I'm coming back to the Linux desktop after about 10 years away. (My last 'desktop environment' was fvwm, if any of you are old enough to remember that
And as I started tuning into the podcasts and reading the press - I heard a LOT of excitement around KDE. KDE Neon, people extolling the virtues of Plasma...
But Ubuntu came back to Gnome 3 after they abandoned Unity, and RHEL dropped KDE support in favor of choosing Gnome as their standard desktop.
I tried for *4 months* to get stock Ubuntu running Gnome 3 working on my new Alienware 17 R5 gaming laptop and show stopper bug after show stopper bug made it impossible. I then installde Kubuntu 18.10 and voila - everything works. Flawlessly.
In an era when everyone talks about how we need to get more people to adopt the Linux desktop, why are these mainstream distro makers choosing Gnome when KDE would seem to have so many advantages?
I realize my experience is anecdotal, and that big companies make decisions based on their bottom line, but even from that perspective I'm trying and failing to understand why Gnome makes more sense.
And as I started tuning into the podcasts and reading the press - I heard a LOT of excitement around KDE. KDE Neon, people extolling the virtues of Plasma...
But Ubuntu came back to Gnome 3 after they abandoned Unity, and RHEL dropped KDE support in favor of choosing Gnome as their standard desktop.
I tried for *4 months* to get stock Ubuntu running Gnome 3 working on my new Alienware 17 R5 gaming laptop and show stopper bug after show stopper bug made it impossible. I then installde Kubuntu 18.10 and voila - everything works. Flawlessly.
In an era when everyone talks about how we need to get more people to adopt the Linux desktop, why are these mainstream distro makers choosing Gnome when KDE would seem to have so many advantages?
I realize my experience is anecdotal, and that big companies make decisions based on their bottom line, but even from that perspective I'm trying and failing to understand why Gnome makes more sense.
Comment