OP called users of the software stupid, not the software. While some of what gnome is is defensible and I just don’t like it, like having very little in the way of configuration options, the other part, like being unwilling to implement server-side decorations, makes it plain bad software. There’s a reason you hear people reply “well just don’t use gnome” to claims of “wayland is broken”.
Software can, indeed, be objectively bad. “Oh tastes just differ” is an appeal to false civility: No, if your bridge doesn’t get people across the river I don’t care how pretty it looks it’s broken. It might be a beautiful art piece, but it definitely isn’t a bridge.
OP called users of the software stupid, not the software.
(in my opinion the software is stupid, and users of stupid software are stupid :) because desktop environment is inefficient compared to pure window manager, and keyboard-based wm)
OP called users of the software stupid, not the software. While some of what gnome is is defensible and I just don’t like it, like having very little in the way of configuration options, the other part, like being unwilling to implement server-side decorations, makes it plain bad software. There’s a reason you hear people reply “well just don’t use gnome” to claims of “wayland is broken”.
Software can, indeed, be objectively bad. “Oh tastes just differ” is an appeal to false civility: No, if your bridge doesn’t get people across the river I don’t care how pretty it looks it’s broken. It might be a beautiful art piece, but it definitely isn’t a bridge.
(in my opinion the software is stupid, and users of stupid software are stupid :) because desktop environment is inefficient compared to pure window manager, and keyboard-based wm)
Please,