GNOME accomplishes what seems to be impossible: it’s the most limited and bloated desktop environment for Linux. But that’s not accidental. It’s the result of the arrogance and amateurism of its main developers, making the design decisions of GNOME a masterpiece of chaos. To better understand what’s happening, let’s analyze some examples on top of what we have already discussed in the previous articles. Even if none of the following directly affects you, it’s worth understanding the modus operandi behind GNOME projects and how they offend the Linux community.

The full article is available here:

https://medium.com/@fulalas/gnome-me...t-4e301032670c

So you're quoting an article on your own blog to reinforce your position? Not sure why...there are many desktop environments you can use, and if you don't like Gnome, you've got options.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. To me, the post just looks like a typical "Hey, I wrote this blog, here's a link" post.

I've done them myself, albeit usually with a blog published here on linuxquestions rather than on some other platform (like Medium or diaspora or whatever).

But like ... if I publish a blog article here, basically no one will see it unless I post about it here and on social media platforms and such. And I dunno ... I kinda feel like having people see my blog article.

Why does anyone publish a blog article? Lots of people like to air out complaints in a blog article, and I mean ... who hasn't?

Yes, but the LQ Rules prohibit advertising things, including blogs.
Understand totally, but (to me) the post here seems to say something then posts a link to their own blog as if to prove their point. No matter in either case..lots of other DE's to use.

The funniest part of this is that in the most recent 2-3 releases, Gnome devs have been doing what the KDE Devs did 2 years ago, and going through and cleaning up the code to slim it down, and speed it up. And while I'm the first to admit I dislike Gnome, it's worked. The newer releases are MUCH less bloated and much faster than it's been in quite a long time.

Lucky for us we have choices. When they came out with KDE and Gnome I was impressed. The other choices were pretty basic.

I've done that occasionally and never been pulled up on it by the mods (or by you, TB0ne!). I think context is important here. If there's a discussion going on and I think a blog that I wrote would contribute to it usefully, I do provide a link. I mean, what's the point in not contributing something relevant just because you wrote it? Doing it in the first post of a thread feels different and more like an ad.

Guys, I'm not advertising anything here. I would be happy to post the whole article in this thread, but that would be impratical. I don't ear any money with this article. I'm posting it to spread the word about serious matter.

The idea is more than showing specific issues in GNOME desktop environment, but showing that those bad decisions are made because of what GNOME Foundation is, and how it affects the whole Linux community, not just GNOME users.

No one has to agree with anything I say, but I tried my best to not be biased, so I included lots of sources, including reports from people I don't even know.

So if you're a Linux user, I highly recommend reading it.

I'm no fan of desktop environments; I've always preferred a simple window manager. But when I started out, if you wanted a DE, gnome was the only truly free one. KDE used QT libraries which were proprietary then. I think XFCE was proprietary too; it was part of some OS called Xandros which disappeared soon enough (no, just checked; it was a Linux distibution and it's still around). Also gnome was a GNU offshoot so it belonged to the good guys. It's shame if that's no longer so.

I learned to program graphics using gtk2. When gtk3 came out, I looked at the manual but couldn't make head or tail of all the new object classes. It was just too complex for my poor head.

I don't mind links to content of interest, whether I agree with the stance or not. Cuts both ways.

I'm often dragged kicking and screaming into considering issues I never even gave a seconds cognisance to ...
The more the merrier I say - jeremy and the mods will eventually winnow out the chaff I suspect.

Xfce was never proprietary. The first real desktop for Unix was CDE — Common Desktop Environment — which, like most Unix software, was expensive. (Incidentally, it's still available and now open-source.) Xfce was created as a free alternative, using the only available open-source graphics library, Xforms — hence XForms Common Environment. KDE turned up later, when QT became freely available. Gnome was later still, when GTK was finished.

That is not just you.

GTK3's on-line documentation became unusable when they switched to gi-docgen. The old usable documentation is still included with the library.
Ed

I looked at your article. Didn't bother to read it after seeing the images or whatever those were. It's clearly a vm and not accurate with actual usage speed. Gnome Shell has always run horrendously under a vm. Using a vm to prove a point that may be somewhat valid is a bit like saying pizza is the worst food ever and your only experience with it was picking a piece up off the ground after 100 people walked over it. Gnome shell has gotten better but I can't recall a single time that it ran even remotely like that on any machine I've tried. Even my old Core2Duo runs it better than those mini videos or whatever. Your system specs show Ubuntu but the Fedora logo is clearly in the video things. So there is no way to know what you ran or if it's even somewhat accurate.

Sorry, trying to be honest. Not to be a douche but this is just a bad article / blog post / whatever it is. Not remotely reliable.

In the early days, XForms was distributed using a license that the GPL considered "not good". I forgot the details but I did a search.

IIRC, xfce eventually moved away from XForms due to its license.

But a bit funny that many projects are starting to move to something similar to what XForms had 20 years ago

@jmgibson1981, thanks for the feedback even though you haven't read the article, so you lost the main point, which is not talking about GNOME performance issues.

There's one video not made from a VM, and I explain that in the article. Not sure how I can prove that so you believe me. Let's try something different then:

1. Can you show us a video ***after a fresh install*** opening the background screen ***for the first time***? (tip: your ~/.cache has to be empty)
2. Can you show us a video of you browsing local files ***the way I did*** in Files? (tip: after fresh cold boot)

I'm always testing many distros because I'm a distro developer. I saw that version 'Not Available' issue a few times in many distros, but I don't have time/energy to wait for this unpredictable issue to happen in all of them. If you google the issue, you can easily find it: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome.../-/issues/2072 -- of course the issue is more than 1 year old and it's still unfixed, which just corroborate one of the main points of my article.

I tried to use Fedora most of the time because it's the most popular distro among GNOME developers, and the one closest to the so-called GNOME vanilla experience.

I'm sorry, but it seems you can't say much about the quality of the article if you haven't read it. I understand you're a GNOME user and you want to defend your chosen software (as we all do), but the article goes much deeper than that and I recommend reading it unarmed. It's not for me or you, but for the community. Also, sometimes it's healthy to open our minds to new thoughts.

1 members found this post helpful.