Comments by "KpCraftster" (@kpcraftster6580) on "I criticized System76's Cosmic for recreating GNOME. I was wrong." video.

Gnome 3 made the same mistake as m$ did with windows 8. They created an interface that was based around the mobile device paradigm and targeted touch screens. Gnome 40 did less to correct its defaults for that mistake than windows 8.1, but neither was sufficient on its own. However, windows 8 and 8.1 could be fixed with tools like stardock's start8, whereas gnome can be fixed with extensions like dash-to-panel and arcmenu.
4
Which is a shame because lxde was good and lxqt isn't.
3
@shaunpatrick8345 Desktop icons do not make it good, they help make it less bad. Files belong in the file manager, which includes a "Desktop" directory for a good reason. "Apps", or more correctly programs, belong in the (start) menu, which also includes a link to the "Desktop" directory for a good reason. Programs that the user has pinned to the panel, also belong on the panel. Programs for which the user has created desktop shortcuts, also belong on the desktop and in the "Desktop" directory. And files which the user has saved to the desktop, belong on the desktop and in the "Desktop" directory. There is a very good reason for the "Desktop" directory existing, which is to store files and shortcuts that belong on the desktop in the filesystem, so they can be shown on and launched from the desktop. Without desktop icons, there is no point to having a desktop nor a "Desktop" directory at all. That is how you end up with such creations as windows 8 and gnome 3. They failed because they did away with the important and popular feature that is a functional desktop.
2
@shaunpatrick8345 See my repeatedly hidden/deleted response to you, on the topic of desktop icons and desktop directory, (start) menus, panels, docks and dash.
1
No, no, no. You were right before. Or at least, more right/less wrong. And now you retract the more valid criticism. Cosmic is just worse gnome. Gnome without the extensions that are the only redeeming feature. Gnome but with system76's current extensions which make gnome worse* hard-coded in. Gnome but written in rust. Gnome but all wayland exclusive. Gnome but fixated on flatpaks. So worse than gnome in every way! * And let's have a look at those in detail. Let's look at the current customized gnome that ships with pop os, which is confusingly also called "cosmic": It ships with eight system extensions, six of which are by system76 and two are not. Five of those extensions make gnome worse, all of them are ones by system76. Two of those extensions improve gnome (desktop icons ng by rastersoft and app indicators by ubuntu), exactly those two that are not by system76. And the final one (pop cosmic by system76) doesn't make any difference. So, to make gnome usable, you just need to add and configure two user extensions; to make it good, you need to add another three. But for current cosmic, you also need to disable five or six extensions. And for the future cosmic those five extensions that make gnome worse, are baked in, while the extensions that make gnome usable will likely not be available. And that's in addition to the rust, wayland and flatpak fiascos.
1
@gronki1 I think agnostic packages are the future, but not the direction flatpaks have (recently) taken. Nor snaps, for that matter. Something like nix, guix or appimages seems more promising. As for wayland, maybe one day in the distant future it will become usable, but that's still decades away.
1
@shaunpatrick8345 Desktop icons do not make it good, they help make it less bad. Files belong in the file manager. Programs belong in the menu. Programs also belong pinned to the panel as desired. And any files and shortcuts that the user desires on the desktop belong on the desktop! Otherwise why have a desktop directory. Why even have a desktop at all. You are reinventing windows 8. Any design that does not default to having desktop icons, is simply a bad design. That is why such designs fail and either go back to having desktop icons by default or fall into disuse.
1
@shaunpatrick8345 Desktop icons do not make it good, they help make it less bad. Files belong in the file manager, which includes a "Desktop" directory for a good reason. "Apps", or more correctly programs, belong in the (start) menu, which also includes a link to the "Desktop" directory for a good reason. Programs that the user has pinned to the panel, also belong on the panel. Programs for which the user has created desktop shortcuts also belong on the desktop and in the "Desktop" directory. And files which the user has saved to the desktop belong on the desktop and in the "Desktop" directory. There is a very good reason for the "Desktop" directory existing, which is to store files and shortcuts that belong on the desktop in the filesystem, so they can be shown on and launched from the desktop. Without desktop icons, there is no point to having a desktop nor a "Desktop" directory at all. That is how you end up with failures like windows 8 and gnome 3. They fail because they do away with the important and popular feature that is a functional desktop. We call that "bad design".
1
@shaunpatrick8345 Desktop icons do not make it good, they help make it less bad. Files belong in the file manager, which includes a "Desktop" directory for a good reason. "Apps", or more correctly programs, belong in the (start) menu, which also includes a link to the "Desktop" directory for a good reason. Programs that the user has pinned to the panel, also belong on the panel. Programs for which the user has created desktop shortcuts, also belong on the desktop and in the "Desktop" directory. And files which the user has saved to the desktop, belong on the desktop and in the "Desktop" directory. There is a very good reason for the "Desktop" directory existing, which is to store files and shortcuts that belong on the desktop in the filesystem, so they can be shown on and launched from the desktop. Without desktop icons, there is no point to having a desktop nor a "Desktop" directory at all. That is how you end up with failures like windows 8 and gnome 3. They fail because they do away with the important and popular feature that is a functional desktop. We call that "bad design".
1
@rhone733 What we really need, is a rust-free nix-based x11 desktop environment running on top of a hardened rust-free kernel. Ideally developed by a completely apolitical team of linux or bsd veterans.
1
@atagen2186 I disagree in the strongest terms to literally everything you just said (at least in the one comment I can see - it starts with "to your other posts" - was there another?), with the sole exception that you can indeed easily use nix packages alongside other agnostic package formats like flatpak.
1