I really like gnome and how it looks. However every time I try it I find myself in need of more functionality and so I install a bunch of extensions. For example I can’t live without a dock and some sort of system tray that shows which apps are running in background.

Sometimes the extensions have small UI inconsistencies or use more memory than usual. That’s why I totally ditched gnome and switch to KDE.

Also I tend to think it’s been designed for people who are more comfortable using a keyboard. I’m mostly a mouse person.

Do any of you run pure gnome with no extensions? How do you cope with the lack of a dock and system tray?

  • FOSS Is Fun@lemmy.mlEnglish
    62·
    10 months ago

    Because it takes manpower to develop and maintain these features?

    Especially desktop icons are difficult to get right (see workarounds like “ReIcon” on Windows). E. g. keeping icon positions across multiple monitors and varying resolutions and displays (which can be unplugged at any time). They can also be a privacy-issue, e. g. when doing a presentation.

    But most importantly: GNOME doesn’t want to be a traditional (Windows-like) desktop, so why would they implement features that don’t align with their ideas for a desktop experience?

    There are lots of other desktops, like Cinnamon, that offer a traditional desktop experience within the GTK ecosystem. There is also plenty of room for desktops, like GNOME, that have a different philosophy and feature set.

    In my opinion it would be boring, if every desktop tried to do the same thing. And there wouldn’t be any innovation, if no one tried to do things differently.

    • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      10 months ago

      Especially desktop icons are difficult to get right

      This doesn’t just affect desktop icons, icons in general suck under Linux. Things have strange behaviors when selected, long names don’t work properly etc.

      But most importantly: GNOME doesn’t want to be a traditional (Windows-like) desktop, so why would they implement features that don’t align with their ideas for a desktop experience?

      Because GNOME is the only DE with some potential and by not having 2 or 3 simple optional features aren’t getting more traction. I bet half of the KDE users would be glad to use GNOME only if it had desktop icons. Using other DE doesn’t make much sense as you’ll inevitable run in GTK and parts of GNOME and having to mix and match to get a working desktop experience.

      Again, GNOME had icons, v3.28 discontinued them for no other purpose than trying to re-inveting something that worked for a ton of people.

    • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
      12·
      10 months ago

      Innovation or regression? Gnome used to have optional desktop icons. They removed them. Let’s settle on gnome is progressing, while keeping in mind, that progress is neither necessarily nor inherently good.