| > it’s very cohesive and stable by comparison to Windows That's an incredibly low bar. Windows 95 is cohesive and stable as compared to Windows. > It’s beautifully designed compared to KDE It's beautiful. Designed? I don't know about that. In my experience, it takes significantly less clicks, swipes, or keypresses to perform action in KDE as opposed to pretty much everything. I consider that good desktop design, because these are tools. Less work = better tool. > It’s most similar to gnome Yeah, and Gnome is awful IMO. Some things just can't be done without installing extensions. The workflow is very "my way or the highway". Seemingly simple actions require submenus of submenus. The UI design isn't dense enough, so a bunch of info is just missing. > refuse to learn the macOS/gnome paradigm The difference here is I can easily replicate what macOS and gnome have going in KDE. Because KDE is flexible, and those aren't. Why would I though, when I can instead abuse KDE for efficiency gains in workflows? I'd much rather do that. |