|
|
|
|
|
by bzzzt
1074 days ago
|
|
On the other hand, when a project tries to please everybody it will undoubtedly regress into a mess of options, toggles, extra buttons, have an atrocious UX and only be usable for the 'in crowd'. The few OSS tools I know to not have a terrible UX are tools built by a single author or a small team with a coherent vision. It's definitely a place where the bazaar model of software development doesn't seem to work as wonderful as with OS kernels or development tools. |
|
However, I think the GNOME 3 and 4 designers went too far and alienated many users:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-finds-gnome-3-4...
https://medium.com/@fulalas/gnome-42-the-nonsense-continues-...
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/wte7tr/gnomes_design...
https://linuxreviews.org/GNOME_Developers_have_Made_Their_Mo...
https://www.osnews.com/story/133955/gnome-to-prevent-theming...
When a designer's "coherent vision" eclipses the needs of the software's users then users get frustrated and either fork the project or go to another project. MATE (https://mate-desktop.org/), Cinnamon (https://github.com/linuxmint/Cinnamon), and Unity (https://unityd.org/) exist largely because of how far the GNOME 3 designers went and how they were not willing to compromise their "coherent vision":
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=121162
https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1910
https://web.archive.org/web/20101129161856/http://www.pcworl...