Just asking, don't want to sound like it's a good thing to me: they started dumbing down the interface long time ago (between GTK2 and 3 if memory serves), and now they ruined it completely with the new design.
I understand that GNOME has other goals than I do for my machine, but it's basically the antithesis of the reasons I choose to run Linux in the first place. I think it being the de facto "standard" Linux desktop environment is really hurting the ecosystem.
I completely agree. I think it's a case of moneyed interests having taken over. Someone in another HN comment a while back implied that the big reason for Gnome and its philosophy is Red Hat's big corporate and especially government customers. Why so many casual Linux users have jumped on the Gnome bandwagon I don't understand. If you want something that gives you no choice and tells you how to use your computer and is "simple", then just buy a Mac.
GNOME isn't really against "choice" either, they just optimize for a different workflow.
Another group have their OS chosen for them by their employer. They don't care about the OS, or software in general - they just want to get through the day.
Perhaps KDE is well suited to one group and Gnome to another?
And KDE can simplified for installation on work computers, just not in the same way as GNOME.
Personally I use GNOME now because it fits my current workflow better, but in the past I had a different workflow and I used KDE more. I still have both of them installed so it's not difficult to switch.
People like Linus Torvalds didn't get their OS chosen for them, but still chose kept Fedora's GNOME default.
Sounds like someone else did make the choice for Linus, even if it could have been overruled.
Usually of the people that just work with a giant terminal session with screen and that's it.
No, really, because having a terminal application where "Tab Next" doesn't wrap around just goes to show how worried they are about users outside that niche (and yes maybe they fixed this now, but come on)
Other users have different expectations and needs and perhaps KDE suits them better, and maybe they are happy spending hours fine-tuning their desktop experience. All good and I'm happy we all get to have a choice.
However, I do like to use GNOME on my phone (with phosh as a shell). It fits there quite nicely and IMO feels better than Plasma.
Also, what does "big corporate" customers even mean? At my corporate job, I get paid to do work (within applications), not spend time configuring settings in my DE. I'd be quite curious to hear how gnome specifically prevents you from doing your job.
Last thought, but "just buy a mac" is a rather silly argument; in fact, if gnome is being to mac, that's a pretty high compliment, IMO. If that's not your thing, that's fine, but it's also fine for others to want to use a simple, well-designed desktop.
When I first got into KDE, I was young and excited about all of the eye candy and downloadable widgets and stuff. I spent a TON of time tinkering with the desktop environment. But nowadays, I use KDE with something like 85% or 90% of all the options at their default settings. I think that's a really common way to use KDE: everyone has their 5% or 10% of customizations, and it's not much, but for everyone that 5% or 10% covers different options.
I feel that in that way, defaults are very important for KDE as well. They provide a center of gravity for the userbase, and their appropriateness determines how much work it is for everyone to maintain a usable setup.
Anyway, on KDE I have a handful of settings saved in my dotfiles or similar, and the rest I don't really spend time configuring anymore. So I totally understand GNOME users who take a similar approach but fall a little further on that spectrum where the settings are 98% or 99% at the defaults.
I don't know why (maybe it's my reliance on the CLI and the deep familiarity of GNU and Linux together), but for whatever reason, despite being a KDE guy, I strongly prefer GNOME to Windows or macOS. It feels thoughtfully designed, and limited, yes... but not too restrictive. I get the comparison, but macOS feels hamstrung and confining to me, including compared to a nice, current GNOME distro.
XFCE also uses it for their plugins.
Technology-wise I'm sure other protocols are worse and all, but DBUS does not spark joy. My experience with DBUS is that it's a pain in the ass to program with, and can cause strange issues if you for example have a service that needs to be available both for early boot and late during shutdown and you're not very careful with your dependencies. Documentation is sparse, and it seems like 99% of people just use the low-level library they keep screaming you shouldn't use anyway. I used the glib one, and it put me off programming anything GNOME ever again.
I am not a fan of DBUS.
Nobody is "screaming" at you to stop using libdbus. The issues with it are actually spelled out in the docs. Here's what they say:
>The low-level API documented in this manual deliberately lacks most convenience functions - those are left up to higher-level libraries based on frameworks such as GLib, Qt, Python, Mono, Java, etc. These higher-level libraries (often called "D-Bus bindings") have features such as object systems and main loops that allow a much more convenient API.
>The low-level API also contains plenty of clutter to support integration with arbitrary object systems, languages, main loops, and so forth. These features add a lot of noise to the API that you probably don't care about unless you're coding a binding.
So unless you really have your own object system, language and event loop, you shouldn't bother with using libdbus. Use literally any of the other bindings of which there are many. The glib one is only going to be good if you're already using glib's event loop and object system.
It isn't any one particular option that I'm missing, rather the entire experience of modifying its behaviour is a pain in the ass. They seem to labour under the delusion that if they just make this one perfect system, everyone will be happy with it, so they don't need to prioritize customizability. This is rarely ever the case when dealing with real people with different needs.
https://www.osnews.com/story/7344/opinion-why-users-blame-th...
Also, if I remember correctly, the editable path bar was removed in Nautilus and Gnome file picker somewhere around that time.