[jklinger410]

It is hyperbole, because you could use it. You would have to be incompetent to not be able to use it.

Having lower productivity does not mean something is "unusable." It is, in fact, still usable. You just don't like it.

Maybe learn what unusable and hyperbole mean.

[anneessens]

It's unusable enough for me that I would rather switch back to Windows than keep using GNOME. And I really don't like Windows.

What does this discussion gain from you being pedantic? Everyone with common sense knew what I meant.

[jklinger410]

Because

> This type of hyperbole is what feeds the DE wars.

You not liking something is not the same as it not being "usable." You simply don't like it as much.

Your comment would be a lot less interesting if it were written without hyperbole. It would simply be "I don't like GNOME as much as KDE." And no one would really care about that, it wouldn't be a notable comment.

[anneessens]

You're the only one who takes this 'war' seriously. The rest of us here are adults who can appreciate all desktop environments, even if we don't personally like to use them.

Go annoy someone else.

[jklinger410]

My entire point is that both desktops can be appreciated for what they are. I can use KDE or GNOME, I just prefer GNOME. I would never call KDE unusable, because it works just fine for those who like it.

People who go around saying they "can't use GNOME" because it's "not customizable" without ever even trying would be the ones that are not appreciating all desktops, like an adult.

[anneessens]

No one here said that GNOME shouldn't be appreciated. Just because I said GNOME is unusable for me personally doesn't mean I can't appreciate it.

I have tried GNOME before, thanks for your assumption, so I know for a fact it's less customisable than Plasma. But less customisation doesn't equal less value anyways, so I don't even know what your point is.