What gnome devs seemingly fail to realize is that gnome is only a means to an end (i.e. to run software). People /will/ switch to alternatives the moment that it fails to do it's job. The exact same thing applies to ubuntu.
The problem isn't that GNOME devs are trying to make user friendly software for non-technical users; that intent is commendable. The problem is the GNOME devs have incredibly insulting opinions about the skills and intelligence of non-technical users.
You can't even change language shortcut from default (Win + Space). As I understand this comes from MacOS, which gnome devs brainlessly copy.
https://askubuntu.com/questions/41480/how-do-i-change-my-key...
I do find Gnome plenty configurable. You just need to go in order of Settings -> Tweaks -> their weird registry -> custom extensions. I would agree this is convoluted, but I do not mind it (as a power user it took me 5 minutes to google how to do it, while it probably makes sense to have only the first state (Settings) visible by default).
> I find gnome to be pretty configurable. The opinionated defaults aren’t so bad because you can just replace the environment if you dislike it
IT'S NOT CONFIGURABLE. You can hack your way around their "opinionated defaults" which are for MacOS user from USA.
Take a look at the KDE's settings for this case https://i.stack.imgur.com/ukKmp.png
There is no reason to google, install some tool and mess with it.
Screenshot: http://pvv.org/~jabirali/tweaks.png
For context, I have used Linux and other Unixes for 14ish years, spanning the spectrum from embedded devices to supercomputers, with (or without) a variety of graphical shells.
At least in the recent versions I've tested, you literally can't. You can only set it to an image.
To be fair, that has always been Ubuntu's target market...
You can always use only the system package manager, or use a distro that doesn't use snap.
All those complaints feel so moot.
It's really hard to be in FOSS nowaday: you can't make a move without your users judging you all along the way, because a lot of them are idealists that expect a lot from you, yet don't think about the non tech saavy users.
It's way easier to make proprietary software: most of your users don't criticise any single decision you make, you don't have to justify yourself, you get much more users, and you make money out of it.
Why on Earth would you think that users of proprietary software don't criticize it? I'm pretty sure that Windows gets more criticism than Ubuntu...
On FOSS, you'll have complains about the software it self AND ethics from most of your users, because they are mostly technical, and contains way more idealists than the average user sample.
For those unfamiliar, Debian releases come out about once every two years, at which point all software in Debian's repositories is frozen at its current version. Software receives security updates between releases, but nothing else.
I personally think this is wonderful, and I would absolutely use Debian if I was interested in switching to Linux (which I'm not, at the moment). Constant change is inherently frustrating, even when the changes themselves are a net positive (they often aren't). Debian's approach provides a level of reliability and consistency that is sorely lacking in most modern software.
So, while I also recommend Debian, I do so only if you too agree with the above paragraph.
If you only enable stable, then you are signing up for very outdated software.
If you add `testing`, you get quite a ways towards having an up to date system, while still not having to worry too much about odd bugs.
Adding in `unstable` gets you about as close to up to date as you can get without compiling the source yourself.
Experimental is good to keep around, but in my experience most things skip it and just hop straight to unstable.
The beautiful thing about Debian compared to Ubuntu is that it actually is a rolling release system. Ubuntu users have to worry about what version they are on. With Debian, you set what track you want to follow and just remember to install updates as they become available.
Because it's a rolling release, you're much more likely to catch small issues and be able to isolate what package is causing the problem, as opposed to doing a thousand package upgrades at once and then being snagged because one of them had an install issue.
Debian Testing is an option, but would you recommend that over a distribution focused on rolling releases, like Arch? From my vantage point (which isn't particularly good, as a non-Linux user myself), most of the Debian project's effort is concentrated on producing Debian Stable. Case in point, security updates for Debian Testing are sometimes significantly delayed.
Everything about Debian except the `stable` repository is explicitly a rolling release.
> Debian strongly advises against mixing repositories
Certainly you wouldn't want to add in the other repositories if you're aiming for Debian Stable type guarantees.
This is the `sources.list` file that I've been using for nearly a decade:
deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib
deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ experimental main non-free contrib
Package: *
Pin: release a=testing
Pin-Priority: 700
Package: *
Pin: release a=unstable
Pin-Priority: 650
Package: *
Pin: release a=experimental
Pin-Priority: 600
then unstable was a really rolling release system, in my experience more stable than testing(understandable quirk as is was used by mantainers to prepare the next release).
At that point I decided that I'd rather use arch then unstable debian, but unstable was quite similar regarding package candence and stability.
As others have pointed out, common reasoning behind picking a distro include: hardware requirements, existing ecosystems, end user, package management, configurableness, security, long-term support, ease of learning, driver support, core dev team’s opinions, funding, etc.
Maybe Debian is on par now. Old software can be worked around with containers and third party apt repositories. I often do that on Ubuntu too.
Try it with the xfce or mate flavours.
Beyond that, increasingly common to see Ubuntu used in enterprise and the dev tasked with dealing with the issue may not have the authority to decide to use Ubuntu or not.
Sure, this might be true for the average user, but it is toxic to the “super user” community that’s in the best position to help support the larger community and may end up pushing them away.
Snap at the very least should have an opt-out feature, if not be opt-in during an install.
More criticisms maybe found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_(package_manager)#Critici...