The whole “it’s just one option and having lots of options is good” argument would make more sense if Gnome was a niche DE that you specifically have to look for and install if you want it.
But when it’s the default DE for some of the biggest distros out there – and especially when it’s the default for some of the ‘beginner-friendly’ distros – then that argument isn’t quite as good. My biggest problem with that is the (pretty frequent) case of users new to Linux and deciding to try it out. So they pick one of the most popular ‘beginner-friendly’ distros … it comes with Gnome by default … the new user tries using it, and they have a hard time with it; it doesn’t do the things they want it to, and it’s difficult and complicated to work around those problems … and then instead of coming to the conclusion that Gnome sucks and trying a different DE, they come to the conclusion that Linux sucks and go back to Windows/Mac … because they don’t know the difference between Gnome and Linux, and they may be unlikely to try multiple different flavors if the first one was ‘bad’.
I don’t have a problem with Gnome existing. In fact, I’m glad it does. I’m glad people who like it have the option to use it. I have a problem with it being the default DE of major distros, especially beginner-friendly distros. It’s giving Linux as a whole a bad name.
That all sounds reasonably fair, but it seems like my point still stands, since nowhere do you actually put the blame with GNOME - it’s the distros choosing it.
I’m also not sure if I’d agree with you in general, it might not be worth bothering too much with users who will immediately dismiss Linux because the distro they chose ships with a DE that has a slightly nonstandard workflow. That sounds like a person that refuses to try or research anything and will probably either make a nuisance of themselves or leave for other weird reasons anyways.
The whole “it’s just one option and having lots of options is good” argument would make more sense if Gnome was a niche DE that you specifically have to look for and install if you want it.
But when it’s the default DE for some of the biggest distros out there – and especially when it’s the default for some of the ‘beginner-friendly’ distros – then that argument isn’t quite as good. My biggest problem with that is the (pretty frequent) case of users new to Linux and deciding to try it out. So they pick one of the most popular ‘beginner-friendly’ distros … it comes with Gnome by default … the new user tries using it, and they have a hard time with it; it doesn’t do the things they want it to, and it’s difficult and complicated to work around those problems … and then instead of coming to the conclusion that Gnome sucks and trying a different DE, they come to the conclusion that Linux sucks and go back to Windows/Mac … because they don’t know the difference between Gnome and Linux, and they may be unlikely to try multiple different flavors if the first one was ‘bad’.
I don’t have a problem with Gnome existing. In fact, I’m glad it does. I’m glad people who like it have the option to use it. I have a problem with it being the default DE of major distros, especially beginner-friendly distros. It’s giving Linux as a whole a bad name.
That all sounds reasonably fair, but it seems like my point still stands, since nowhere do you actually put the blame with GNOME - it’s the distros choosing it.
I’m also not sure if I’d agree with you in general, it might not be worth bothering too much with users who will immediately dismiss Linux because the distro they chose ships with a DE that has a slightly nonstandard workflow. That sounds like a person that refuses to try or research anything and will probably either make a nuisance of themselves or leave for other weird reasons anyways.