> Can you imagine if that was for a century?
If i had to keep a software stack for a century, i wouldn't pick GNOME. Generally you'd avoid any software project that has the faintest smell of "move fast and break things".
-- ex GNOME user
If i had to keep a software stack for a century, i wouldn't pick GNOME. Generally you'd avoid any software project that has the faintest smell of "move fast and break things".
-- ex GNOME user
It's less sad than thinking that they do it to themselves.
Fairly slow incremental changes over time, and no real surprises on a new release.
It's incredibly boring, but in the right way.
Gnome has adapted to changes in computing form factors, supporting more mobile setups (touch and tablet) that emerged over the past 15 years while other DEs may mature around a Desktop/Laptop setup.
- mostly happy Gnome user
But again, people have different conceptions of lagging behind. Some people think not having a graphical installer is to "lag behind", when this is pretty much a design decision and not a problem of fewer people working on new things.
[1] https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html [2] https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20230714121907
Linux has had a lot of work done to support complex features and scaling in a number of aspects, whereas OpenBSD has not. In fact, the insistence on security and keeping things conceptually simple, almost inevitably means they pass on some significant improvements. When you want pure power, OpenBSD is just not the best choice, for example; and the virtualization stack is very primitive.
That said, the upgrade process (like most things) is thoroughly documented every release, and a given release will continue to chug along for years, so I can see where you're coming from there.