Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:54 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Gnome "Theme development is a tedious and difficult task, and for the GTK devs to be so careless in breaking their API at every turn disrespects the many hours people put into making themes for it. [...] I was given to believe that this breakage stems from a Microsoft-like climate of preventing users from customizing their systems, and deliberately breaking the work of others so that your 'brand' is the best. Anytime I hear the word 'brand' being used in Linux, I know something valuable is being poisoned." I find the tone of this one a bit too harsh and overly negative at times, but his point still stands.
Permalink for comment 541614
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by kurkosdr on Fri 9th Nov 2012 13:05 UTC
Member since:

You know the situation in Linux Desktop is bad when you have to choose between Gnome 3, KDE and Unity. Cinnamon is three guys hacking in weekends, and LDXE and XFCE are good from a usability standpoint but dated.

Linux Desktop is losing relevance quickly. It's the ugly truth, but if Linux Desktop was run by business men willing to make money, they would stop the UI madness and divert resources into fixing and PulseAudio breakages in upgrades. For example, OS X is run by people who want to make money, and they refrain from messing with the UI in too radical ways, and instead focus on making upgrading easy. Instead, the Linux world is run by arrogant people, and "if you don't like it, it's free, I don't make any money from you I don't care".

As another example, if Metro in Windows 8 x86 tanks, Ballmer will oust Sinofsky and bring back a more traditional desktop. If Ballmer doesn't do it, the stockholders will oust him and the new CEO will do it. But if you don't like Gnome 3, they will push with their "plan" till the end, because they don't make money from you. This is an advantage of the proprietary model IMO

Reply Score: 3