That's hyperbolic.
I assume you are speaking about the perceived lack of options in Gnome?
The explanation has two aspects: 1. lots of options = your gui is not well done, 2. the less options, the less code to maintain.
I am not saying that KDE has a bad gui, but simply stating the reasoning as I understand it.
Now, even a great gui presumably doesn't suit everyone, but, similar to graphics drivers, you get diminishing returns the more you try to do with the gui (i.e., you are only offering features for a relatively small number of people, so they are ignored). Gnome has very limited resources so it tries to focus its efforts in what it sees as the best way. Unfortunately this means that some things get removed that are quite useful, but the devs think otherwise, and, well, they are writing the code.
As I said in an earlier post, Gnomers are like cats.
Originally posted by curfew
View Post
The explanation has two aspects: 1. lots of options = your gui is not well done, 2. the less options, the less code to maintain.
I am not saying that KDE has a bad gui, but simply stating the reasoning as I understand it.
Now, even a great gui presumably doesn't suit everyone, but, similar to graphics drivers, you get diminishing returns the more you try to do with the gui (i.e., you are only offering features for a relatively small number of people, so they are ignored). Gnome has very limited resources so it tries to focus its efforts in what it sees as the best way. Unfortunately this means that some things get removed that are quite useful, but the devs think otherwise, and, well, they are writing the code.
As I said in an earlier post, Gnomers are like cats.
Comment