Linux

48069 readers

811 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

-2

Is there any future for the GTK-based Desktop Environments? (ludditus.com)

submitted 10 months ago by EqMinMax@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This article was written in the sense of bashing gnome but yet some points seem to be valid. It explains the history of gtk 1 to 4 and the influence of gnome in gtk. I'm not saying gnome is bad here, instead I find this an interesting to read and I'm sharing it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Moxvallix@sopuli.xyz 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Umm well akshually 🤓👆: KDE doesn’t exist because people don’t like GNOME lol. GNOME was made because KDE uses QT, which used to be proprietary.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#History

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

Yeah I remember those early days. KDE had a 1.0 version out in the late 90s, which was perfectly usable as a standalone desktop environment, while at the same time Gnome was little more than a panel with a foot. Early Gnome was an unholy mess and remained so until the late 2.x versions in the mid 2000s. Like how many window managers and file managers did they go through? I believe they even had Enlightenment as the default window manager for a while, and then there was that weird Ximian desktop phase.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hold your horses, when I said "exist because" I was implying any particular time frame, I was just saying that if GNOME was really that superior everything else would've already died out without users / developers.

[–] Moxvallix@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Do you know why there’s KDE, XFCE and others? Because there’s also a lot of people who dislike GNOME.

If we are getting pedantic here, the above quote is clearly implying that alternatives exist and are actively developed because people dislike GNOME. Your statement does not take in to account the possibility that people just like the other alternatives, and may still like GNOME as well, or feel indifference towards it.

No one is claiming that GNOME has the superior desktop experience. Rather, GNOME has a more opinionated experience, that suits some people, and not others. For some people, it will be superior. For others, they will prefer KDE, XFCE etc.