Remix.run Logo
▲ cl3misch a day ago

> We just need someone to break away clean from the cancer that is Gnome/GTK

Can you explain why Gnome specifically? Genuine question. I know Gnome is very opinionated, many people don't like it, and these days there are super polished projects like Niri. But in what way is Gnome holding us back?

▲foxrider a day ago | parent | next [-]

Gnome has a history of not playing ball with the rest of the ecosystem. They often hold back very simple things hostage (server-side decorations as an example).

▲tuna74 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don't have to use or make software that uses server-side decorations if you don't want to. You can make software that won't work on Gnome if you want to.

▲pjerem a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok but in 2026, it’s pretty easy to avoid Gnome if that’s not your cup of tea. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to exist.

▲asdfsa32 a day ago | parent [-]

Barely, we still have a bit to go for a GTK free system, but it is approaching it.

▲makapuf a day ago | parent | next [-]

Isny GTK way less opinionated than Gnome though?

▲Narishma 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Since GTK is mainly (only?) developed by Gnome it's become more and more tied to its design philosophies.

▲silon42 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't wish GTK free, except Gnome specific parts (client side decorations disabled, at least by default, etc).

▲jrm4 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My gut is that it's both "opinionated" AND pushed in a "lopsided" way, much like Omarchy?

Which is, there's this tendency in free/open source to presume a level playing field, and may the best piece of software win, but that's not how it works today; both Gnome and Omarchy are pulling in a lot of money and that gives them eyeball leverage, as I understand it.

▲topspin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But in what way is Gnome holding us back?

I can't count the number of times I've watched people experience Linux for the first time via Gnome, and become convinced that Linux is weird and unworkable. Thankfully, those days have mostly passed, and vastly more friendly, conventional and appealing desktops are now often the first experience someone is likely to have.

I'm not a Gnome hater. I've deliberately chosen to use it at times. But I've been at all of this a while, and I understand what I'm dealing with, so the Gnome papercuts and "opinionated" behavior are things I can cope with. "Coping," being exactly what I feel like I'm doing when using Gnome.

Anyhow, more on theme with regard to lightweight DE's, my current go-to is openbox, which I use on auxiliary displays for game development. It starts faster than I can lift my finger from the enter key and neatly manages windows. That's about all I want from it and it pleases me.

▲cl3misch a day ago | parent | next [-]

> I can't count the number of times I've watched people experience Linux for the first time via Gnome, and become convinced that Linux is weird and unworkable.

Do you have a suggestion for a modern distro/DE that's still non-surprising to new users?

▲UncleSlacky a day ago | parent [-]

Mint Cinnamon?

▲prmoustache a day ago | parent | prev [-]

My wife switched from Windows 10 to Gnome 3 without too much fuss when her computer died witohut warning. She needed a laptop that day, the only one I had available was my spare thinkpad I just created an account, a new luks passphrase and she just started using it. Sure at first she had to learn a few things but nothing that lead to swears. My daughters have been using gnome 3 since they were of age of using a computer and like it much more than the windows at their mother's place.

Grumpy luddites gonna be grumpy luddites but I am pretty sure that Gnome is more approcheable than windows and macOs for the newer generations who are more accustomed to mobile interfaces since they are kids.

▲asdfsa32 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> GNOME 3 is what happens when you follow the Apple designer-is-always-right philosophy without Apple-level talent.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49833842

But to explain further, Gnome is run by people who have the attention span of a dead goldfish. They're constantly changing things, a good example is the control centre where it used to be just like other systems but in Gnome 3 they made it into a wall of incoherent text and disorganised categories.

They often tend to ditch things halfway and create new ones, Evince -> Papers, Totem -> showtime, EOG to Loupe, Cheese to snapshot, and so on and so on.

And for decades, they kept removing much used features and configurations and broke things and everytime you search for a fix, there was 10 version and a new one each week because Gnome keeps changing things.

In short, Gnome is what happens when you think you're Apple but have the design knowhow and depth of a paddle you couldn't drown a fruit fly in.

▲diskzero a day ago | parent [-]

It is interesting you make the observation about GNOME and Apple. In 1999, GNOME had the involvement, and financial resources, of some of those Apple people due to Eazel. Andy Hertzfeld, Bud Trimble, Susan Kare, Mike Boich and more all gave improving GNOME and Linux some work.

This wasn’t a hostile takeover attempt; we all tried very hard to be team players, many times to what I think was our detriment. A very nice version of Nautilus was rejected because it was in C++ and we ended up doing all the work in GTK.

We had some very good ideas about distributed objects but they were pushed aside and we ended up using CORBA/ORBit/Bonobo and those distributed object systems ended up being replaced.

The dotcom crash caused a lot of Eazel people to end up at Apple. Nat and Miguel moved onto their dot NET Xamarin effort and many others ended up at Red Hat. There was an experience vacuum and this is one reason why the GNOME UX had so many issues IMHO.