> Doing their own thing just means duplicating 20 years of effort that those projects have done.
Not really, because part of that time is spent learning things, trying thigns, and part of that time may be unnecessary.
If you ask me, it pays to just learn to be flexible and learn to appreciate and work with the strengths of a software even if you don't like some aspects of it.
> If you ask me, it pays to just learn to be flexible and learn to appreciate and work with the strengths of a software even if you don't like some aspects of it.
I want to be flexible in my work, but not with my tools. Having to be flexible with my tools means that I can never reach a level of mastery. I would be building my skills on shaky ground.
The reason for the minimalist approach simple enough, I am accustomed to to it. Experiences with desktop environments tend to start with the idyllic romantic honeymoon and end with the realization that, after the initial setup, I am not actually using it for anything aside from launching programs and managing windows. The bulk of my time is being spent in a handful of actual applications, so why would I want to put up with all of the additional clutter?
It is a much more difficult to maintain a different kernel than it is a different desktop environment. So there is a huge incentive to cooperate on one kernel, even among companies with wildly different concerns (e.g. embedded IoT devices vs. cloud servers).
The kernel is also developed with an entirely different support culture than, say, Gnome. Backward compatibility for all supported use cases is taken extremely seriously by kernel developers. If it works on today's Linux kernel you can be almost assured it will work in 5 or 10 years. So, kernel users (i.e. developers, distro maintainers, etc.) stay happy because their stuff doesn't break.
Contrast this with the more "opinionated" DEs and you see features yanked and changed at a comparably dizzying rate. So, DE users experience a rate of change and support dynamic that is actually much "worse" than kernel users do.
Maintaining a different desktop is a massive undertaking. The total amount of lines of code in GNOME or KDE is comparable to the lines of code in the kernel. It is no joke to make a new desktop environment, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not just a matter of take GNOME and replace the window manager and then you're done. But I suspect that is what System76 will start with and then they'll see how much money they can raise from that. (Probably not much if Purism is any indication)
Backwards compatibility to the kernel only matters to the syscall API. There are areas of the kernel that get quite a lot of churn. Or things such as obsolete/unmaintained drivers and architectures getting removed. But nobody complains about those because it only matters to driver developers or other low-level people like the systemd maintainers. And when something broken does make it into mainline, the few people who get affected by those drivers who do complain get told "too bad, there is no money/time to fix it, buy new hardware or pay a support vendor" or something like that. You know, the usual thing you hear from any open source project. I really don't see how the support culture is much different. I know it's common for people to call out GNOME but I never understood any of the complaints there, you can still grab GTK1 and GTK2 and compile them if you really want to use those, as bad an idea as it may be. Those are about as unmaintained and crufty as any of the older areas in the kernel, and they're still technically around.