I got tired of "customizing" everything and just wanted to get work done. GNOME is the default on many distros, so I learned the intended workflow instead of fighting it. Now I can just install a distro and be productive immediately instead of spending time tweaking things.
I interpreted the question less about kde vs gnome, and more about kde or gnome vs other desktops. Maybe OP intended the former now that I read it again. I used to have heavily personal setups of DWM or CWM back in the day, with lots of small scripts to cover some functionality, but now I just want the "default" because the OS itself stopped being my hobby. Nothing against KDE, I just found GNOME to be more polished out of the box and stayed.
Nothing against KDE, I just found GNOME to be more polished out of the box and stayed.
I see. No problem. Just personal preference. I thought that KDE had unreasonable defaults compared to GNOME or something, hence the question about customising.
I needed a desktop environment with a UI that wasn't intended to be hidden away. Or a desktop that wasn't challenging the way that I intend to work with the computer.
KDE may be boring and it may not challenge any paradigms. But it works well and stays out of the way.
Over the years, I don't think there's many DE's or WM's that I haven't tried to live with on a daily driver, such as KDE, Gnome, Cinnamon, Qtile, XMonad, I3, AwesomeWM, etc etc. What I found over the years was how much I appreciated a clean, simplistic UI for an operating system.
After spending multiple years on 'window manager only' setups (got fed up with updating configs on major updates, and got fed up with the amount of config I had to do), I returned back to KDE mainly for the intense amount of OOTB customisation. However, what I realised after a while was that I was just setting up KDE to look and behave like Gnome.
So 2 years after last using KDE, I'm now just using Gnome all the time. I like the workflow, on laptop personally I think the gesture navigation is better than any other DE, and I love the simplistic design. Plus extensions get me what isn't included OOTB.
Downside to Gnome is when major updates occur and extensions break as a result, other than that I can't think of much bad about Gnome
I use KDE. I found GNOME annoying and extemely opinionated. I also got turned off by it when I asked a question on mastodon like a year ago about an issue I was having with GNOME and an actual GNOME dev replied to me and essentially said I was using the DE wrong. basically I wasn't using it the way the GNOME devs use it.
GNOME makes it a pain to switch between two applications, unless you have a touchscreen or a keyboard always at the ready. There's a reason why Ubuntu ships with the Dash to Panel extension by default. And besides, the customization in GNOME is effectively non-existent since the migration to Adwaita, anything resembling theming is literally a hack on top. KDE, on the other hand, is more flexible, only problem is that most of the themes rely on a separate Kvantum engine, but otherwise it is certainly possible to customize things to your liking much more so than with GNOME.
Gnome employs Jeremy Bicha as a person convicted of sexual battery of a minor and as far as we know never notified other employees especially at conventions or other employee gatherings.
GNOME doesn't really employ developers, it's mostly unpaid contributors with the occasional contract work. Canonical is the one that employed him - and no longer does.
I don't believe he's around anymore, he probably started using an alias once people "canceled" him. This is the internet after all, you're one pseudonym away from a fresh start.
KDE just works. The few things I want to change I can. GNOME by default is further away from what I want and you have to get extensions that break with updates to change anything.
I've been running KDE now, almost exclusively, for almost 15 years. KDE works (by default) in a way similar to the way Windows XP worked in the late 90's - late 2000's. It felt familiar enough that I didn't have to try and figure out most things that I wanted to do. The few things that didn't work the way I wanted ( or felt they should) were easy enough to change. XFCE was similar (had a Windows 95-98 feel) but was not as configurable.
Gnome 2, I rather liked as it had a feel similar to Mac OS 8 from way back when I was in school, however I just never got along with Gnome 3. Everything felt... off. I can use it, Just don't care for it. Same for most other DEs.
KDE looks modern, has features I didnt even know I wanted. Whatever I can think of wanting it's either already there or I make a post on the fourm and its there in a month.
When I had an issue with an update removing something that I liked. I made a post and KDE devs added a toggle so I could keep the functionality I had before. Even though it was a minor thing they could have told me not to worry.
I think there's not too many technical reasons to choose one or the other lol, just look up a couple of videos on Youtube and that might be enough for you to decide for yourself
KDE. I have a specific way I want to work and use my window manager and desktop. KDE allows me to do that OOTB, GNOME doesn't. The other DEs might by their configuration is by opening a file and guessing the options, so I stay away.
I like KDE because it is super customisable out of the box, and I personally prefer the more contrasty, colourful look of KDE over the more minimal and padded GNOME.
However, if you like GNOME, that's perfectly fine! With GNOME Extensions, you can also customise a lot, far more than Windows or MacOS lets you without sketchy third-party tools. And of course, Cinnamon, XFCE, Cosmic, etc. are all great too.
First, I haven't used gnome in probably 15 years, so I can't give a fair comparison, but I've grown with kde over the last 3.
My opinion is that it's always worked for me, and is decently customizable. I couldn't use Wayland for the first 4+ months due to conflicts with my Nvidia card, but kde 6 (I think 6) fixed all of my issues.
On new Linux serious, I don't install the full kde suite, because I have other apps I prefer like alacrity instead on konsole. This keeps it lighter but with all of the other DE controls.
Also, I've not heard a bad thing of the kde dev team, but I have about gnome. I can't cite specifics, but I know I've read some bad stuff.
You can always install both DEs and try both out and determine which is best for you.
I like Gnome because it doesn't have a Desktop that I can crowd with Icons and random files. The few times I tried KDE I just didn't really jive with it because the text and icons were super small by default and the whole handling was just..idk, too click-y? Yeah, it can all be adjusted and stuff, but default Gnome is just closer to my preferences than default KDE.
A couple of years ago, I used both of them briefly and GNOME simply provided the more polished experience back then.
In time, I came to dislike the look/design of KDE apps.
So when the time came I wanted to ditch GNOME because I was sick of its extensions ecosystem, I didn't even consider KDE Plasma. Instead, I tried out Sway and eventually settled on COSMIC.
Gnome lost a lot of functions when streamlining, just compare Dolphin to Nautilus, and instead of fighting their vision I went for a DE that works the way I want. I love information density and easily get hooked on spreadsheet games, I feel as if that is the exact opposite of the Gnome vision.
edit: I prefer Gnome for touch only devices like Microsoft Surface Pro 7 without physical kbm.
Gnome 2 was the default when I switched. I stay mostly because of familiarity and inertia. There has to be a really good reason to switch. Maybe soon. KDE implemented workspaces-per-screen. That could be a killer feature that would get me to switch. I loved that when I was running AwesomeWM.
Gnome always felt too basic and minimalist. KDE feels powerful and like I can do anything I want. On KDE I don't ask myself "can i do this?", I ask myself "how do I do this?"
When I got back to Linux some years back, I tried using GNOME because I had had good experiences with GNOME 2. Modern GNOME is awful, terribly opinionated and - in my view - has actual usability issues. Every interaction with the DE felt like pulling teeth and I didn't enjoy it one bit. GNOME Classic was better, but even that never felt quite right. At the time I wanted to use Wayland and therefore had limited options, so for the first time ever I tried Plasma, and I immediately found it to my liking. With only a few small cosmetic tweaks it felt like home. Things made sense to me and everything was where it should be - more or less; nothing's perfect. Since then I've looked at other options, but Plasma usually has one feature or another that alternative desktops lack or struggle with. So for now I'm sticking with Plasma, and I have no real reason to look elsewhere.
To be sure, I don't hate on anyone who prefers GNOME, it's just not my cup of tea. Not by a long shot. Use what works for your use case.
Mostly for the shallow reason of the fact that out of the box KDE looks good enough and since it's big enough I can easily find a theme I like alongside things like cursors and icon sets that just look good. All without the headache of having to make my own sets. I like aesthetics moreso than I should sometimes.
I also like having a fair bit of settings to tweak and don't know if any other DE has integrated a "jiggle the mouse to make the pointer bigger" feature yet. That feature is absolutely something I love, as someone who occasionally loses his cursor.
Typically I'll stick with Plasma till they bork it, then switch to GNOME til I get bored and see what's up with Plasma these days. I'll sometimes try some others out, but typically it's those two.
I like gnome, but, switched back to kde because the extensions I needed broke last fedora update.
I love cosmic, but the keyboard focus doesn't always follow into the correct tab, which was also a deal breaker
The only real issue I have with kde, is Google drive integration isn't baked in at the moment. But, I just use the website, and there were plenty of other solutions I could use too
I've used both pretty extensively (years daily driving each) but these days I just use stock KDE, with maybe a couple little adjustments to the taskbar. I like both. I can adapt to different desktop workflows, GNOME's is good, but I found myself always using plugins to make it work more like a windows desktop. I generally like the KDE suite of default applications a lot more than GNOME's, like Dolphin is just a better file manager than nautilus. And if I'm going to use KDE applications and a windows-styled desktop layout, at that point I might as well just use KDE.
I tried Gnome a few times, last time maybe 3 years ago, but it just is not the right environment for me. It feels strange and everything is so complicated (most likely because I'm not used to it) and it is so limited when it comes to features and customization.
My first graphic OS was GEOS on the C64 back then, followed by Amiga Workbench, then different flavours of Windows. Using Linux with KDE just feels natural, it has the same usage paradigms and flows as all the OS/Environments I used before.
I had to use MacOSX for some time at work and I had the same issues with it that I had with Gnome, everything was a fight, nothing felt right or was at the place where it has to be.
I used KDE for years only recently switched to Niri, what I can say for KDE is I don't have to dicking around config files and nice features that are missing from other WM/DE like ICC profiles and HDR also very easy to customize. The reason I switch is because KDE getting too good and boring and using Niri reminded me when I use Linux for the first time again (same with switching from Windows to Linux because Windows is boring and barely customizable and cuntpilot)
Gnome. I am often tempted to switch to kde because it is often ahead in terms of adopting new technologies, but gnome is just more comfortable to use. And I was not able to customize kde to have gnome-like workflow.
I test KDE each couple of years: install it on my current OS or in VM, trying to change theme/move panel, get a crash shortly after, then delete it. Even "kde neon" that was supposedly polished distro from devs themselves, crashed within could of minutes in my hands.
Maybe it just my hands, but Gnome never does that.
I'm sticking with KDE because I like to have some say in how my computer behaves, like I prefer to have a sidepanel with useful things and not top panel with calendar. I also like to have window buttons like minimize, maximize, close, pin, etc.
I started with gnome back when Linux was a very young project. Then they started removing options despite the protests of their users so I moved to kde, which added functionality constantly, much to the delight of their users.
I used to be a gnome 2 user for a long time. I sometimes tried out KDE but it seemed to unstable so I moved back to gnome.
But the problems started with gnome 3. I had never put much effort into customizing my desktop but I just didn't like the defaults for gnome 3. Even worse some things I didn't were hard to change, some required plug-ins (that sometimes broke) and some just couldn't be fixed at all.
I could use my system but it always felt a bit like I did so begrudgingly. That was when I wasn't using Linux full time. When I finally wanted to ditch windows completely I tried a lot. Different DEs, different distros and so on and I noticed that KDE felt good. I was skeptical but I gave it a real chance and I stayed. It feels good. It's not perfect but I really like it. It is customizable enough but has sensible defaults. It doesn't get in my way and I don't use it begrudgingly.
I use KDE on my desktop, Cinnamon on my laptop. I really dislike the way Gnome looks, but aside from that I'm really dependant on my mouse. Gnome doesn't seem to appreciate that. I also don't like their approach of dumbing things down and forcing their ways on the user.
Back in the day I really liked Unity. It was simple, looked good and optimised the screen like nothing else did at the time. When Ubuntu ditched it, I ditched Ubuntu.
I’ve stuck to KDE because it’s more customizable and the devs don’t try to actively remove features from updates. Gnome might be a cleaner experience, but I don’t want to have to search for alternatives when my favorite gnome extension gets unexpectedly killed by an update.
KDE appears to be much more stable in that regard in that they’re actively trying (Union) to make themes more resilient over time.
pmk
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •onlinepersona
in reply to pmk • • •KDE doesn't need customizing. My parents use KDE and have never opened the settings dialog. They are productive.
Why do you think it needs customizing?
like this
falseprophet likes this.
pmk
in reply to onlinepersona • • •onlinepersona
in reply to pmk • • •I see. No problem. Just personal preference. I thought that KDE had unreasonable defaults compared to GNOME or something, hence the question about customising.
Christopher
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I needed a desktop environment with a UI that wasn't intended to be hidden away. Or a desktop that wasn't challenging the way that I intend to work with the computer.
KDE may be boring and it may not challenge any paradigms. But it works well and stays out of the way.
0xKesh
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •Over the years, I don't think there's many DE's or WM's that I haven't tried to live with on a daily driver, such as KDE, Gnome, Cinnamon, Qtile, XMonad, I3, AwesomeWM, etc etc. What I found over the years was how much I appreciated a clean, simplistic UI for an operating system.
After spending multiple years on 'window manager only' setups (got fed up with updating configs on major updates, and got fed up with the amount of config I had to do), I returned back to KDE mainly for the intense amount of OOTB customisation. However, what I realised after a while was that I was just setting up KDE to look and behave like Gnome.
So 2 years after last using KDE, I'm now just using Gnome all the time. I like the workflow, on laptop personally I think the gesture navigation is better than any other DE, and I love the simplistic design. Plus extensions get me what isn't included OOTB.
Downside to Gnome is when major updates occur and extensions break as a result, other than that I can't think of much bad about Gnome
rozodru
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •the_q
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •like this
Limitless_screaming y imecth like this.
Carlos Solís
in reply to sando_en_shorts • •Linux reshared this.
Khleedril
in reply to Carlos Solís • • •``... unless you have a touchscreen or a keyboard always at the ready.''
Why wouldn't you have one of these things? What's your use-case?
timbuck2themoon
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •Gnome. Sublime flow, very polished. Simply works.
KDE can be OK but it is very overloaded on customization, not nearly as polished, and honestly I dislike that style it upholds. IMHO.
like this
Limitless_screaming y imecth like this.
sorghum
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •Gnome employs Jeremy Bicha as a person convicted of sexual battery of a minor and as far as we know never notified other employees especially at conventions or other employee gatherings.
I'll stick with KDE
imecth
in reply to sorghum • • •sorghum
in reply to imecth • • •imecth
in reply to sorghum • • •theunknownmuncher
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •realbadat
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •The opinions of Gnome are not a match for mine.
KDE let's me get really specific on the things I want to, and its well supported.
Just that simple for me!
Feyd
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •StrawberryPigtails
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I've been running KDE now, almost exclusively, for almost 15 years. KDE works (by default) in a way similar to the way Windows XP worked in the late 90's - late 2000's. It felt familiar enough that I didn't have to try and figure out most things that I wanted to do. The few things that didn't work the way I wanted ( or felt they should) were easy enough to change. XFCE was similar (had a Windows 95-98 feel) but was not as configurable.
Gnome 2, I rather liked as it had a feel similar to Mac OS 8 from way back when I was in school, however I just never got along with Gnome 3. Everything felt... off. I can use it, Just don't care for it. Same for most other DEs.
Fizz
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •KDE looks modern, has features I didnt even know I wanted. Whatever I can think of wanting it's either already there or I make a post on the fourm and its there in a month.
When I had an issue with an update removing something that I liked. I made a post and KDE devs added a toggle so I could keep the functionality I had before. Even though it was a minor thing they could have told me not to worry.
Die4Ever
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I think there's not too many technical reasons to choose one or the other lol, just look up a couple of videos on Youtube and that might be enough for you to decide for yourself
or use distrosea.com/
Test Linux distros online - DistroSea
DistroSeaSinTan1729
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •JackbyDev
in reply to SinTan1729 • • •SinTan1729
in reply to JackbyDev • • •Yes, my sister uses Gnome, and I'm basically her IT support. I just don't see any reason for switching. It's too limiting for me.
I also used it for a month or two on my own machine before I switched back.
Pfeffy
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •onlinepersona
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •Björn
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •ajikeshi
in reply to Björn • • •Björn
in reply to ajikeshi • • •sbeak
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I like KDE because it is super customisable out of the box, and I personally prefer the more contrasty, colourful look of KDE over the more minimal and padded GNOME.
However, if you like GNOME, that's perfectly fine! With GNOME Extensions, you can also customise a lot, far more than Windows or MacOS lets you without sketchy third-party tools. And of course, Cinnamon, XFCE, Cosmic, etc. are all great too.
BassTurd
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •First, I haven't used gnome in probably 15 years, so I can't give a fair comparison, but I've grown with kde over the last 3.
My opinion is that it's always worked for me, and is decently customizable. I couldn't use Wayland for the first 4+ months due to conflicts with my Nvidia card, but kde 6 (I think 6) fixed all of my issues.
On new Linux serious, I don't install the full kde suite, because I have other apps I prefer like alacrity instead on konsole. This keeps it lighter but with all of the other DE controls.
Also, I've not heard a bad thing of the kde dev team, but I have about gnome. I can't cite specifics, but I know I've read some bad stuff.
You can always install both DEs and try both out and determine which is best for you.
python
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •Linux reshared this.
vrighter
in reply to python • • •throwaway403
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •A couple of years ago, I used both of them briefly and GNOME simply provided the more polished experience back then.
In time, I came to dislike the look/design of KDE apps.
So when the time came I wanted to ditch GNOME because I was sick of its extensions ecosystem, I didn't even consider KDE Plasma. Instead, I tried out Sway and eventually settled on COSMIC.
starman2112
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •anamethatisnt
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •Gnome lost a lot of functions when streamlining, just compare Dolphin to Nautilus, and instead of fighting their vision I went for a DE that works the way I want.
I love information density and easily get hooked on spreadsheet games, I feel as if that is the exact opposite of the Gnome vision.
edit: I prefer Gnome for touch only devices like Microsoft Surface Pro 7 without physical kbm.
Maestro
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •AndyMFK
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •SwooshBakery624 [they/them]
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •GNOME expects the user to adapt to the workflow its developers have in mind. The desktop environment should adapt to me, not the other way around.
Plus, I love customization and themes. But GTK app developers create angry websites where they try to shame me for it.
banazir
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •When I got back to Linux some years back, I tried using GNOME because I had had good experiences with GNOME 2. Modern GNOME is awful, terribly opinionated and - in my view - has actual usability issues. Every interaction with the DE felt like pulling teeth and I didn't enjoy it one bit. GNOME Classic was better, but even that never felt quite right. At the time I wanted to use Wayland and therefore had limited options, so for the first time ever I tried Plasma, and I immediately found it to my liking. With only a few small cosmetic tweaks it felt like home. Things made sense to me and everything was where it should be - more or less; nothing's perfect. Since then I've looked at other options, but Plasma usually has one feature or another that alternative desktops lack or struggle with. So for now I'm sticking with Plasma, and I have no real reason to look elsewhere.
To be sure, I don't hate on anyone who prefers GNOME, it's just not my cup of tea. Not by a long shot. Use what works for your use case.
What is GNOME Classic?
help.gnome.orgajikeshi
in reply to banazir • • •i am 100% with you!
Gnome 2... amazing for usability and customisability, and it came with sane defaults.
Gnome 3, weird change of how gnome works and feels, you cannot really customize the way you want, and it is more resource heavy.
which is why i am using MATE nowadays
hirihit640
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •AceFuzzLord
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •Mostly for the shallow reason of the fact that out of the box KDE looks good enough and since it's big enough I can easily find a theme I like alongside things like cursors and icon sets that just look good. All without the headache of having to make my own sets. I like aesthetics moreso than I should sometimes.
I also like having a fair bit of settings to tweak and don't know if any other DE has integrated a "jiggle the mouse to make the pointer bigger" feature yet. That feature is absolutely something I love, as someone who occasionally loses his cursor.
ShutUpWesley
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •vrighter
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •One adapts to me.
The other requires me to adapt to it.
DrunkenDuckling
in reply to vrighter • • •auzy1
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I like gnome, but, switched back to kde because the extensions I needed broke last fedora update.
I love cosmic, but the keyboard focus doesn't always follow into the correct tab, which was also a deal breaker
The only real issue I have with kde, is Google drive integration isn't baked in at the moment. But, I just use the website, and there were plenty of other solutions I could use too
Gabadabs
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I can adapt to different desktop workflows, GNOME's is good, but I found myself always using plugins to make it work more like a windows desktop.
I generally like the KDE suite of default applications a lot more than GNOME's, like Dolphin is just a better file manager than nautilus. And if I'm going to use KDE applications and a windows-styled desktop layout, at that point I might as well just use KDE.
Magiilaro
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I tried Gnome a few times, last time maybe 3 years ago, but it just is not the right environment for me. It feels strange and everything is so complicated (most likely because I'm not used to it) and it is so limited when it comes to features and customization.
My first graphic OS was GEOS on the C64 back then, followed by Amiga Workbench, then different flavours of Windows. Using Linux with KDE just feels natural, it has the same usage paradigms and flows as all the OS/Environments I used before.
I had to use MacOSX for some time at work and I had the same issues with it that I had with Gnome, everything was a fight, nothing felt right or was at the place where it has to be.
DrunkenDuckling
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •ColdWater
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •The reason I switch is because KDE getting too good and boring and using Niri reminded me when I use Linux for the first time again (same with switching from Windows to Linux because Windows is boring and barely customizable and cuntpilot)
Magustella
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •sando_en_shorts
in reply to Magustella • • •DeLancre
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I test KDE each couple of years: install it on my current OS or in VM, trying to change theme/move panel, get a crash shortly after, then delete it. Even "kde neon" that was supposedly polished distro from devs themselves, crashed within could of minutes in my hands.
Maybe it just my hands, but Gnome never does that.
HubertManne
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •esc
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •ReallyZen
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •Tuning / ricing is overrated. I used to spend ~~hours~~ years ricing my desktop. Screw that, gnome it is: simple, elegant, functional.
I do add 2 very useful plugins tho: Wobbly Windows and the Spinning Cube. Shows my age I guess.
Nate Cox
in reply to ReallyZen • • •comrademiao
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •Gnome feels like Linux to me, I don't want discount Windows, I could just use Windows.
I don't need or want to customize every little detail, I have a life.
Testing out KDE broke a lot of video and mouse inputs, don't find it worth trying to fix just to test.
Naming everything with K is dumb as hell.
AnUnusualRelic
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I started with gnome back when Linux was a very young project. Then they started removing options despite the protests of their users so I moved to kde, which added functionality constantly, much to the delight of their users.
And many years later, here we are.
chris
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I used to be a gnome 2 user for a long time. I sometimes tried out KDE but it seemed to unstable so I moved back to gnome.
But the problems started with gnome 3. I had never put much effort into customizing my desktop but I just didn't like the defaults for gnome 3. Even worse some things I didn't were hard to change, some required plug-ins (that sometimes broke) and some just couldn't be fixed at all.
I could use my system but it always felt a bit like I did so begrudgingly. That was when I wasn't using Linux full time. When I finally wanted to ditch windows completely I tried a lot. Different DEs, different distros and so on and I noticed that KDE felt good. I was skeptical but I gave it a real chance and I stayed. It feels good. It's not perfect but I really like it. It is customizable enough but has sensible defaults. It doesn't get in my way and I don't use it begrudgingly.
Thymos
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I use KDE on my desktop, Cinnamon on my laptop. I really dislike the way Gnome looks, but aside from that I'm really dependant on my mouse. Gnome doesn't seem to appreciate that. I also don't like their approach of dumbing things down and forcing their ways on the user.
Back in the day I really liked Unity. It was simple, looked good and optimised the screen like nothing else did at the time. When Ubuntu ditched it, I ditched Ubuntu.
Horsey
in reply to sando_en_shorts • • •I’ve stuck to KDE because it’s more customizable and the devs don’t try to actively remove features from updates. Gnome might be a cleaner experience, but I don’t want to have to search for alternatives when my favorite gnome extension gets unexpectedly killed by an update.
KDE appears to be much more stable in that regard in that they’re actively trying (Union) to make themes more resilient over time.
Union
api.kde.org