Expanding upon what I had to say about Gnome with this article.
@dusnm These opinions are acceptable. But “the opinionated desktop environment” is certainly an accurate moniker. Other (very wrong) opinions that GNOME 3 has include:
• RAM is cheap
• CPU / memory bandwidth is cheap
• Disk space is cheap
• A “larger text” toggle button is enough to make the system accessible; any other customisation is an unusual special-case for power-users.
• People are always more likely to know the filename than location of files.
• People know the names of image files.
@wizzwizz4 I can definitely agree with you on those usability aspects, however I've been using Gnome 2 and personally seen the shift to Gnome 3 all the way back in 2011, and in my experience RAM and/or CPU has never been of issue to me, and continues to be a non-issue. The core desktop really doesn't use that many resources. Unless you want to claim that 500MiB of RAM is too much and I'm open to hearing your experience.
@dusnm Windows is just about tolerable to use via Narrator.
@dusnm Chrome could just refuse to display web pages that used more than 500MB of RAM. That would cut down on the problem a little.
… and break half the web.
New plan: Google controls enough of the web that they have a database of pretty much every existing website. So they can introduce a resource restriction rule for new web pages only (and a no-resource-increase rule for existing ones). They're never going to (and I'd object to the privacy implications of Google-style impl), but they could.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.