Eh, I used to think this way until I actually tried GNOME for a bit. I've grown quite fond of its workflow. There's definitely extensions that I feel I need for it to be fully usable from my perspective, but in some ways I see it as a positive to start out with a good foundation and then allow users to extend the functionality they feel they need onto that base. Not every user is going to want the same thing, so keeping the core minimalist makes sense.
If I wanted something like Windows, I'd use KDE. If I really wanted a GNOME Windows-like experience similar to the old GNOME2 behavior I'd use something like MATE or Cinnamon. I guess my point is that there's plenty of DEs out there that are essentially copies of the same workflow. I respect the desire to innovate in GNOME3.
I'm guessing everyone who likes GNOME (me included) only uses it because of its unique workflow. And that's exactly why people were hesitant by GNOME 3 (besides the UI. I'm not a linux user from that time but damn the UI was weird seeing some old screenshots)
For me it just strikes a nice balance between a full tiler and a classic desktop UI.
And in my book, you don't even need any extensions, the core product is fine as it is.
At the time they went in a different direction with Gnome 3 it wasn't so much the direction itself, as the fact they gave people no choice.
One day you were happily using your Gnome 2 desktop, the next you were being told "we're changing everything, deal with it". Not "hey we're forking Gnome 2 to try something new, see if you like it and maybe switch", no, it was "we're changing it and you're gonna like it".
It's this "mommy knows best" attitude that's always pissed people off about Gnome.
Eh, I used to think this way until I actually tried GNOME for a bit. I've grown quite fond of its workflow. There's definitely extensions that I feel I need for it to be fully usable from my perspective, but in some ways I see it as a positive to start out with a good foundation and then allow users to extend the functionality they feel they need onto that base. Not every user is going to want the same thing, so keeping the core minimalist makes sense.
If I wanted something like Windows, I'd use KDE. If I really wanted a GNOME Windows-like experience similar to the old GNOME2 behavior I'd use something like MATE or Cinnamon. I guess my point is that there's plenty of DEs out there that are essentially copies of the same workflow. I respect the desire to innovate in GNOME3.
I'm guessing everyone who likes GNOME (me included) only uses it because of its unique workflow. And that's exactly why people were hesitant by GNOME 3 (besides the UI. I'm not a linux user from that time but damn the UI was weird seeing some old screenshots)
is it that unique?
For me it just strikes a nice balance between a full tiler and a classic desktop UI.
And in my book, you don't even need any extensions, the core product is fine as it is.
At the time they went in a different direction with Gnome 3 it wasn't so much the direction itself, as the fact they gave people no choice.
One day you were happily using your Gnome 2 desktop, the next you were being told "we're changing everything, deal with it". Not "hey we're forking Gnome 2 to try something new, see if you like it and maybe switch", no, it was "we're changing it and you're gonna like it".
It's this "mommy knows best" attitude that's always pissed people off about Gnome.