basic functionality that should be in gnome in the first place
Who gets to decide what’s “basic” functionality? Each desktop’s team has their vision for what they want to implement. Something that might be basic to one person might not be in someone else’s vision or…
the devs don’t want to implement
…is being worked on but needs design. GNOME is design-oriented. It doesn’t matter how much you scream that something needs implementing if no one designs how that implementation will work and why it should be implemented in the first place. It’s not about “not wanting”, it’s about making sure that when something is implemented, that it’ll work well both now and in the future.
Their whole attitude towards development is similar, down to not working with other dekstops and insisting on doing things the way that works best for them regardless if it’s worse for the linux ecosystem overall.
I guess congratulations on proving the point I made on my other post?
Gnome’s attitude towards everything seems to be “$#¨$ you, like just actually go &%$# yourself. You do things our way or you use something else. We have decided these things are useless, if you think they are necessary you are a $&@# and %$#$ you and the horse you rode in on”
Nah, GNOME is worse mostly because it’s the default on a ton of distros, so them having this attitude actively get’s in the way of cross-desktop development instead of just being annoying.
If you refuse to understand I’ll just refuse to engage further then, keep wasting your time on pointless discussions on free software built by volunteers and what they spend their time on. I’ll go back to actually working on them in whatever way I can.
Yes, it is.
Who gets to decide what’s “basic” functionality? Each desktop’s team has their vision for what they want to implement. Something that might be basic to one person might not be in someone else’s vision or…
…is being worked on but needs design. GNOME is design-oriented. It doesn’t matter how much you scream that something needs implementing if no one designs how that implementation will work and why it should be implemented in the first place. It’s not about “not wanting”, it’s about making sure that when something is implemented, that it’ll work well both now and in the future.
Gnome, the Apple of Linux
I can’t think of a single thing about gnome that remotely resembles apple, outside of some UI patterns…
Their whole attitude towards development is similar, down to not working with other dekstops and insisting on doing things the way that works best for them regardless if it’s worse for the linux ecosystem overall.
I guess congratulations on proving the point I made on my other post?
That’s just FOSS in general. If you don’t like something, you create a fork or use something else.
Nah, GNOME is worse mostly because it’s the default on a ton of distros, so them having this attitude actively get’s in the way of cross-desktop development instead of just being annoying.
Yeah, and when you do, it’s because you don’t like things about the original, and here people are saying what they don’t like.
Nobody disagrees that you can choose something else, but that’s not a reason to be uncritical.
If you refuse to understand I’ll just refuse to engage further then, keep wasting your time on pointless discussions on free software built by volunteers and what they spend their time on. I’ll go back to actually working on them in whatever way I can.