@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 Firefox uses 3.5GiB of RAM, peak. I have 4GiB. Using GNOME, I cannot run anything but a web browser, and even that OOMs. (And GNOME sometimes peaks higher than 500MiB, because its algorithms don't mind malloc'ing.)

But I'm critiquing its opinions, here. Those mostly apply to GNOME Apps, rather than the main GNOME DE itself (which is fairly usable).

The help page for Orca (a screenreader) cannot be read out loud by screen readers, because Yelp uses a web view component.

@wizzwizz4 That ties into another issue that we have. Browsers are probably far worse offenders to resource expectations than Gnome ever will be. It's a sad reality of the web nowadays. Accessibility sucks almost everywhere, that I fully agree is shitty.

@dusnm Windows is just about tolerable to use via Narrator.

Speaking of web browsers being horrible: web engines have the best cross-platform accessibility support out of anything we have available (so long as you don't use a SPA JavaScript framework). Second best (to my knowledge) is Windows Forms – it's *better*, but I don't believe Wine supports its accessibility features properly so it's worse cross-platform.


@wizzwizz4 And therein lies the problem. JavaScript has infested everything to the point of unusability. Browsers are still terrible resource hogs, but are tolerable with 8GiB of RAM and only run really smoothly with at least 12, which is catastrophic. But it has to be this way due to how bad the web has become.

@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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.