• antihumanitarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    GNOME always seemed like an odd choice considering how little customization is available. It feels like a prescriptive approach, you will use your computer the way GNOME feels is appropriate, whereas KDE tries to accommodate however you want to use your computer.

    • ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Back in the Gnome 2 days this wasn’t as much the case. Plus KDE was kind of a mess back then so the main choices were Gnome or XFCE which had fewer features. When Gnome 3 came around the devs switched hard to a much more opinionated approach, leading to Gnome 2 forks like Cinnamon since KDE was still very underpolished. It’s a bit regrettable that all that effort was poured into Gnome forks instead of improving KDE especially considering how great it is now.

    • gens@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Having a company behind software means you can pay to have your bugs fixed. Big distros want that stability for their corporate customers. It’s no secret or anything. KDE has sponsors, but doesn’t have a direct relationship with a huge contractor like RH. Same reasoning for systemd.

      Politics, basically.

      • ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I wonder if the Gnome team’s cavalier aditude towards agreed upon standards is related to Redhat’s influence 🤔 It’s totally possible the devs are just high on their own fumes due to being the default for so long.