20 years of Linux on the Desktop (part 4)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

GNOME 3, JavaScript, and Design Choices

  • Several comments criticize GNOME’s move to a JavaScript-heavy shell as slow and RAM‑hungry, though some note it’s now “usable” thanks to hardware and performance work.
  • Motive for JS is seen as making extension and shell development more approachable; some praise this, others say JS makes large apps buggier without strong typing.
  • One commenter disputes the article’s claim that patents drove GNOME 3’s direction, saying the design shift had roots in early GNOME 2 and wasn’t about patent FUD.

Fragmentation vs Unity

  • Debate over whether GNOME’s direction worsened fragmentation: some say fragmentation was already there (GNOME, KDE, tiling and niche WMs); others cite Wayland protocol disagreements (e.g., VR/DRM leasing) as evidence it’s now worse.
  • Many argue fragmentation is a feature: Linux attracts tinkerers, and multiple WMs/DEs are a natural, even healthy, outcome. Systemd is cited as one thing that did reduce fragmentation.

Market Share, Commercial Software, and Culture

  • One line of thought: Linux distros exist partly to escape market‑share logic; success is “good software I can use,” not conquering the desktop.
  • Counterpoint: market share matters so vendors bother to ship drivers and apps; people want access to the same tools as on Windows.
  • Linux culture is described as historically “entrepreneur‑hostile,” making paid native apps rare; SaaS sidesteps this by selling to users regardless of OS.
  • Industrial/engineering fields are locked into Windows‑only tooling; chicken‑and‑egg prevents Linux support even where users might otherwise switch.

GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3, Unity, and UI Controversies

  • Strong nostalgia for “just iterating on GNOME 2” instead of radical redesigns. Some still use MATE, Cinnamon, or XFCE for that reason.
  • GNOME 3 criticized for trend‑chasing (tablet/mobile‑like UI, hidden power‑off, dropped desktop icons, no system tray, no minimize/maximize, fullscreen launcher).
  • Others defend GNOME 3 (especially with Ubuntu’s dock / Dash‑to‑Dock) as the best desktop they’ve used: keyboard‑driven, simple for non‑technical users, good touch story on some hardware.
  • Extensions are both a strength (rich customization ecosystem) and a weakness (frequent breakage, unstable APIs, reliance on gjs/JS).

KDE, XFCE, and Alternatives

  • KDE is praised as the “pinnacle” of Linux desktops: highly configurable, visually polished, now lighter than GNOME for some, and steadily iterated rather than repeatedly broken.
  • Others find KDE visually noisy, oversized, or Windows‑like; some complain about “z‑index” glitches and over‑chromed apps like Konsole.
  • XFCE is the refuge for those tired of churn: minimal change over years, high stability, old plugins still work, “desktop is a solved problem.”
  • Niche WMs (i3, ratpoison, IceWM, tiling setups) are celebrated as part of Linux’s unique appeal, enabling “anti‑desktop” workflows impossible on mainstream OSes.

Why Linux Isn’t Dominant on the Desktop

  • Linked “Linux isn’t ready” lists spark debate: some say they’re overly negative; others agree that issues like hardware, QA, and networking are/were real, though much improved.
  • File sharing and remote desktop are compared: NFS/Samba seen as powerful but complex; Windows’ RDP and simple checkbox‑based sharing seen as more turnkey for typical users.
  • Historical view: GNOME 3 and KDE 4 upheavals coincided with Windows 7 and Snow Leopard, squandering a window where Linux might have surged.

Linux as an “App” and User Perception

  • A key barrier: most users won’t “install a distro”; they buy a computer-as-appliance. Linux missed the hardware+OS bundling model that let Windows/macOS dominate.
  • Now, all major vendors ship Linux environments (WSL, macOS tools, ChromeOS/Android) inside proprietary systems; this is praised as extremely convenient but also seen as a way to keep people from fully switching.

Overall Sentiment

  • No consensus “best” desktop: GNOME, KDE, XFCE, and tiling WMs all have strong partisans and sharp critics.
  • Broad agreement that Linux desktops are quite good in 2025 for those who choose them, but that diversity, culture, and history made mass‑market “year of the Linux desktop” unlikely.