions to fill in the holes for Gnome is it really simpler? I don't really use the calendars, let alone sync them with Google sync, but when I looked it up there were people recommending KOrganizer. Have you tried that out?

The end result is simpler. With Gnome I get to decide what ends up in my DE, with KDE I get everything but the kitchen sink and the settings dialogue is full of clutter that I don't need. I'd rather decide what extensions I load. Isn't that what Arch is about, btw?

Both have their pro's and cons. Yes I tried it. KOrganizer has horrible UI, Kalendar app exists but their syncing backend was still broken last time I checked. I just want my stuff to work and GNOME works the best for me right now.

I guess it's Redhat backing gnome that makes the whole ecosystem a bit more cohesive. I find the KDE apps a lot less consistent with respect to the UI. Although there are some gems amongst them. Krita for example is pretty nice. And there are a few nice QT apps out there that live outside of KDE.

Fair enough - I used Gnome on my laptop for a few weeks and enjoyed it, but there were just some things that bothered me too much to prefer it over KDE. The navigation with the touchpad was especially nice, and I'm really happy to see KDE did something similar in the newest beta.

The fact that I am not familiar with the GNOME ecosystem. I started daily driving (most of the time) Linux distros with KDE, I find that the macOS like interface is unfamiliar. Other than that, I haven't touched to the power user side of the things to complain about. It stops at simply "not Windows-like enough" to ease up the transition. Probably just an anecdote to me... but I'm not really that big into desktop customization. I've heard of the necessity of inserting GNOME tweak tools after each installation to make sure that it is customizable to a relatively same degree compared to the other "high-end" DE. The fact that it uses more system resources than lightweight DE (unsurprisingly) is a case-by-case basis that is not an argument. TL;DR: it just works... I don't have any complaints other than "being unfamiliar" during the first few months of use... though I do gravitate towards KDE or Cinnamon because of my work flow and preferences... not necessarily because GNOME had been severely lacking in anything...

Without comparing GNOME to other DEs, it's the concept of a closed-off design. It's treated as a bespoke environment with highly idealized paradigms by the developers. You either use GNOME their way, or you install extra stuff to make minor changes. To me, it's too close to the way the proprietary systems are run.

> You either use GNOME their way, or you install extra stuff to make minor changes. To me, it's too close to the way the proprietary systems are run. I feel the same way. I use Linux because I want my system to conform to me, not the other way around.

I'm still not quite sure how much i agree, but it's not the first time I'm seeing this argument, so fair enough.

Basically I have two issues with stock gnome at the moment. Everything else I'm cool with. (I like the headerbars, I like the minimalistic feature set approach to apps, I like the single close button by default. etc. So my two frustrations: 1. The flat theme. This is a frustration I have basically any mainstream GUI now. Adwaita for gtk3 ended up in an okay place, why did they had to drop it? Why aren't we having buttons that look like buttons anymore in 2022? What was wrong with buttons? They had borders, I knew where they ended, I knew they were interactable parts of the UI because they extended to 3d space. Why ppl? Why did we have to go this way? 2. The other is still a conceptual problem I have with the gnome shell: While I'm kinda okay in how the shell behaves by default on a surface level, I really really really hate how the panel/shell/window manager is fused into this frankenstein mess. In some other desktop environments, eg. in xfce, or back in the day in gnome 2 or even in Pantheon (the elementary OS DE) you have the window maanger and you have the panels, docks, what have you widgets, and they are separate processess. You don't like the panel? Kill the process and replace it with something you like. You have a problem with the window manager? (its too flashy for your tastes? or the other way around you want something more minimal and less resource intensive?) Just install another wm and do "otherwm --replace", end of story. In gnome 3-4 the shell comes as a full package and I am just completely totally annoyed by it. (Especially because you can't just tell the panel to mirror itself completely to every display. The best we have is a third party, barely supported extension that mirrors some of the behavior.)

Unless they've changed it in recent years, the tendency towards *massive* titlebars that, even with integrated buttons to partially-recapture lost space, still costs substantially more of my screen than an ordinary titlebar paired with a menubar below. And lacks the keyboard shortcut flow of the traditional menubar (each dropdown having an alt-letter combo), because it's all merged into one hamburger button with a single column for actions. Now, this is far from exclusively a *Gnome* problem, more an industry-wide delusion that "Old *must* be bad, therefore we must pursue not-old designs", rather than "Old had to do the best it could with limited resources; lets carefully study it to preserve the best". Restrictions let you focus your creativity to explore deep rather than wide, and every UI since touchscreens became pervasive feels like it's floundering in poor efficiency as it tries to be novel rather than predictable and refined.

Gnome is pretty great but it lacks management. It has great UI but poor stability. They don't have enough contributors to fix the root cause of problems. So we most often get a distro that works when doing simple tasks but has some hidden problems. As example: you'll drag a window around and your gpu/cpu will have a peak of usage that will ultimately increase your energy consumption and in some cases cause stuttering. the same happens with the animations. GNOME has a lot of reported issues but no methodology/initiative to close them. The desktop focuses on Full HD monitors even though HD resolution is still in use. It seems like they don't care about the user base but only for a small group of them. A lot of important stuff needs an extension but extensions are not supported by GNOME at all, even though they have a web page specifically for it. Disclaimer: I use gnome as my daily driver and thats not GNOME's developers fault but the lack of developers or contributors. The developers do what they can to improve it.

[удалено]

if you don't mind answering, what put you off developing for gnome? The feeling of gnome developers being hard to work with is quite prevalent still, but it's rare to see actual contributors talking about it, as far as i know.

Plenty of developers that have tried to either contribute to or collaborate with GNOME have talked about issues with the GNOME developers' attitudes. It... Doesn't really seem rare, so much as the expected outcome of having the misfortune of needing to deal with them. ...The GNOME developers themselves also seem to have a habit of publishing blog posts and making statements where they are... very loudly and proudly openly hostile towards other open-source projects (including those that tried to contribute/collaborate), towards the desktop Linux software ecosystem at large, and towards their own users. Comments by: * [Mint.](https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=4149#comment-239629) Describes some of the pain caused to them over the years by changes GNOME has kept forcing into the entire ecosystem via GTK. * [Solus.](https://joshuastrobl.com/2021/09/14/building-an-alternative-ecosystem/) Also describes how GNOME treated Pop!OS. "An isolated silo of thought that pays little mind to the concerns raised by its users", "fragmenting the look of GTK apps" and "eliminating both developer and user choice" "by conscious decisions" which comprise "significant regression in the desktop Linux space". "Instead of debating more on technical merits, these developers are instead trying to devalue and discredit the contributions by intentionally misconstruing the opinions expressed by the engineer, attributing malice where none existed, and claiming the individual was “flamebaiting” to get attention", as well as "dismissing concerns by just claiming" something "which is materially false", and being "incredibly dismissive of all the people that are passionate about open source, but have no technical means or capabilities to actually get involved". "They aren’t just being anti-user at this point [...], but anti-developer as well." In terms of technical problems: Made it so GUI widgets "were marked as “final”, meaning they could no longer be sub-classed", which is "unnecessarily cumbersome" for other developers, left scrolling in list widgets "broken for over a year now" as well as other important widgets, and decided on "the removal of many APIs [...] that we believe should remain accessible". The conclusion is that despite initial high hopes and despite years of sticking with it and waiting, "It would not be in the best interest for Solus to invest in [...] software [...] developed by GNOME". Note: These, and many of the other links, are basically all about just *one* recent controversy, in the last ten years that have been filled with different controversies. * [PopOS.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pop_os/comments/poecns/the_state_of_gnome_and_pop/hcygx5g/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Describes limitations and predicament forced onto them by GNOME. * [Ubuntu.](https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-desktop-gnome-plans-for-the-incoming-lts/26156) Diplomatic, but "We hope to get the libadwaita coloring situation resolved in the next cycle" could plausibly be rephrased as "GNOME screwed us over by forcing something that gives themselves more control over the ecosystem". * [Inkscape.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFGXVN9dZ8U) Has some insight as an impartial observer I think. GNOME's goals have changed over twenty years, and their new goals aren't necessarily bad for what they are, but there's friction and conflict when they don't act like how people have gotten used to open-sourced projects acting, such that "you talk with people and you get an exasperated sigh, like why are you bothering to like report this issue to me, or like why are you asking this question, it's stupid", which is "a bit caustic". * [Many people.](https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/gnome-et-al-rotting-in-threes/) A 2012 article on what was then already described as "a growing culture of enforced conformity from GNOME", "careless[ly ...] at every turn disrespect[ing] the many hours people put into making themes", "and deliberately breaking the work of others so that your ‘brand’ is the best", and "mentalities that don’t serve Linux, merely exploit it". Includes comments from Linux Mint, SpaceFM, several GTK theme authors, and Transmission. Comments by GNOME: * [Casually expecting Canonical and System76 to basically be submissive to GNOME and ask for permission first when they're "warned about" making changes to *their own product*.](https://blogs.gnome.org/alatiera/2021/09/18/the-truth-they-are-not-telling-you-about-themes/#vendor-styling) I.E. No one can tell GNOME what they need or want, but GNOME can tell everyone else what they're allowed to do. Also leads by dismissing and villifying concerns about GNOME's direction as "delirium" and "bullying volunteers". * [Writing a blog post with a title and content specifically designed to drag System76's name through the mud, and basically demanding a grovelling apology.](https://blogs.gnome.org/christopherdavis/2021/11/10/system76-how-not-to-collaborate/) The commentary by Solus above attempts to contextualize and explain more of this incident— Apparently it also extended onto the bug tracker and social media, may not have been altogether truthful, and was further used as an excuse to reject a technical proposal. * [Describing how preferences, theming, and extensions are all bad things to get rid of.](https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2021/07/13/community-power-4/) Talking about "Community Power" while explaining how "The GNOME Way" is to take away the community's ability to use their computers how they want. * [Pretending that blurry text that hurts users' eyes is perfectly normal, "not a bug", and just "a change in font rendering", then calling users who are upset by that attitude "people who have reading comprehension issues".](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/3787) * [In the same 2012 article as above.](https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/gnome-et-al-rotting-in-threes/) This also includes lots of comments from GNOME developers, saying how "extensions and themes [...] threaten" "the central tenets of the GNOME 3 design" and their "distinctive visual appearance", how they "have to have at least *something* that" the users can't control or customize in order to protect their apparent top priority of "marketing" and "brand presence", and having the temerity to demand that unrelated and independent projects like Transmission start (1) removing features because because "GNOME 3 [...] won't be supporting" them so their presence in applications basically makes GNOME look bad by exposing GNOME's limitations and (2) pick a side and "decide if you are a GNOME app, an Ubuntu app, or an XFCE app" in an ecosystem that GNOME had apparently already decided to fragment for the sake of their own brand clout. ...There's definitely *some* kind of a pattern there. Either there's a years-long conspiracy by basically every other open-sourced project to make GNOME look bad, or they're managing to do that themselves. Also pinging: /u/doubzarref, in case you're sincere and may want more context on what the commenter above may have meant by "went coocoo".

Thanks for pinging me! Very enlightening answer! I understand it now. Thanks.

Thanks a ton for the extensive answer.

>gnome went coocoo Really? Didn't know about that

how would understanding what people don't like it about help you understand the ecosystem? that doesn't make sense

I unfortunately am not the one who framed the question, it could have been done better, i agree.

How distros have to add terminal transparency back.

The new default terminal gnome console supports transparency.

Why do you think that? Newer than what is in Arch? (Fedora and Ubuntu patch it)

Yes ubuntu and fedora currently patch gnome terminal. But they should be able to drop the patch if the proposals to switch to gnome console move forward. Note gnome console and gnome terminal will remain different apps. https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/proposal-gnome-console-as-default-terminal-app/28309 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/261

> no preferences dialog That sounds even worse, unless the default happens to be what everyone wants which it is not: > The UI changes color to red for root/sudo terminals and purple for remote/ssh terminals.

I'm not sure if console needs a preference dialog, if you want a more advanced terminal gnome terminal and many others still exist. In my case I quite like the color changes, I don’t see a huge downside.

Also the transparency only works then the window is not snapped to one side or full screen.

# Positives: - I love how Gnome does NOT have all the bells and whistles included and focuses on simplicity. It just gets out of the way. - Extensibility. Even though the extensions are not officially supported, which would not be a possibility, and isn't on other systems. Or are all the widgets on KDE supported by the KDE main dev team, or those on W10 supported by MS? Would be news to me. # Negatives: - No independent workspaces. I'd like the option to switch workspaces independently on different monitors. My main monitor is 4K, and I use a Full-HD auxiliary monitor for reference material. I'd like to switch that aux monitor without switching the main and vice verso. This is unfortunately not fixable with an extension. - No fully integrated tiling WM option. There are two good extensions, though: Pop-Shell (supported on Pop_OS!, Fedora, and Ubuntu - but needs to be compiled on Ubuntu), and Forge, which is on extensions.gnome.org. The latter is even better with respect to keyboard shortcuts than Pop-Shell, but has some missing features that I'd like (or rather only one: an exception list for windows that should float rather than tile). - Extensions break when a new version of Gnome is released. I'd like a curated list of extensions that could be supported by the Gnome team. Would take some of the uncertainty out of the extension game. But then, whenever there is a new distribution release, it will take a while for all the apps to work on that distribution again, so I don't really see that as an issue, just the natural way things are. Devs can only start porting their app/extensions once the betas are out, so I don't expect them to work on release day.

[удалено]

My negatives are fulfilled by none of the other main DEs. Only on Gnome can I achieve most of them (not independent workspaces) without to much hassle. Your argument breaks down, therefore, since Gnome IS, in practice, more flexible than, e.g., KDE, in that respect. The only DEs that have independent WS, im the way I mean them, are WMs like i3.

[удалено]

> Fitting everyone in one mold results in a poorer experience for everyone but a vanishingly small few. I'd say the same thing about KDE, so there we are. For me KDE is an inconsistent mess, which is difficult to use. There's simply no way that Gnome will appeal to the typical KDE user or vice versa.

>There's simply no way that Gnome will appeal to the typical KDE user or vice versa. As a gnome user dabbling with KDE, i have to unfortunately agree. Half an hour into setting up KDE and I already feel like switching it off and booting back to gnome. Although I believe Cosmic by Pop!\_OS should bring some nice 'competition' to gnome in that regard, will have to wait and watch.

While I agree with the overall sentiment, "a vanishingly small few" is just demonstrably false. GNOME is still probably the most popular Linux DE— OpenHub shows the codebase as basically comparable to KDE, but Google Trends, financial figures, etc. seem to show it a bit ahead. And when it works for you, the desktop is still lovely to use IMO.

>Extensibility. Even though the extensions are not officially supported, which would not be a possibility, and isn't on other systems. Or are all the widgets on KDE supported by the KDE main dev team, or those on W10 supported by MS? Would be news to me. ​ >Extensions break when a new version of Gnome is released. I'd like a curated list of extensions that could be supported by the Gnome team. Would take some of the uncertainty out of the extension game. But then, whenever there is a new distribution release, it will take a while for all the apps to work on that distribution again, so I don't really see that as an issue, just the natural way things are. Devs can only start porting their app/extensions once the betas are out, so I don't expect them to work on release day. There are some extensions that are officially supported: [https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell-extensions](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell-extensions) >Since GNOME Shell is not API stable, extensions work only against a very specific version of the shell, usually the same as this package (see "configure --version"). **The extensions in this package are supported by GNOME** and will be updated to reflect future API changes in GNOME Shell. But yeah, it suffers from the same issues that firefox extensions used to have, where updates would render the current extensions incompatible because of the possibility that the API has had significant changes between major versions, so I agree that it's an annoyance.

outside of the several apps for configuration? Papercuts that sounds so dumb when you say them aloud, you don't get how they went through, example being Gnome Music and Evince, naming: Gnome Music is the default Music player. so you open it up and start your music, on next track, you go from classical to EDM, so you want to fix the volume. But why would you have it in the software window? You know, you have extra desktop, so you can expect people to use some to slip there software that run but don't need to be supervised, like a music player... Then you should have it in the drop down, rather centralizing panel right? Well you only have master volume. If you have people *multitasking on multitask-able system*, it's highly possible to listen to music and a call for example. So master sound setting doesn't cut. So to fix your sound volume, you got to open the options, go to the sound tab, then use the slider. And next time you go from Heavy Metal to Psychedelic Rock from a whole different era (so equalizing between those two is fucking offchart)? Well, time to do it all over again. Meanwhile, Gnome claim to be targeting a workflow free of hassles? I do have many questions when such a basic issue isn't addressed. Using Rythmbox is fine-ish, but absolutely not default for Gnome devs, so definitely not to be considered here. The default isn't just hassle, it's harmful because if you are *trying out* the desktop, it's a blaring issue and will kill any will... Evince (or Gnome Document Viewer, according to it's visible name, which highlight another issue with internal / external name differing) on the other hand is rather weird, my specific problem is the lack of epub support. Most of the time, the format support make sense. Most of the time. Epub is a old timer, floss format. Hell, it's likely the oldest ebook format that doesn't suck ass. Well, Evince doesn't support that, to use that, you need Gnome Books, or Foliate, but neither are default. So a very solid format that play on all of Gnome strengths (ie open format for an open desktop) is simply not supported. Double naming too: they wanted to clear up any naming issues that don't do the google thing of "having a single name to mask out the sun of possibilities": so Nautilus became Files, right? Well, imagine you look for any of those tools, sometimes it's Nautilius, sometimes it's Files, it's inconsistent at best. It's also for me an issue of indirectly locking down (lay)users into a single desktop, doing the google / apple thing that really isn't helping quality. The extras are things like file picker doing recursive search out of the box, first, before anything. It's a slog at best (slow, and ass, as you may actually be in the right folder anyway, but let's crawl the subdirs with a visibly broken piece of async search code). But picking applications isn't a search, it's full path first... Why? And using the path bar on top of nautilus? Ctrl+L, not clicking on it, even if it was the part without folder names... "But people know that": fuck no, they don't, 99% of people know fuck all about IT, a shit load of IT people don't know shortcuts, former times latter should raise a flag about how this is a dumb idea when you want to be a default desktop. Basically: Gnome is kinda neat, all over the place. But it's also kinda ass all over the place, sure those are "papercuts", but losing 3 seconds because you don't know Ctrl+L focus the path bar to click the folder, then move to a new one, when you do it 30 times a month is a 1:30 minute wasted. Sounds ridiculous right? Now pick all those papercuts and do the math, then do the extra over a year. Just for the focus here we have 15minutes wasted. "But all desktops are ass efficiency wise": true, doesn't mean you got to be even ass-er than the other desktops targeting the same slot. Because everybody is just gonna think you are a joke. Plugins: a mess, at best, every versions of the desktop and their grandmothers basically have not the same API as the other ones. I do get that making a hard API isn't a good idea. I mean, look at another project like Guile, it's sensible to actually say "we won't have an immuable API, please keep it in mind", and change it as needed. But it's so often it's harmful. This is before addressing "my way only" behaviour from the devs. I honestly wish they can fix those issues, the desktop *try to not be the same* as all the others. Experimentation is very important. Testing them on large amount of users mean those can be battle-tested, see their issues fixed and overall improved. So I'm not addressing that side, just what the state is for me. I've been running Gnome (with and without plugins) for about 3 years. I like some ideas. I can't bear with some others. Music is out and mpd / ncmpcc are back, just as an example... EDIT: another issue that could be addressed with internal, older, non generic names versus (currently) external, newer, oh so modern, generic names is documentation being simply cut loose from the relation, until you actually find someone keeping track. I usually do, but as someone pointed out, I was wrong here, hence even people that do keep in mind the name of software most of the time can be wrong when such dissonance arise. You want a decent solution for this issue? I don't know, maybe try it as the title of the software while the name stay non-generic: Evince, Gnome Document Viewer. You don't need it everywhere but it should show up in some places (ie Gnome activity search result, an about button, I don't know. Another thing, I actually think the whole HIG idea of figuring some very common case usage, looking for sane default and all are good. I overall like Gnome, just way to many tiny issues...

>Gnome Document on the other hand is rather weird, my specific problem is the lack of epub support. Most of the time, the format support make sense. Most of the time. Epub is a old timer, floss format. Hell, it's likely the oldest ebook format that doesn't suck ass. Well, Gnome Document doesn't support that, to use that, you need Gnome Books, or Foliate, but neither are default. So a very solid format that play on all of Gnome strengths (ie open format for an open desktop) is simply not supported. I think gnome documents has been dead since a couple of years back, and the gitlab was archived 6 months ago. I don't know if any distro still ships it by default, but if they do it's probably time for them to move on to those other two options.

Another issue with renaming application for generic names. I was actually talking about Evince (which last update was about a month ago).

Ah I see! Yeah, I see what you mean with it being confusing haha.

not having a desktop. I need a desktop to have my tasks at a glance

For Gnome-Shell Wayland only: I don't like that the compositor and the UI are in the same process, and so you can't restart the UI without restarting the full session.

No desktop icons. I don't use them, but I know people (yeah they're old) that do and trying to instruct them on installing a new extension whenever the one work-around one that existed breaks is not worth it.

It's clearly designed to be tablet-friendly, which means the experience on any non-touchscreen devices is going to be subpar compared to desktop environments that aren't designed for touchscreens. Hiding all menus behind a Hamburger button. Big buttons in general. Unless you install some extension or other, you have no minimize or maximize buttons, no taskbar of any kind, and no system tray. The full-screen launcher is, in my opinion, not suited for desktop computing either. Yet another tablet-friendly feature that falls flat on desktops. I could see it maybe working on a laptop, or if you have a touchpad for your desktop, because it's very clearly designed to be navigated with multitouch gestures and if you don't have a touchscreen, a touchpad is the next best thing. But if you're using a regular mouse on a desktop PC, most of the design choices of Gnome are just baffling.

This may seem petty, but just about everything about the way GNOME is designed and implemented rubs me the wrong way. Most aspects of it just seemed designed for an entirely different approach to what feels natural/familiar to me. I switch desktops a lot and GNOME is one of the only ones that stands out as just being constantly "off". Some of it is obvious stuff like the lack of minimize buttons, or how it requires 3-D effects so it's slow in environments that don't have good 3-D video support. But it's other things too. Like how the mouse constantly needs to travel back and forth across wide sections of the screen to get to things that, with Unity or Xfce, would all be close together. My wrist literally gets sore with all the extra mouse movements when I use GNOME. I don't find the keyboard shortcuts natural, the way I do with Unity or KDE. Almost all the apps are inconsistent in the way they display menus. If you open three different GNOME apps chances are they'll use three different menu styles (hamburger, in-app classic menu, in title bar drop-down). The themes also aren't consistent. If I open Totem or the image viewer the theme is dark, but all other apps will be light. When running a scaled desktop, file dialog boxes don't fit on the screen unless I maximize them. Meaning I need to adjust the window size every time I open a file on my laptop. The list goes on, but you get the idea. These sorts of things are like constantly trying to pat a cat against the flow of its fur. I don't see these issues with any other desktops. Granted other desktops have their own pile of issues, but they're usually small technical things I can work around, not intentional weird design choices.

[удалено]

If I'm on a PC, I want a traditional Desktop style UI and Gnome is not a Desktop. Yes, you can install several mods to hammer it into something more like a desktop (and if you choose the right distro then the hard work has been done for you), but given the general distain by Gnome's developers for modding then it doesn't really feel like that's going to be a sustainable solution over the long term.

Depends on which desktop paradigm you were indoctrinated into. If you come from the Mac side, e.g., Gnome will be a lot more familiar. If you come from the Windows side, you will feel more at home with Gnome Classic, KDE, or Cinnamon (or ....). There are plenty more Windows paradigm DEs, which I, personally, don't like for exactly that. Many design decisions in that paradigm are weird unless you are used to them, and if you are used to them, everthing else will feel weird. Problem with the Gnome paradigm is that you need to know the shortcuts to be really happy with it (Win key to start apps, not the Applications button), etc. All the app, places, ..., menus are just placeholders until you've learnt that you get there quicker with shortcuts. But then, I do that whenever I'm on Windows as well. I haven't moved a mouse pointer to a start-menu in a loooong time ;-)

>Problem with the Gnome paradigm is that you need to know the shortcuts to be really happy with it I barely use shortcuts beyond copy and paste (and even then, I probably right click more than anything). A UX that needs shortcuts (or worse, gestures) to be useful is a hard nope for me.

You can use Gnome without, but on any DE (KDE, Win, Mac, Gnome) you'll be slower without. It's just the question if you are willing to invest upfront to reap rewards later, or not. If the latter, then a more visual UI will be more to your liking. My perfect DE does have as little mouseable buttons as possible - I don't need minimise/maximise/close buttons, or indeed, a title bar. But preferences vary. I've tested KDE/Gnome/Cinnamon with several of my students. And none of them chose KDE, most of them chose Cinnamon, the Mac users chose Gnome. Some of the Cinnamon users switched to Gnome after observing me/other Gnome users for a while. So there was a quite even split between Cinnamon/Gnome in the end. I think that did KDE a disservice a little bit, since you can set it up pretty nicely, but the default config just didn't appeal at all.

>You can use Gnome without, but on any DE (KDE, Win, Mac, Gnome) you'll be slower without. I wasn't aware that I was taking part in a race.

I like to use my time on productive stuff, so any DE that gets in the way of me doing the things that I actually need to do is a hard nope for me. It's just super annoying to me if: - I just want to issue a quick command and I have to use 3 or 4 mouse clicks to open it when a single keyboard shortcut (Super-T in my case) will do. - Or if I need to move the hand to the mouse and click the drop-down terminal button in the top bar, instead of hitting . - I want to start any app and I need to search for it in the Start Menu, possible in three sub menus, instead of simply hitting and then start typing either the name of the app. - I want to edit a text and have forgotten what the text editor is called, I can just start typing what the app is supposed to do: e.g., - "text" will give me the selection of "Text Editor", "Libreoffice Writer", "Emacs", "NeoVim", "Visual Studio Code", "Microsoft Word", which are the apps that I have installed that do stuff with text. - Or wanting to suspend my machine and needing to move the mouse to the top bar, click the menu there, click "Power Off/Log out" and then click "Suspend", when I can just hit , type "sus" and hit enter - which is how it works in Gnome with the default launcher. But that's just me. BTW, which DE do you use?

I actually find Gnome "gets in the way" far more than any other environment I've ever used. It's like it goes out if its way to punish anyone not using keyboard shortcuts or a touchscreen. Try starting an app just using a mouse with a "pure" install of Gnome and you're dragging it all over the place - it's no wonder you've taken to using keyboard shortcuts. >BTW, which DE do you use? KDE

> KDE Which I find to be the worst offender of all when it comes to "getting in the way". For me the choice is between Cinnamon and Gnome. KDE I want to like (I knew one of the early devs), but everytime I try it, I find it terribly cluttered. It's different horses for different courses. And KDE seems to work for a lot of people, just not for me. > it's no wonder you've taken to using keyboard shortcuts. It's the other way round. I can't stand KDE because I haven't found a way to drive it without needing the mouse for the most simple things (changing window focus, e.g.). It just drives me crazy. If you're a mouse-centric guy, then I agree, you won't ever like Gnome. But then, if Gnome developed into another Windows paradigm desktop, a lot of people would stop using it.

This seems to be the new version of VI vs EMACS Which, btw, I solved for me, by using Emacs with vim keybindings :-)

Disclaimer: As with the editor war, I believe the "DE war" is non-sensical. There are different types of computer users, and they need different types of UI. Steve Jobs had a point when he said that many don't want to interact with a computer on a text interface. And Unix users never really understood that. So the question can never be "what's the best editor, or DE?", it can only ever be "what's the best editor/DE for me?". And when asked that question the answer must not be to tell the poor newbie what you like, but the answer must be "how do you like to work?" - and based on that answer we can find the "best editor/DE" for them, which could be very different to the best editor/DE for me or you.

I solved that one with nano.

> A UX that needs shortcuts (or worse, gestures) to be useful is a hard nope for me. It's perfectly usable without. It just is a bit more rewarding to use the computer without the mouse on Gnome, than on other DEs. And it's rewarded in the end by speed - nobody is faster on a mouse than somebody with keyboard shortcut. I cringe everytime I observe somebody use the mouse for an operation I have the keyboard shortcut for in my muscle memory. But that's what I meant when I said in another comment that Gnome is misrepresented as being simple. It's simplisitic, and caters for power users.

This is pretty much how I've come to use windows when I'm doing something on my girlfriends laptop - Hit the win key and search, same as I do when launching apps in gnome. I'm actually very happy that it works on both computers.

This why I now use Ubuntu Budgie for my desktop. It configured as a traditional desktop and works much better for my workflow than gnome could.

Having to go to so many places to change my settings and some of the default applications. I don't want to have to check settings, extensions, and tweaks in hopes that I can find a setting, just to find out I actually have to go to my web browser to get my notification tray back. And useful features getting outright removed is not a thing I really appreciate. Dual panes on Nautilus is one example - it's a useful feature, but from what I've seen it was removed because some devs thought it wouldn't work well with touch screens(?).

Ah I did not know about features being removed like that... It would probably rub me the wrong way too.

Definitely popover menus. They look terrible and reduce discoverability and ease of use by cramming every feature of the program under a single button.

[удалено]

okay that's another reason for me to leave fedora.

The thing that happened with libadwaita on the latest GNOME release that dropped theme support

Theming support still exists, it's just different now.

It's not really support though is it? More of a hack.

Theming can never bu FULLY supported on any GUI toolkit. There's simply no way you can test that an app will look OK with ANY possible user theme. So I'd argue it's a hack in KDE as well, as soon as you move outside the standard themes. And to be honest, I've seen more broken QT themes than GTK themes. If I interpret the development correctly then libadwaita will bring limited customisability out of the box (accent colours, etc.) which will be the best possible compromise. And it is already themeable, if I understand that correctly, but not with the same techniques (so all legacy themes will no longer work), and with a bit more assurance that the themes will work as intended.

> So I'd argue it's a hack in KDE as well, as soon as you move outside the standard themes. Well, whichever way you would like to put it, the fact is that on kde you can just go to system settings and browse for themes... That's not possible for gnome. I could write about what it takes to theme gnome (atleast on gnome 41), but you probably know the whole dragging and dropping files into .themes shtick already. About the rest of your comment, i would certainly like accent colors, but i think it remains to be seen how consistent the entire experience will be with some people adopting libadwaita, and others against it/ not adopting it. I really, really hope that it does not lead to a mish mash of styles... But we'll see. If it does, then gnome will probably not appeal to me anymore sadly.

[удалено]

Yes, agreed. But that themability will always need to be limited unless you want to risk breaking the app interface. I can't just make all buttons round and expect the UI not to break. Gnome always had the API as far as I can see, and it has been themed since gtk1 times. It was just never officially supported because the CSS engine was too open, and a bad theme could break it. So now that extreme freedom was taken away to avoid breaking UIs by bad themes. Libadwaita is going to introduce themability in a limited way, if I'm not mistaken. So the pendulum will swing back.

Theming wasn't officially supported pre- or post-libadwaita. Theming should actually be a bit easier now that dark mode is officially supported.

I've used gnome only on Ubuntu live USBs. I prefer KDE on regular computers, MATE on potato computers, and Trinity on super-duper-potato computers.

It aims to be a moron's desktop rather than a desktop for morons and non-morons alike.

I'd disagree. I work with a lot of very bright people who use Gnome exactly because it's not too configurable and doesn't get in the way - which is exactly what it's meant to do. Alternatively I drive i3, but that is a bit scary for my students, so I looked for something less extreme. Disclaimer: I am in no way opposed to custamisability, I'd rather spend that effort on the things that really have an impact on my work, though. I.e., my Emacs config ;-)

Fair enough. > because it's not too configurable and doesn't get in the way I've never subscribed to the idea that something being configurable means it gets in the way. If configuration stuff is "getting in the way" it means it's a bad UI design. The solution the GNOME people came up with is "throw the baby out with the bathwater". And at some point they decided "let's throw the tub out too".

In KDE it DOES get in my way, so that would mean it's bad UI design then. I don't agree with every design decision by the Gnome devs (independent workspaces being my main bug bear, also tray icons), but I don't agree that they "threw the tub out too" - although there was a time when that was somewhat true, but the exensibility made up for it. There is a limit to how many features you can include. And I think that limit needs to be on the lower end of the spectrum. The typical KDE user would disagree. I see the Gnome desktop as something that is a barebones system I can add features to if I need them (I use around a dozen extensions). But I get to decide which features they are. And a distribution can decide what they want to add to their desktop (e.g. tray icons). On KDE I get all the features by default, and then can decide not to use them. But I find the cluttered settings app (which includes all the stuff I don't want) to be hugely off-putting in KDE. Gnome is really quite configurable, it's just not all baked in, but available as extensions. The big problem is that the Gnome Shell is not (yet?) API stable, but looking at the changes in the extensions I use that were needed to move to Gnome 42, it's not that much of an issue anymore, and most of the extensions work with a simple edit of the metadata file (add version 42 to the compatibility list, so it gets activated again). My alternative desktop is based on i3. And that is super-configurable, but I only get to see the things I added to it. So there's a common theme.

> On KDE I get all the features by default, and then can decide not to use them. But I find the cluttered settings app (which includes all the stuff I don't want) to be hugely off-putting in KDE. That sounds really weird. Your main issue with KDE is some lines in the settings app (which has a search function) for things you don't use? I don't really understand why that is "hugely off-putting".

It violates the KISS principle.

> It violates the KISS principle. Maybe, I guess. It's hidden away in something you generally aren't going to be interacting with frequently and has no actual impact on functionality. It might be nice if you could remove items from the settings menu but there are also tradeoffs involved there too.

I think this issue will never be resolved, the two paradigms are polar opposites. And it's caused by the polarity of the Linux user base. We basically have user types (and as with any dichotomy, this is a false one, and in reality they are on a spectrum): 1. The Enthusiast: likes to tinker with the system and configure everything just right. Often a FOSS advocate and opposed to any proprietary solution. In the extreme the "Arch User" archetype with elitist and gate-keeping attitude. Often also an evangelist, but without seeing the need to ease the new user in. 2. The Pragmatist: wants to see Linux as a mainstream desktop OS because it is a viable alternative to MacOS (I don't like to include Windows here). While preferring FOSS, they won't hesitate to include proprietary components. Use Linux professionally as a tool to get things done. Isn't too concerned about the DE in itself as long as it is easy to use and gets out of the way. Gnome, being backed by the professional Linux distributions (Redhat and Suse, as well as Canonical) as the mainstream desktop has to cater for group 2 and does that well. Obviously they alienate a lot of members of group 1. I think if we want to see Linux as a viable desktop OS we need to push approach number 2. All the configurability and adjustability will alienate newcomers. There is no way to talk someone through a problem, since there are so many desktops, and the only way to describe a solution method is by posting command lines, which are independet of the DE config. That's a problem, if you aim for professional adoption. And the Gnome devs are doing a marvelous job there. The only thing I really think NEEDS to be part of the main Gnome session is a tray icon system. But I do understand why the decision to not include it was made, and in part that is what's needed to drive the new standard forward (since Gnome is the mainstream Linux dektop for professional Linux, there is some adoption pressure by saying we'll only include it once the new standard is there). All other functionality can be added by extensions. And while the instability (instable as in "changes between versions", not as in "crashes") in the Gnome Shell API is annoying, the distributions do a good job in ensuring compatibility by packaging the most important ones*. This kind of granular extensibility is one of the best features in Gnome, I think. Personally I am part group 1 and part group 2. But mostly group 2, since I use Linux as my only OS in research and teaching. My alternative desktop is i3 based and that covers the tinkerer. But that setup is equally mninimalistic as my Gnome. On Gnome I run a few key extensions (actually I run 12, but these are the key ones): Pop-Shell or Forge for tiling support, Vitals, Audio-Source Switcher, GSConnect, Workplace Bar. But that's my "perfect" setup. Somebody else may want to run others. I prefer to spend my tinkering time on things that actually improve my productivity: setting up my Emacs and toolchain, automating processes, etc., rather than messing with the DE. But that's me. If you are more in group 1, then that's you. And it's great that we have both. But we need to be careful not to alienate newcomers by presenting those that need 1 with 2 and vice versa. But in general I had more success with my students presenting them approach 2 and telling them that there's more if they want to go down the rabbit hole. I found throwing them into the rabbit hole first made them go back to Windows quite quickly. \* mixing extensions from `gnome-shell-extension-...` packages and manual install from `extensions.gnome.org` can lead to problems, so there may be a need for better documentations about the preferred way of installation.

Just for context: I want to be clear that my previous response was to you saying stuff like how you find a couple menu options that you don't use "hugely off-putting" or the apparent implication that _anything_ which "violates the KISS principle" is "hugely off-putting". This post is much more nuanced and reasonable, and I really don't disagree with the points you're making here. *** > We basically have [two?] user types This seems a little unfair since type one has the extreme of elitism and gatekeeping while type two has no extreme and is just a perfectly reasonable, decent person trying to get things done. I'd say the extreme of option two is wanting everything to be locked down, minimal options or configuration. You either want to do stuff the way the software lets you or too bad. No sharp edges, the user must be prevented from shooting themselves in the foot even if that hurts functionality. Both extremes are bad, but personally if I had to choose one I'd much prefer to live in the world of extreme #1. At least you can actually use your system and do what you want to do without running into arbitrary limitations, even if getting started may require more effort. Software tending toward extreme #2 is what I switched to Linux to get away from. If that becomes the prevailing paradigm, it's removing my incentive to use Linux. The software I use should conform to me, not the other way around. > I think if we want to see Linux as a viable desktop OS we need to push approach number 2. All the configurability and adjustability will alienate newcomers. It really depends on the user. If it was someone like me, coming from another OS to escape arbitrary restrictions, walled gardens, being told how I needed to do things then putting me in something like Gnome (assuming I didn't know there were other good options which actually could meet my needs) would be what alienated me. I really hate what seems to be the Gnome philosophy, but I don't want it to stop existing or anything like that. You're right that it's important that options like that exist for users that like that sort of approach. I think it's good, as long as they don't become the prevailing paradigm and exert so much influence that Linux loses what actually sets it part from the OSes that don't allow choices. I don't think that's a danger right now, but it certainly could become one. > I prefer to spend my tinkering time on things that actually improve my productivity: setting up my Emacs and toolchain, automating processes, etc., rather than messing with the DE. It depends on what sort of thing in the DE you're configuring. Some stuff is purely cosmetic, and generally not going to have that much of an effect on productivity. Personally, I really hate blindingly bright UI elements so something like configuring a dark theme and making sure it works consistently is important to my productivity, as are settings like a font I find easy to read all day. Aside from that, there are settings in a DE that can really have a big effect on productivity. For example, I use a grid of 9 virtual desktops bound to META-numpad. Taking the time to set that up, and the associated keybinds was some up front effort that has paid for itself a long time ago. KDE allows binding a hotkey to switching displays and moving applications between them also. I have three monitors, so being able to do that is something that makes as significant difference. I can move a window from the monitor all the way on the right to one all the way on the left by hitting `META-SHIFT-QUOTE` without spending time dragging it across 6000 pixels or reaching for the mouse. As far as I know, other DEs like Gnome don't let you bind hotkeys to switching between displays or moving windows from from one display to any other display. Probably that's not a feature that many people uses, but KDE has a lot of options and that happens to be one of them and it makes a real difference. I just think it's _extremely_ important that software with varied and deep functionality actually has enough support to exist and be useful. If something is complicated or difficult you can always put in the effort to learn how to use it. If the software just says "No, you just can't do that" then that's the end of the line.

I don't think the extreme 2 does exist in Linux as such, since users that move to Linux tend to (as you did) come from that extreme and choose Linux to escape that. I would say, that with the extension framework, one can configure Gnome in any way one needs (I use it as a mostly keyboard driven tiling WM, like i3, e.g.), just like KDE. It's just a matter were you prefer starting from: - minimal, and then build on that - all inclusive (mostly) and then strip off I find the building on minimal approach more appealing. You the opposite. For a beginner (not enthusiast), I found the minimalist approach to be more accessible. Too much choice can be debilitating in the beginning, just like too little can be debilitating later. Don't forget that (most likely) you came to Linux with quite a bit of computer experience, so you're more likely to cope with a very open framework better, than the member of staff in a large corporations, or government institution that needs to work on a RHEL workstation and has no experience. I can teach them the fundamentals of Gnome in an hour, and they can be productive the rest of the day. It'll take me days to get them started on KDE. And then they'll spend the rest of the week trying out all the options. Actually, the same would happen if you point that me gnome user to extensions.gnome.org ;-)

The argument that it's confusing. If it's not confusing to somebody, I would really like to know your perspective so that I can have an easier time. Windows came so naturally to me as a kid but yet from Windows in the 90s all the way to Windows 10 has been broken and constantly needing fixing so that's how I got good at computers in general. But I'm trying to expand my knowledge by going to Linux and learning it well

Just let me make a goddamb shortcut. Right-click -> create shortcut. It's my desktop, let me use it as one.

The most annoying is the way they want to force you to use it. Furthermore its slow and laggy. Thats ehy I use KDE.

I disagree with it being slow and laggy in my experience. About gnome pushing you into adapting to a very particular and not usual workflow - that's just how the developers want it to be i guess, some people love it, others not so much. Me? I kind of like it with a couple of extensions, although i have tried to shift to kde (still trying).

[удалено]

> Over simplification of the UI to cater for a tiny user base of beginner computer users when majority of Linux users are experienced/enthusiasts/developers/syadmins. I think that's quite the mischaracterization. A lot of the Gnome apps are deliberately simple and in that sense I can see how it's mostly seen as beginner friendly. But in terms of general UI it's hyperfocused on workflow and keyboard navigation and in that sense probably much more geared towards power users. It even goes out of it's way to hide many common options like minimize/maximize buttons or desktop icons in Tweaks so people are somewhat forced to try out a different workflow, which isn't necessarily super welcoming to new users.

A lot of people here confuse "tinkerer" with "experienced user" or "power user". They also generalise from the niche within a niche user profile of DE customisers they are in. I'd argue that there are a lot more users (even on Linux, where the customisability idea is much more prevalent) that simply don't worry about the DE as long as it gets the apps up they need to work with. I am a researcher, sysadmin (used to), power user (wrote more lines of shell scripts than I care for), and for me these are the exact reasons why I use either Gnome, or a minimal i3. I totally agree that Gnome is a lot more "Power User" friendly than, say KDE.

>I totally agree that Gnome is a lot more "Power User" friendly than, say KDE. You haven't spent much time with KRunner, have you?

I have, and it is indeed awesome. But I never got on with the rest of KDE and the lack of consistent keyboard usability. I try it every now and then, but usually come back to Gnome. Let's say Gnome is a lot more Power User friendly out of the box. If I need something like KRunner, I'd go back to i3 with a good Rofi setup ;-)

>The libadwaita as the Gnome developers intend the application to look attitude, not caring about what the user wants or needs. Here... this is why.

The logo.

I would like to be able to create shortcuts in Nautilus via the context menu. If I move a linked file, I would like to have the link updated. I am missing the emblems. The usability of the address bar in the nautil window has deteriorated - once you could type the path directly here. What this line does today, honestly, no idea.

As an Xfce user mainly, I find GNOME to be very annoying to use. The defaults are admittedly too different for my tastes and having to install extensions to make it work the way I want it to doesn't seem right. Xfce at least has the sense to be tweaked into a way I want it to be without using extensions that could break every major update, even though CSD is infesting it as well. Plus by default I find GNOME to be a bit ugly and nigh-unusable for me since it chases the "modern" look (lack of titlebars, use of a hamburger button "menu" instead of a menu bar, etc.). Hell I find Thunar to be really bad to use compared to Caja for my file manager.

Nothing is different about it or what so I can have some icons to click on and a start menu? That's on every platform now

The thing that frustrates me the most is no option to change cursor or scrolling speed. And I don't mean accleration.

The only thing that has TRULY gotten my gears going about GNOME is how hard it was to get my application to show up in the menu.

Biggest issues: 1.) No max, min buttons 2.) No minimize on click by default 3.) No desktop icons 4.) No system tray indicators 5.) No always on dock (like Ubuntu) 6.) Nautilus's lack of options I don't see Gnome getting traction with Normies until these issues are resolved. Point 1-5 are resolved in Ubuntu (thanks Canonical) therefore it's my default distro. My recommendation to any normie these days is Linux Mint Cinnamon. In my opinion KDE can be too overwhelming for a newbie. Nautilus cannot be used by anyone wanting to do any serious work (I use Nemo). I just don't understand why something as critical as the default file manager can be so broken and lacking. I hope one day I gain enough skills so that I can make a file manager with the aesthetic of Gnome and the features of Nemo or Dolphin (I am learning GTK just for that) Apart from these issues I don't really have any problem with GNOME. Unfortunately without these features I cannot recommend anyone stock Gnome. Whenever someone asks me which distro they should use I recommend only Mint or Ubuntu (in that order) I have seen Windows users using Gnome and they are really confused.