> I really disagree. I think engineers scratching their own itch leading down to trickle-down tooling is what a lot of independent devs _like to believe_, but that it's motivated mostly by self-importance. I think the utter failure of the FOSS desktop is proof that devs are motivated to work on things they find fun and that these things do _not_ necessarily translate to things that general users want to use.

I'm not a desktop environment developer, but I can't imagine it's especially fun compared to other projects. The bigger projects (Gnome, KDE, etc) are definitely being run for instrumentalist reasons, and are supported to quite a degree by companies with a business interest in having them.

Thinking about this reminded me of a highly insightful comment by user Floegipoky[0]:

> By mimicking the Apple and Microsoft tactic of constructing vast monolithic environments and applications, you have all unwittingly been playing to their strengths, not yours. Such enormous proprietary companies can afford such brute-force strategies because they have vast financial and manpower resources to draw on.

> Projects like Gnome and Open Office become like our banking industries: vast, baroque, impossible to regulate effectively, and cripplingly expensive to maintain.

Doesn't exactly sound fun — and whose itch is being scratched by working on these?

> the Linux desktop world (and even the kernel world beneath it) has completely and utterly forgotten its roots. Unix Philosophy isn't merely a neat marketing phrase: it describes a very specific way to construct large, complex systems. Not by erecting vast imposing monoliths, ego-gratifying as that may be, but by assembling a rich ecosystem of small, simple, plug-n-play components that can be linked together in whatever arrangement best suits a given problem.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13573373