> They all run KDE, even when they don’t provide it out of the box. You can just install it and use KDE instead of Gnome.
Ubuntu has a lot to answer for, and planting the idea that you have to completely reinstall your OS to switch to a different window manager is right up there at the top. Kubuntu, Xubuntu, god those were terrible ideas.
>The linux ecosystem doesn't even have a legitimate window manager.
The rest is largely correct, but this part is completely wrong. Linux has a bunch of legitimate window managers, most of them much better than MacOSX or Windows.
The problems with window managers on Linux are:
1) fragmentation: there's a bunch of them, all competing with each other, but with insufficient dev resources, so they all feel half-baked,
2) unreliability: because of #1, they have a lot of bugs
3) churn: with Gnome and KDE specifically, they keep throwing things out just as they finally make their product mature and starting over every so often, subjecting users to systems that are never really mature or reliable.
> You chose GNOME , the answer is you are not the target of the GNOME project, they target people with weak minds that would instantly faint if they see a configuration screen with options.
GNOME's problem is not the lack of configuration options, but lack of empathy. They stubbornly refuse to address (sometimes, even acknowledge) their own users' problems.
> If you decide you want options try KDE [...]
You don't solve this problem with more options. You solve it by understanding your users' needs.
I want a desktop that just works. KDE's promise is I can make it work if I can keep tweaking it; GNOME's promise is it should work if I'm willing to accept the compromises. Both of these options suck.
> KDE is extremely bloated and so that is why I avoid it.
I use GNOME myself but GNOME is anything but lean and stable - Alt+F2 r is for me a staple and it doesn't work correctly under Wayland, it's GUI is horribly slow, every extension worsening the problem. I mostly only use GNOME myself because I stopped caring about how slow things are and I'm lazy.
> One KDE package wants to pull in pretty much all the dependencies for a full desktop environment which isn't what I want to do.
Well, any GNOME thing wants to pull the entire GNOME thing AND systemd. Much worse.
> It's still not particularly good or better than KDE3, it's just different.
You're right, it isn't better.
When I last tried using it (November last year), parts were unusable -- for example on the workspace switcher (the panel that shows your workspaces) I couldn't see the windows that were on each workspace, because the idiot who had coded it thought it more important to make the control look shiny than to display the windows.
I use xubuntu/xfce now. I've no time for fuckwits who just want to jump on the newest trendiest technology bandwagon
>You may want it copying Windows, but I for one would switch away from whatever distro tries copying Windows, because I detest it.
That's fine, but Linux is never going to achieve any significant marketshare (and thus get support from hardware and software makers) as long as it tries to standardize on weird UIs. Having some weird options for those who want to mess with them is great, just don't make them the standard. That's the problem with Linux: for some stupid reason, the distros have mostly standardized on Gnome3, which is a resource hog and horrible to use, and not an easy transition for a non-technical Windows user. If they adopted KDE instead, Linux would probably get a lot more popularity.
> Also, KDE is better in all regards. Ditch gnome.
Yup, did that, GNOME looks nice, but... KDE has some issues with HiDPI, like a mouse pointer that is way too small on window controls. Yes I did change the cursor size to 48, but it does not work with what I assume is a kwin issue. So the cursor hops from one size to another all over the place.
> KDE is so amazingly good that there is no excuse to keep using Gnome.
I have nothing against KDE, but come on. Many of us really do prefer GNOME despite its perceived deficiencies. This is just a matter of personal preference.
> The thing is that Linux users are self-selected power users. If you want something to just do your work, you'll stay with Windows or macOS (or whatever your computer came with).
Not always, I had my dad using linux for years because he got a new lease of life out of an old machine and this was a time when windows would get random malware installed just from regular web browsing. The default solitaire that came with Kubunutu alone satisfied 90% of his computing needs. The configurability of KDE was a constant issue though, even when I locked the the taskbar/desktop he found a way to screw it up.
The problem isn't configurability, just the way it's handled. KDE (at least in my terribly outdated experience) adds all kinds of options in things like right click menus or application menus, this confuses and scares ordinary users. I find the gnome approach of having a dedicated app (tweak tool) for configuration is much better for ordinary/casual users, it moves all the clutter to a dedicated place instead of stringing it out everywhere. For power users there is nothing wrong with putting the config in a dot file or scripting language.
>You can say this is a GNOME problem, or a distro problem, or whatever. But at the end of the day, I installed two of the most popular Linux distro's out there and my scrolling is literally unusable
You chose GNOME , the answer is you are not the target of the GNOME project, they target people with weak minds that would instantly faint if they see a configuration screen with options. So you are using it wrong, with GNOME you bend your mind and body to work as the GNOME self proclaimed UX experts think things should work.
If you decide you want options try KDE, but you are free to complain about GNOME, it will be a waste of time, reality and rationality do not affect people with giant EGOs in power at GNOME.
>> If this is a machine you use for something else too, you could just have a gaming user that logs in to KDE and your normal user that uses Gnome?
> This is a really sad observation on the state of the Linux desktop. Still.
It seems like a somewhat odd observation, is it really necessary to have another user to do this? I can easily switch between Gnome, i3, and Sway on my system, I mean that’s going between X and Wayland, no issues… maybe KDE and Gnome have some specific incompatibility though? Odd.
Anyway, at least there’s a workaround. If Gnome is a hard requirement, how is Windows even a candidate?
Funny, back in 2006ish, KDE development was stalled, and it was a janky, inconsistent mess. Everyone hated it and used Gnome, which had a simpler design and was far more stable and smooth.
> But honestly? I don't use them because I like modern GNOME better. I use it every day, everything just works, and I like it more than the alternatives
Same here, but with KDE - and I'm a former XFCE user, and before that I was a Gnome user...
>> That's part of the job. If you don't like it, too bad.
Agreed, being forced to use what frustrates you sucks.
I currently use xfce at home since its behavior and defaults more closely align with GNOME 2, Windows {XP, 7, 10}, fluxbox, blackbox, openbox, and GNUStep. All of those desktops / window managers provide enough customization and flexibility so I can setup things how I want them to work fast and be comfortable.
>> Personally, I've been using Linux at work for ages and have never been forced to use Gnome; I've always been able to switch to something else, though it's not so well supported.
The previous version of the enterprise Linux distro had more desktop environment choices.
In the new version, they threw out everything but GNOME leading to the current frustration.
> A Debian+KDE is great for non-technical end users
I really want to like KDE but it just feels unstable and janky. I don't do much customization, just dark theme and arrange the bar to remove most plugins and set their positions. These settings are sometimes reset after reboot and I'd have to rearrange the bar.
Probably a me problem, but a non-technical user moving to Linux will blame Linux for this and not KDE. If I suggest Linux to anyone Gnome is my first choice unless I know they want to tweak their DE. I guess the distros have similar reasons. Breakage between versions is better than reboots.
Ubuntu has a lot to answer for, and planting the idea that you have to completely reinstall your OS to switch to a different window manager is right up there at the top. Kubuntu, Xubuntu, god those were terrible ideas.
reply