We could do well with change on the desktop, but very little of the change I've seen during the past 10+ years is actually benefiting the user. Even on Linux, the changes happening are stuff like bugfixes and reducing jank; small incremental improvements that have already been done, but are just getting their final round of polish.
All the other changes I see are just shuffling around the UI, which doesn't really help anyone. And even newer features are either so marginal as to not matter, or can't be trusted to stick around. Why bother to learn a new UI, when all that does is get you back to square 1, and it might not even stick around? I'd be much more interested in tweaking my DE if I could be confident in knowing that those tweaks will persist and not cause other problems down the line, but I have no such assurance.
I don't blame the casuals for hating UI updates. I myself went to Linux to get a more cohesive and stable experience. If we're going to make changes, we need to not break workflows that already exist. New features and workflows need to either not be in the way for established users, or opt-in until they're established and known good. Doing anything else is user hostile, and by this time, given how much we know users don't like changing UI, dare I say, evil.
Yeah and when change do occur, its for the worse (e.g. Gnome)
> Why bother to learn a new UI, when all that does is get you back to square 1, and it might not even stick around
Exactly. That's why I gave up and stay on i3 and the common tools I use. I've been for a few month under hyprland and yeah no I'll go back to X11+i3 the pain it provides is just not worth it even if the common user would think they're pretty similar.
I'm already upset that I have to use Windows at work because I've not used it in years and I have to relearn everything again (like every time you want to change some settings it appears that Microsoft has moved them?) that I don't have the free time to spend to do the same on Linux. I just want my computer to work and to work the same unless I specifically decide to change it, not because some update thought it would be cool to move things around
That sentiment is probably what it means to growing older though
<< That sentiment is probably what it means to growing older though
That does not mean you are not right. The tool is supposed to work for you and for your benefit.
Imagine car update haphazardly changed ways in which doors open ( looking at you Ford ). Is that you growing old or someone is fucking with things they shouldn't.
Change is fine, but it should be invisible. Some years ago, I drove a car that didn't have a turn signal lever. It had some sort of switch on the dash. An old lady asked me to drive her car someplace we were both going after dark - I had been driving it for an hour before I happened to notice. Despite that difference, since the switch was exactly where my fingers expected it, I didn't need to notice it.
Automatic transmissions are objectively better, though I also find it respectable to challenge yourself a little by insisting on driving manual. But they're also change. Electric cars don't even need a transmission at all, that's change. And push-button start, anyone?
My great great grandmother grew up with neither electricity nor cars. It's been nonstop change for the last hundred years, and I don't get to special-plead that change must stop now just because it's when I'm alive.
The changes from the distant past that stuck were better for users while the ones from the recent past that stuck were better for shareholders - that's possibly the only relevant difference.
Yeah of course i've got no problem that people use it, but the devs have started to take a vert opiniated approach that is not aligned with my vision. It's just unfortunate that an update can break all my habits
That would be relevant when a Debian/Ubuntu/whatever upgrade switched those users to Sway. That's the problem: The Gnome 3 users wanted to create something different but instead of doing just that they changed a project that already had existing users.
Gnome 3 just works. It takes up reasonably small visual space, shows windows, has multiple desktops, I can do everything with either just a keyboard or with just a mouse. The "explode" overview is fast and I can actually find the stuff I'm looking for even with many windows.
I much prefer it to a Mac or a Windows machine, where stuff like super+left/right click doesn't work to move/resize windows, has some idiotic model that your app can run with no windows, only apparent by peeking at the top left corner's text, has 2 different maximize/full screen that messes up the virtual desktop order for no reason, and you literally have to get a better alt tab extension because the native is that useless. All this by a company considered to be "good at design".
Let's not even get started with modern windows's idiosyncrasies.
Gnome 2 was really good for it's time. Gnome 3 is a dumbed down disaster, removing settings I care about (such as font antialiasing settings, which I need to change to not get literal headaches, subpixel AA is awful as is anything blurry).
And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Gnome. I went to Xfce, MATE and then Cinnamon for some years, but I'm now back on KDE and it been good for several years (I left KDE when KDE 4 came out and went to Gnome 2).
But each to their own, use what makes you happy. But Gnome has a history of messing with your desktop, KDE less so in recent years.
> Gnome 3 [...] removing settings I care about (such as font antialiasing settings, which I need to change to not get literal headaches, subpixel AA is awful as is anything blurry).
1) That setting still exists, it's just less prominent.
2) Subpixel AA is no longer the default; the default is grayscale, because it works well on all screens in all orientations.
Last I checked I couldn't set full hinting. And for GTK4 programs I even had to set a hidden variable in a ini file[1] to make it respect my fontconfig setting for hinting.
Apparently it is supposed to be on for low DPI screens. I would count mine as low DPI (even my laptop is only around 150 DPI) but I still need to set that manually.
So no, GTK didn't keep the font rendering settings I care about, and is actively hostile in trying to ignore them even.
Last I checked (a few years ago admittedly) Gnome Tweaks only configured the fontconfig setting, not the ini setting to make GTK4 programs care.
Also Gnome Tweaks is an add-on, not part of the default install on any Linux distro I have tried. In KDE Plasma this is in the standard settings.
And if you use any desktop environment other than GNOME, their preferences certainly won't set the GTK4 hidden ini setting. Rather they expect programs to follow best interoperability practises, such as respecting the fontconfig settings. Most people won't limit themselves to only first-party apps from their DE of choice, so interoperability is king.
Any system that is missing a task bar/dock/whatever you call it is a non-starter for serious work. That's a major regression that completely kills default Gnome, and shows just how incompetent their UX designers are. Even the Windows 8 designers knew better than that, and that's saying something.
It is one of the "interesting things to look at" if one is switching between apps and files regularly. It's not just an app launcher with icons (though in some environments it is and that's their UX failure). It shows important variable info, like file or directory names per program, sometimes status of the action inside app (connected/disconnected or action completion percentage etc.). Clock is useful too, as are notification badges. Taskbar is for work, not just to take space.
I used to think task bars were pretty neat, back in the 1990s. But once I started keeping more than a dozen windows open, it became a waste of space. And now that I typically have 200+ windows open, the concept of a taskbar is ... like trying to get a fish to ride a bicycle, or like having a rock in my shoe. It gets in my way and provides no benefit to me.
But that's okay. I don't have to use one. Different people have different needs and preferences, and their choice to use a taskbar-free workflow doesn't interfere with their ability to get serious work done.
Note : I come from GNOME 2 so maybe that's why I despise it because of the complete redesign they made. The app drawer is just not made for computer they just saw windows 8 ui and decided to go with it too
GTK4 decided to drop the ability to theme any apps (or are seriously going this way if its not already in place) but that's my computer and the lack of customization is litterally one of the main reason i left windows 15 years ago.
Renaming the apps to something totally generic is also weird like i want to install eye-of-gnome now called "photos" i have no clue what the package name is, same for engrampa or the file explorer.
The new design guideline is not to my taste but that's not the point here.
But it's a lot of small stuff like you copy / extract a file then no more window just a small indicator in the corner of the file explorer which cannot stay on screen so i can track the progress easily, and what happen if I close the explorer ? Does it continue in the background or stop because everything is closed i'll never know.
I also had a grip with the picture viewer which forced me to stay on eog until I finally took the dip and went to eye-of-mate but I don't remember it, just that it was enough for me to stop using it
To be fair my experience is more or less a year old since I've not used GTK software in a while but that's just a few exemple on how it clearly isn't as good as it used to be.
"But it's a lot of small stuff like you copy / extract a file then no more window just a small indicator in the corner of the file explorer which cannot stay on screen so i can track the progress easily, and what happen if I close the explorer ? Does it continue in the background or stop because everything is closed i'll never know."
This is Hacker News. You can just try and see what happens.
Oh yeah I could absoluetly, but I just moved on gnome already lost me so I see no point to since I'm now used to another software and I won't come back
No but I never claimed that the shell itself was the main issue (though the app drawer is definetly part of it). It's the gnome ecosystem in general that took this approach. Of course I can use a different app each time one changes the way they do stuff but that's the point I shouldn't have to learn a new app because an update broke what I used to use
> Renaming the apps to something totally generic is also weird like i want to install eye-of-gnome now called "photos" i have no clue what the package name is, same for engrampa or the file explorer.
That one actually seems good. Windows got this right from the start - your files were in File Manager, not Kzdrhnoyr. Your programs were in program manager. You got to the internet with Internet Explorer not Metabird, you changed settings in the Control Panel not in WinGadgets. You write in Notepad or Wordpad or Word, not in Phantom Song 3. Of course they had some exceptions, like Outlook Express which really should have been called Email.
Exactly what I like in Gnome, it stays out of the way, it's "lightweight" enough. At the beginning, I was customizing it a lot, but learned over the years to get rid of many things.
Completely fair to complain that the icons do not indicate the purpose of each menu. They do helpfully name each menu in the tooltip: the hamburger on the left is "Main Menu", the three vertical dots in the location bar is the "Current Folder Menu" and the down arrow next to the view switcher is "View Options".
The Main Menu offers global actions, and appears in the left-hand global pane of the window. The Current Folder Menu offers actions specifically related to the location named in the location bar. The View Options menu is part of a split button with the view switcher, and has additional view-related options.
You're right that the icons themselves do not explain their full and complete functionality. Fortunately, we do not need to rely on hoping for the right labels for actions (be they textual or iconographic). For software intended to be used on a regular basis, it's worth spending a bit of time internalizing the model.
If there's one thing I've learned over 2 decades of using gnome, it's that it is very much not worth internalizing whatever model they're using this 3-5 year period, because it'll be ripped out the next.
Well, use another file explorer? Just because it's also developed under the same project, how does it have any relevance here? Especially that on Linux the file browser has no special status as on e.g. windows.
That was my point to be fair, it's not the gnome DE in itself the main issue it's the ecosystem. You wouldn't tell most windows or osx user to replace explorer or finder, and yes that can be a solution just like changing the whole DE can. Software update should not get me this passionate about it or it's clearly that something's wrong
Fwiw, look at the vast "make Mac suck less" ecosystem, like AltTab and similar (most of my friends have the top right panel chock full of icons, half of which are this kind of plugins/extensions)
Well, it doesn't have a tray per se, so what would minimize actually do? That's not good criticism that it's different from win XP ergo bad.
For maximize, it's double click on the top bar, or super+up. It has a huge target for the mouse and it's super intuitive. Unlike having a 3 or how many state maximize button that just elongates my window along one axis for some reason.
For minimize, just put it on another workspace you don't use. I think it's a much better mental model, and the tray itself is absolutely not intuitive (the number of times I had to explain to elderly relatives that this tiny icon here is where your window went to. No, this another icon that looks almost the same, but doesn't have that border - how intuitive - was not running it's just pinned. Oh and yeah on this one you have to just hover over, no not click, because there are multiple windows grouped together)
It’s not that gnome is bad because it doesn’t fit the windows archetype. It’s bad because its archetype is just worse.
The dock is basically awful, because you can’t read application or window titles, windows auto-stack and require extra hover and clicks, and it’s not able to hold very many open applications. A (preferably vertical) windows XP style taskbar gives you more information and functionality for less space. It’s just better.
Same thing with tray icons, which hold quick functionality for apps that mostly run in the background. It’s good for things like discord or an email manager. It’s perfectly intuitive - you’ve closed an app but it’s still running in the background, just like your iPhone. Even android basically has tray icons in the control panel via persistent notifications.
> Well, it doesn't have a tray per se, so what would minimize actually do? That's not good criticism that it's different from win XP ergo bad.
It doesn't fit with workflows I have. Ergo Gnome does not 'just' work.
> For maximize, it's double click on the top bar, or super+up.
Very discoverable.
> It has a huge target for the mouse and it's super intuitive.
No, it's not intuitive. I use it, but only because I read about it on the internet.
> Unlike having a 3 or how many state maximize button that just elongates my window along one axis for some reason.
You might want to read Apple human interface guidelines for what those buttons actually do. It's even explained in the OS (although I admit, not very front and centre).
> For minimize, just put it on another workspace you don't use. I think it's a much better mental model,
I don't. I don't want the equivalent of a junk folder on my phone filled with apps I can't delete. I want to be able to delete those apps. Just the same, I want my background programs to be out of the way, not visible, in the background. I don't want to always have that one workspace that's just dead space.
> and the tray itself is absolutely not intuitive (the number of times I had to explain to elderly relatives that this tiny icon here is where your window went to.
What program even made that talk happen? Even if a program ends up in the tray, you can reopen it the normal way without issues.
> No, this another icon that looks almost the same, but doesn't have that border - how intuitive - was not running it's just pinned.
What are you even talking about here? What are you talking about when you say 'pinned'? If the icons look the same, that's a fault with the program, not the idea of a tray.
> Oh and yeah on this one you have to just hover over, no not click, because there are multiple windows grouped together)
Grouped windowed in the taskbar is a misfeature and should never have been implemented. I'll agree with you on that point.
> You might want to read Apple human interface guidelines for what those buttons actually do.
Almost every app on MacOS does whatever they want with the minimize and close buttons. They are completely useless to me, you never know what will happen. And this isn't a recent problem, the way multiple windows are treated as one app is just unintuitive.
> Almost every app on MacOS does whatever they want with the minimize and close buttons. They are completely useless to me, you never know what will happen.
It's gotten worse over the years. I wish developers did better.
> And this isn't a recent problem, the way multiple windows are treated as one app is just unintuitive.
It's largely the same on Linux and Windows as far as I know, or do you mean just as far as the traffic light buttons are concerned?
- MDI applications, for example old Photoshop and old Excel, can have multiple child windows inside of a single window. If you close the main window with the X button then everything closes.
- If you start multiple instances of an application you'll see multiple instances in the taskbar. On MacOS this is not really the intended way, you are supposed to have multiple windows. Afaik you can only launch multiple instances from the command line.
On Windows there are apps that minimize to tray instead of closing. I'd say that this is a similar problem but its a bit better than Slack on MacOS that just minimizes to Dock when you click the X button.
> - MDI applications, for example old Photoshop and old Excel, can have multiple child windows inside of a single window. If you close the main window with the X button then everything closes.
You can do the same on MacOS?
> - If you start multiple instances of an application you'll see multiple instances in the taskbar. On MacOS this is not really the intended way, you are supposed to have multiple windows. Afaik you can only launch multiple instances from the command line.
Are there any MacOS programs that don't allow you to have multiple windows of the app open, thus not giving you the equivalent experience? (cf. Firefox will let me have two browser windows open. I don't need two separate instances for it to act as though it were). I've never had this issue before, but that might just be me.
> On Windows there are apps that minimize to tray instead of closing. I'd say that this is a similar problem but its a bit better than Slack on MacOS that just minimizes to Dock when you click the X button.
There are apps like that on MacOS too. I don't think that's really the intended way to do things, and what Slack does sounds even worse than that, but that's a Slack problem, not a MacOS problem.
I just keep my windows maximized all the time. What would I need minimize and maximize buttons for? If I have need for several windows next to each other, Gnome gives me handy keyboard shortcuts.
> Sorry for wanting background programs to run in the background and get out of my way.
Sounds like those "background programs running in the background" should be user daemons instead of GUI applications.
> I just keep my windows maximized all the time. What would I need minimize and maximize buttons for?
I have too many windows open to keep them all maximised.
> If I have need for several windows next to each other, Gnome gives me handy keyboard shortcuts.
Those are undiscoverable and should not be the only option.
> Sounds like those "background programs running in the background" should be user daemons instead of GUI applications.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I manage with the programs that are, not the ones that could be. I'm not interested in developing my own DE, not redeveloping all the other programs surrounding it.
One isn't even a GUI application. The second sees regular use with a GUI, but only for reconfigurations that take less than 10 seconds.
My workflow works for me, and has for the past 10, probably 20 years if you include earlier programs doing the same kinds of things. Why would I want to relearn a new UI for only marginal benefits?
> Those are undiscoverable and should not be the only option.
Super left right up down. Literally the most logical, and what's used everywhere. And just grabbing and "squeezing" it onto the target edge works, for longer than on the other two major desktops.
> Super left right up down. Literally the most logical, and what's used everywhere.
It's used everywhere and it's completely undiscoverable. Both are true at the same time.
> And just grabbing and "squeezing" it onto the target edge works, for longer than on the other two major desktops.
Good, that's another option. Now, the only thing missing is the default option that's been in use on computers for over 30 years, namely maximise and minimise buttons.
It doesn't. I don't see why you think I've said that. You're the one who brought that up as an option. My point is that I still want minimise and maximise buttons as an default viable option.
> I have too many windows open to keep them all maximised.
You can have as many windows maximized as you want. There's not upper limit to maximized windows.
> Those are undiscoverable and should not be the only option.
Just do `<super> + appname` and you'll jump to the window in question. No discovery required. The WM will do the discovery for you.
> Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I manage with the programs that are, not the ones that could be. I'm not interested in developing my own DE, not redeveloping all the other programs surrounding it.
> One isn't even a GUI application. The second sees regular use with a GUI, but only for reconfigurations that take less than 10 seconds.
The not-gui application you could put into a user-defined daemon (check [0] on how to create user services). The GUI-for-reconfiguration thingy you can put on a workspace, then it's out of your way and still accessible for reconfiguration.
> Why would I want to relearn a new UI for only marginal benefits?
To be snarky; "Why would I want to relearn riding for a new horseless carriage with only marginal benefits?"
> You can have as many windows maximized as you want. There's not upper limit to maximized windows.
I phrased that wrongly. Sorry about that.
I constantly maximise windows, and I often minimise them too. I use the buttons for that. Sometimes i double click the title bar, and sometimes I just drag to the top. Neither of the latter two, or any other way to maximise or minimise windows, implie that the buttons shouldn't be there. I still use them, regardless of the other options, and I like it that way.
> Just do `<super> + appname` and you'll jump to the window in question. No discovery required. The WM will do the discovery for you.
Knowing that you're supposed to do '<super> + appname' is undiscoverable.
> The not-gui application you could put into a user-defined daemon (check [0] on how to create user services). The GUI-for-reconfiguration thingy you can put on a workspace, then it's out of your way and still accessible for reconfiguration.
No thanks. I'm good.
> To be snarky; "Why would I want to relearn riding for a new horseless carriage with only marginal benefits?"
To be even snarkier: Why live? I still haven't found a good reason. But while I'm doing it, I don't want to make my existence harder.
Relearning a new UI doesn't have any obvious benefits. People would have told me about the benefits by now. The horseless carriage has obvious benefits. People have told me about those, and it didn't take much to convince me. It shouldn't take much to convince me to relearn a new UI. The UI simply has to be good and have features which make my life easier. Gnome isn't and doesn't have any, going by the times I've tried to use it and the ways people try to convince me that it's actually good.
I'm curious; why do you minimize windows? What's your use case for that?
I remember that I stopped minimizing windows when I stopped putting application starters and folders on the desktop - this was the one thing that forced me to minimize windows, because otherwise I couldn't access those (obviously).
> I'm curious; why do you minimize windows? What's your use case for that?
Because there are windows behind the one I want to minimise that I wish to see. Each of my monitors has at least two programs on it, most of which are best viewed maximised (a video, a full screen game, a remote session to a different desktop, a text editor, probably more in some extreme cases).
> I remember that I stopped minimizing windows when I stopped putting application starters and folders on the desktop - this was the one thing that forced me to minimize windows, because otherwise I couldn't access those (obviously).
My desktop isn't quite sterile, but there's nothing there I need immediate access to. And if I do, I use the file manager anyway.
> Relearning a new UI doesn't have any obvious benefits. People would have told me about the benefits by now.
Gnome for me has the benefit of being usable without ever actually touching the mouse. I can keep my fingers on the keyboard without ever having to lift my hand and push around the mouse to switch applications, to start applications, find applications. The only time I need to use the mouse is if I'm using applications that have some kind of obligatory/mandatory mouse usage, e.g. Blender or Gimp or the like.
Most of the programs I use require the mouse often enough that this isn't really a workflow I'm interested in. And even if those edge-case actions can be done without a mouse, it's usually some arcane keyboard shortcut to do so, which isn't actually any faster than just using the mouse unless you've already optimised your way to only using the keyboard.
Surely you realize that using a computer in this fashion in the modern era is relegated to a fraction of a percentage of people, right? I agree with the sentiment that an OS should be usable without a pointing device, especially for accessibility reasons or instances where a pointing device is faulty or unavailable, but it should also consider the other 99.999% of general purpose computer users.
It should be usable by both a mouse-only, by both a keyboard-only and with a combination of the two.
Accessibility is paramount in and of itself, but it also has the added benefit of helping non-standard situations. Like I occasionally use my desktop over TV from bed with only a mouse, or the reverse, I may only have a keyboard at the time. Or I'm just eating/drinking something.
Gnome performs splendidly here, windows and Mac, much less so.
> Gnome 3 just works. It takes up reasonably small visual space, shows windows, has multiple desktops, I can do everything with either just a keyboard or with just a mouse.
And 20 extensions because by default it's borderline useless
Yeah this whole conversation is interesting to me. Linux was impenetrable to me 10-15 years ago (partially due to age but I wasn’t exactly a kid back then). Now it feels way more polished and usable. I’m hardly a power user but that’s sort of the point! I’ve got machines using bazzite, pop, and elementary. I get tripped up by permissions and stuff here and there but overall pop and Bazzite in particular have proven to be perfectly capable daily drivers.
I’m hardly an expert and maybe I’m not the target audience, but I like where things are and have been going. Now they just need to solve how circuitous installing Linux is…
Maybe you missed the controversy when it happened but Gnome 3 has been nonstop removing features since its conception. It's explicitly aiming to be an OS for low-skill users. It also insists on being incompatible with industry standards like server-side window decorations. This is because it's a Red Hat project and they sell ecosystem lock-in.
I’ve used gnome before, gnome is just a bad UX. Everything takes up way too much space, but at the same time nothing holds enough information.
The dock is bad and stupid, I can’t read application titles or window titles. And, if I have multiple windows of the same app I have to hover. That sucks.
The app drawer thingy also wastes space out the wazoo for basically nothing. It looks… okay though. Except the KDE menu also shows you applications plus much more, in about 1/5th the amount of screen space.
But let’s look at the applications. Oh, more of the same. Vague icons that eat into the main content of the apps. But don’t worry, behind those 3 submenus we get… nothing? Oh yeah, gnome apps have basically the minimal amount of features. I’m glad we’re wasting submenus on submenus for zero features.
You would think with how feature stripped and barebones gnome and its apps are it would be fast and light. But no, KDE is both faster and uses less memory. And that’s KDE, don’t even bother comparing to light desktops like XFCE or LxQt.
One of the most unfortunate things to happen to Linux on Desktop is Gnome and their childish and contemptuous behaviour towards users. Of close to the 20 years of using linux on desktop the large part of it away from Gnome has been the best.
In fact, I think decoupling things from Gnome has been one of the best outcomes of Wayland.
The year of Linux will start the day we have a capable wayland desktop environment that is not foreign to Mac and Windows users without chasing stupid churn. /rant
In what way does KDE not already meet this requirement? It operates similarly to Windows, and the features they add don't tend to do anything to the base experience.
I've not used it in a very long time, but I also get the impression that Cinnamon is also familiar in this way and doesn't make major changes.
Seconding KDE, I hope it overtakes Gnome as the main Linux DE. It had some rough teething problems with Wayland, but it's very good now. It has a much less... opinionated interface than Gnome, and it doesn't eat as many resources either. It also doesn't try to stop you from customizing things if you want. I finally switched my main PC off of Windows for it last month.
GNOME 3 doesn't implement very basic, table-stakes DE features and patronizes users for expecting them, turning them instead toward a horrid, unsandboxed, privileged user script extension system which has no place in a DE.
They could have just kept hacking on GNOME 2 and we'd have been in a better place. If it wasn't for modern KDE I'd still be using xfce, a project which respects its users.
I wanted to wire an webcal/https ics link into the GNOME calendar the other day: absolutely no way to do that. There's a prominent calendar in the top bar of GNOME, and it seems no one actually uses it?
There are no DE features I'm missing from GNOME 3. GNOME 3 respects the majority of the users, and this entails not making it a mess by catering to the vocal minority who can't move on from Windows 95.
> The year of Linux will start the day we have a capable wayland desktop environment that is not foreign to Mac and Windows users without chasing stupid churn.
> Today Plasma is the default desktop environment in a bunch of the hottest new gaming-focused distros, including Bazzite, CachyOS, Garuda, Nobara, and of course SteamOS on Valve’s gaming devices. Fedora’s Plasma edition was also promoted to co-equal status with the GNOME edition, and Asahi Linux — the single practical option for Linux on newer Macs — only supports KDE Plasma. Parrot Linux recently switched to Plasma by default, too. And Plasma remains the default on old standbys like EndeavourOS, Manjaro, NixOS, OpenMandriva, Slackware and TuxedoOS — which ships on all devices sold by Tuxedo Computers! And looking at the DIY distro space, Plasma is by far Arch users’ preferred desktop environment.
> It’s a quiet revolution in how Linux users interact with their computers, and my sense is that it’s gone largely unnoticed. But it happened, so let’s feel good about it!
> In fact, if we exclude the distros that showcase their developers’ custom DEs (e.g. COSMIC, ElementaryOS, and Linux Mint), at this point the only significant distros missing here are the enterprise-oriented ones: Debian, RHEL, SLE, Ubuntu, and the like. It’s something for us to work on in 2026, but clearly the current state is already great for a lot of people, including gamers, artists, developers, and general users.
I get the sense that Gnome's current popularity is largely because there's a bunch of enterprise specific features (i.e. LDAP accounts, headless RDP, Group Policy configuration) missing from KDE that companies or governments would have to cover the development costs for.
But why do we need changes on the desktop? What was wrong with the desktops of Gnome 2 / Windows XP / Snow Leopard era? I'll never understand why we couldn't just stick with that - it felt that desktop was solved back then and is going downhill ever since, change for the sake of change, or maybe marketing to make things look prettier.
Very little was wrong with those. I'd be very happy if those were the default, plus a few niceties we've found since then.
But I'd also like us to discover more, to hopefully make the desktop better. The way to do that however, is not by forcing users to try whatever the hot new thing is. The old and known good needs to remain a viable option.
I think the OS/2 Workplace Shell was probably the pinnacle. Everything since then has been a functional downgrade with nicer aesthetics (which matter!).
I have a small collection of period-correct laptops running various Windows versions. Some of them represent history we love to look back on (a Compaq with an AMD K5 running Windows 95), others... not so much (a centrino T41 Thinkpad running Vista SP1).
My opinion of XP is a little more mixed than yours.
XP was great, but I maintain that 7 is actually the high water mark for Windows' usability. There's a lot of stuff you take for granted nowadays that XP never had.
Dragging a window to the side of the screen to snap it to one half of the screen. You probably do that a lot now, but XP doesn't do that.
XP has no search function in the Start menu. Hell, I don't recall Vista having that, either.
Explorer (the file browser, not the browser browser) in XP is far more simplistic than you remember it. Again, limitations mostly come down to search and quality-of-life stuff that we now take for granted.
Snipping tool. Being able to smack Print Screen and quickly crop and annotate a screenshot is awesome. XP doesn't do that OOTB. Greenshot really was the freeware gem you remember it being, to be fair.
XP does get a lot of things right. Highly legible and consistent UI elements with clear visual feedback and color coding. Control Panel being a unified portal for all Windows settings. Fast user switching was a big innovation vs previous Windows versions. No ads (besides mostly benign MSN promos), no online accounts, no cloudshit.
I encourage anyone reading this to go grab an old laptop and an XP Pro CD-ROM. Try using XP the way we used it in its own time, on era-appropriate hardware. In some ways it's as great as you remember it. In other ways, it probably isn't.
> XP has no search function in the Start menu. Hell, I don't recall Vista having that, either.
Vista definitely had that out of the box; Windows 7 perfected the search functionality - specifically it ended up performing faster than Vista. then windows 8 had to ruin it, and windows 10 never recovered - MS seemingly forgot what a good local search experience was after that.
KDE is an experiment to pack 20 big things in a bag that can only hold 5 things. Then add one more thing in next release. And make every pixel clickable.
KDE 6's out of box experience is really good. You can tweak it to your heart's content, but you don't need to. It's not "every pixel clickable" unless you deliberately made it so. Older versions of KDE were more like you describe.
Yeah, they're hidden in three-level deep burger menus. Konsole and KWrite are particularly egregious.
There is a middle ground between GNOME's minimalist wasteland and KDE's kitchen sink. And yet for some reason, the patch to add smart copy/paste to Konsole, like most modern terminals have and default to, has been stuck for years waiting for approval from the design team just to add a checkbox hidden in the settings.
This might sound heretic but maybe running mostly GNOME apps on a KDE desktop might be an interesting "best of both worlds" situation to investigate...
Care to point out what improvements KDE 6 has got that isn't something that's already been done in some other DE or OS, and isn't a bugfix or polish?
I haven't daily driven KDE to see what it's truly like, but from a distance it doesn't seem to be doing anything revolutionary or truly new, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Not necessarily 6, but KDE Connect is such a seamless experience of integrating your phone with your computer out of the box. Sharing clipboard, files, notifications, controlling cursor and keyboard from your phone, controlling media - all of that just works really well, without online accounts, on your local network.
Sure, there's Apple Continuity, but looks like it was released 2014 (KDE Connect - 2013) and it's tightly locked to the Apple ecosystem. And yes, the 2013 version doesn't have the same feature parity or stability as the current one, but that's ok because we're not discussing bugfixes or polish.
It's innovative enough that GSConnect is the Gnome implementation of the KDE Connect.
KDE Connect is over 10 years old by now. Hardly new. I also think it's sort of an extension of Apple's Messages app on MacOS, which let you send and receive messages through iMessage from a Mac, and thus pick up where you left of with your phone. That might be a stretch though, since KDE Connect and later Continuity does a lot more (although I'd be very surprised if Continuity wasn't viewed as that inside Apple at that time).
I'm also pretty sure the basic feature set you're mentioning, like clipboard and file sharing, using your phone to control your desktop, was part of the 1.0 release. Are there any features in KDE Connect that are new-ish?
That said, props to KDE for actually making a feature that hadn't been done before. But if KDE Connect is the most recent example of genuine improvements in the desktop experience that aren't just fixes, that goes to show that nobody's actually doing anything significant (in a good way) to the desktop experience.
KDE used to be terrible. However today, despite some grievances, it's probably the most polished modern Linux DE experience. Enough so that Valve chose it for SteamOS. I am also enjoying it on a Bazzite system.
I used xfce for pretty much my entire life because yes, there's been very little meaningful improvement to the DE experience in 25 years. Modern KDE finally convinced me to switch, and it does feel like a much more mature, refined experience than the shit show that was past KDE. It's also stable and fast. You should give it a spin!
I'm very happy on Cinnamon, but it's nice to have an escape hatch. KDE probably isn't going away or in a ditch any time soon (even when it was shit, they seemed to have had their minds in the right place). Nor is xfce for that matter (I wouldn't be surprised if there's still an active xfce dev after the bombs fall).
You should not be doing anything revolutionary. UX design is a well understood field with a lot of research into it. Doing something revolutionary or new is a bad idea. I'm sure there are new things in KDE, but nobody will be able to think of them for a long time because the new things are minor things that nobody is going to notice or care about.
You sound like you're disagreeing with me, yet what you write is inline with my opinion, but I might just be misreading your comment.
I wrote in my OP that 'even on Linux, the changes happening are stuff like bugfixes and reducing jank; small incremental improvements that have already been done, but are just getting their final round of polish'. The comment I was responding to claimed disagree, and said that KDE does get improvements. I wanted to clarify what improvements those are, since I can't see why they would disagree with my original comment in the only improvements in KDE are 'stuff like bugfixes and reducing jank; small incremental improvements that have already been done, but are just getting their final round of polish'.
Ah, in that case I've misread their comment. If their opinion is that the desktop doesn't need change because KDE is good and only delivers small incremental improvements, then I can definitely see their point.
How long have we had tiling? It's not a new feature to me, but maybe I've just got my years off. Maybe the exact implementation in KDE is new, but the idea isn't.
You're one of today's lucky 10,000 then. If you've got a large screen, a properly flexibly tiling window manager is a game changer. Try out i3 or hyprland or press meta-T on KDE.
You're arguing from a position of ignorance. That's a great position to be in, because it means you get the thrill of experiencing something new and awesome.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It's as if you're responding to a comment I didn't write.
This subthread started with you disagreeing with me, saying that KDE continually gets better with each point upgrade. Then I asked you what new features KDE has implemented that already in some other OS or DE, and that aren't polish and bugfixes, since one of my points in the OP was that Linux largely isn't improving through new features, but just through polish and bugfixes.
You pointed out tiling as a new feature, which I pointed out isn't a new feature at all (unless I'm just wildly off base). KDE might do it well, but it polishing and fixing a feature, or reimplementing a feature which already exists in another DE, or some combination of those two, is not making something new (maybe their tiling is really good and actually revolutionary, but then you should tell me that, and not just tell me to try it out!).
I'm not interested in trying out tiling, even if it's good. I've known about it for a while, so I don't understand why you're telling me I'm one of today's lucky 10000. I literally wrote that it isn't a new feature to me. I have no idea why you're telling me to try it out. I'm very happy using fairly plain Cinnamon. I'm interested in knowing whether or not KDE has implemented features that aren't already in some other OS or DE, and that aren't polish and bugfixes. That's why I asked that question.
KDE is the only desktop that manages floating windows and tiling in one. Tiling WMs are tiling-first, gnome and crew is floating only, KDE is both.
But that’s not the only thing that KDE does that’s revolutionary and hard to find. I’ve written a whole blog on this, but to say a little here:
- full panel and widget customization with alternatives. Some panel designs are very space efficient and high-information, which you can’t find on Gnome, Windows or MacOS
- krunner, which lets you search everything all at once. Granted Apple has spotlight, but krunner is very good.
- activities, which is like virtual desktops on steroids. You can have completely different desktop configurations if you want, and switch between them.
dwm is only a window manager, not a desktop. Which is fine, but it’s not the most fair comparison because it’s not dwm vs KDE, it’s dwm vs kwin. Or dwm + 20 applications vs KDE.
For me the greatest thing about KDE is that once you have it, you don't miss anything from any other DE or OS. It has everything! I find gnome and the new gtk4 apps definitely more beautiful but I end up running KDE always.
I don’t know. Niri took the PaperWM idea and built a first class experience around that, and it’s fantastic. I think that’s the way to do this sort of thing. Have a standalone project do the legwork while keeping legacy desktops stable.
Niri is an awesome project. I've never understood why one would want a tiling wm when windows split vertically lose so much of their useful real estate. The idea of windows being spawned in a scrolling list just makes so much more sense to how I work. I tried it pretty recently and pretty quickly decided that I would be sticking with it.
I don't know a single person who's got a job by just emailing their CV. In fact, it reads as asinine as the idea that you can get a job by just showing up in person with a good handshake.
Ah yes, Microsoft’s “we care…………to talk about problems we’ll never fix” poster boy. Dude might be a fantastic developer, but he’s being used as a sock puppet.
reply