[emerongi]

> GNOME is the perfect desktop for productivity

GNOME is quite decent in its current form and the most user-friendly desktop out there at the moment. People who hate on it just have some historical gripe with it, I feel like.

Ideally I'd be using something like Sway, but I can't be bothered to spend time on making things work the way they need to. GNOME gives me everything out of the box and doesn't get in my way. KDE is much more customizable, but less friendly on the eyes. Windows is probably OK if you're used to Windows (I'm clearly not). I have to use macOS at work and it's just a worse version of GNOME - bad defaults, weird design choices, less features, minimal customizability.

[michaelmrose]

It's perfectly OK to mistake a subjective preference as objective user friendliness its most people's definition of the term. What is negative is to confuse disagreement with your preference with being unreasonable.

> People who hate on it just have some historical gripe with it, I feel like.

The way it handles virtual desktops with multiple monitors out of the box poorly thought out. With 3 monitors having changing workspaces only effect the primary monitor is very poor user experience. that leaves virtually pun intended without the affordance of virtual desktops at all.

There is a setting to expand virtual desktops to all monitors and now you no longer have to dig through something that looks like the windows registry to enable it which is indeed a nice upgrade but it misses the vastly superior third option of being able to independently switch each monitor.

An obvious affordance instead of digging through a settings menu would be a little iconic padlock beside a representation of the virtual desktop switcher that when unlocked enables you to manually switch a singular monitor or when by default locked allows the monitor to change with every other monitor.

Trivially enables not only all 3 possible workflows but allows one to discover this organically at the cost of a small amount of screen real estate.

This is a singular issue but their entire history is rife not merely with subjective differences in user preference but objectively bad design.

[zasdffaa]

> People who hate on it just have some historical gripe with it, I feel like.

You mean like I spent 2 months with it and just found a list of weirdness and outright bugs?

Perhaps "historical gripe(s)" happen for a reason?

[Spivak]

Bugs? In software? Never! By all reasonable accounts GNOME is a well-run broadly-scoped project with a perfectly normal amount of bugs given it’s size.

[yoyohello13]

You said you tried it “a couple of years ago”. Sounds historical to me.

[michaelmrose]

This is disingenuous. The implication of the grandparent comment is not that the persons experience happened 2 years ago instead of right now its that its automatically invalid because of it. In context the word historical doesn't mean anything useful.

[zasdffaa]

Title of post: "Gnome Turns 25". So maybe and maybe not. I just ran into so much WTF I find it hard to imagine it's fixed now, plus some others here rather agree. It's enough to put me off anyway.