Today I talk about why I'm finally ready to settle down. Why did it have to be Gnome though?👇 PULL IT DOWN FOR THE GOOD STUFF 👇Patreon - https://patreon.co...
Kinda rich dissing KDE for its “unstability” and putting GNOME as its paradigm, the very DE well known to break every major version.
Sometimes this kind of posts/“content” make me feel like I must be the only person in the world who hasn’t had major issues with KDE and it’s been absolutely flawless lately, specially since 5 - but I then realize people without issues don’t complain. It’s the people who have issues with something that make the noise and make it a very big deal (and I’d argue most cases are of the PEBCAK type).
If the need is for something simple and stable I’d shoot for something like Xfce - but putting GNOME as the example of “stability” is nothing but laughable.
make me feel like I must be the only person in the world who hasn’t had major issues with KDE and it’s been absolutely flawless lately, specially since 5
There’s dozens of us! (kidding, it’s clear in recent years it’s way more than that, and I’m happy to see it.)
If folks are happy with how GNOME does things… I’m happy for them.
Gnome is extremely stable. Very very very stable. And Gnome isn’t well known to break every version, I don’t know where you’ve got that from.
They do expect extension developers to test and mark their extensions as compatible with new Gnome versions, but that’s the opposite of unstable, that’s enforcing stability, although I do see how it could annoy people who like to immediately move to beta Gnome releases and their extension developers haven’t got around to testing/verifying yet.
Personally I’m more in favour of that than the alternatives:
locking down what extensions can do in order to guarantee they work across all versions with zero need for tweaks/testing
assuming each extension will work with a new version, risking breaking stuff if, say, the new Gnome version makes changes to the notification system UI an extension makes alterations to
Kinda rich dissing KDE for its “unstability” and putting GNOME as its paradigm, the very DE well known to break every major version.
Sometimes this kind of posts/“content” make me feel like I must be the only person in the world who hasn’t had major issues with KDE and it’s been absolutely flawless lately, specially since 5 - but I then realize people without issues don’t complain. It’s the people who have issues with something that make the noise and make it a very big deal (and I’d argue most cases are of the PEBCAK type).
If the need is for something simple and stable I’d shoot for something like Xfce - but putting GNOME as the example of “stability” is nothing but laughable.
There’s dozens of us! (kidding, it’s clear in recent years it’s way more than that, and I’m happy to see it.)
If folks are happy with how GNOME does things… I’m happy for them.
Gnome is extremely stable. Very very very stable. And Gnome isn’t well known to break every version, I don’t know where you’ve got that from.
They do expect extension developers to test and mark their extensions as compatible with new Gnome versions, but that’s the opposite of unstable, that’s enforcing stability, although I do see how it could annoy people who like to immediately move to beta Gnome releases and their extension developers haven’t got around to testing/verifying yet.
Personally I’m more in favour of that than the alternatives:
locking down what extensions can do in order to guarantee they work across all versions with zero need for tweaks/testing
assuming each extension will work with a new version, risking breaking stuff if, say, the new Gnome version makes changes to the notification system UI an extension makes alterations to