• GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    More closed and non-customizable systems are much more stable. I guess that’s what GNOME devs are trying to achieve and I don’t really mind it. We have other options for those who need customization. The most used and mainstream one really should be focused on stability. Though I don’t think anyone tried breaking icons before. It’s a bit too much. The app devs will need to make multiple icons for different DEs which is a good thing but shouldn’t be forced like that

    • 56!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      If stability was their aim, they wouldn’t be breaking stuff all the time…

      • ijhoo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I would argue that gnome is pretty stable in recent years. Don’t remember when was the last time something crashed.

        This might would probably be true for Extensions.

        KDE has been unstable for me on Wayland in the past.

        • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          You’re talking about two different kinds of stability. They are talking about development stability. You are talking about runtime stability.

          One thing is to not break applications that use your library because of changes you introduce to it. Specifically changes that go against the standard you’re supposed to be following.

          Another thing altogether is to not go outside the memory limits of the application so it doesn’t get yeeted by the kernel.