This is so, so true. And it is so sad, given that KDE 3 was a very usable, somewhat well-structured (considering the many configuration options) desktop that ran reasonably well on hardware from the previous century.
It didn't try so hard to be pretty. Actually, I always thought KDE 2/3 did have a pragmatic, technical elegance. KDE 4 (sorry: KDE-SC-Plasma-something 4) just looks like an early alpha preview uniting all the bad ideas of Windows Vista.
> I don't understand Plasma at all - I don't use "activities" I tried it but found it useless. I don't care about widgets.
This stuff constantly gets in your way. Because it is a solution in frantic search of a problem. Unworldly and counter-intuitive to the greatest extent.
I have a feeling this is a big part of why open source projects aren't more widely used.
A part of them being open source is that a great deal of the people working on them are doing it as a hobby - because they find it interesting or fun. For a programmer, digging into a pet project (in my experience) is more of a learning experience or tinkering than a real attempt to make a usable product. There have been plenty of times myself or my colleagues have made a cool little toy without much practical use.
Honestly, I'm not intimately familiar with Gnome or KDE or Unity anymore but I have a feeling this hobbyist habit of writing code for fun leads the project astray where a commercial project (like Windows or Mac) wouldn't.
Windows for example, will have large design teams, QA teams, UX teams and managers. All of them will have a good idea of what they have to do and they're being paid to solve the problems of their customers rather than voluntarily working for fun.
Gnome and Unity on the other hand, made huge changes with (judging by the response of users) very little interaction with or consideration for their users. Sure they came up with some novel concepts but I can't sit my grandmother in front of a PC running Unity or Gnome anymore and expect her to be able to operate it. This was most definitely feasible with Gnome 2.
The opposite is true of Windows or Mac. Even Windows 8, with its pretty massive changes would be operable by someone who's used a computer in the last decade or so.
I still believe open source DEs can be successful but I think there needs to be a bigger focus on the perspective of the users and less of a focus on making a cool thing.
The 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' saying could also be applied to a lot of the things these projects have been doing.
early alpha preview uniting all the bad ideas of Windows Vista.
This is exactly how I describe KDE 4. It was in development just as Vista was being demoed and it shows. The entire design of the system appears to have been heavily influenced by a failed MS product and the project is still living with that legacy. Time to go back to the KDE 3 code and start working on KDE 5...
I guess it looks so bad because it is a mediocre interpretation of the UI fads of seven years ago. This is why it is always a good idea not to follow the latest fad, especially if you have constrained development resources. Unfortunately, KDE 5 seems to be headed into a similar direction, copying the latest "flat design" fad, in a rather uninspired fashion. Until KDE 5 is ready, this fad will already have passed.
I still miss KDE 3. I've been so satisfied with the latest generation of desktop environments on Linux that I've moved to Openbox trying to get back basic usability and speed.
It didn't try so hard to be pretty. Actually, I always thought KDE 2/3 did have a pragmatic, technical elegance. KDE 4 (sorry: KDE-SC-Plasma-something 4) just looks like an early alpha preview uniting all the bad ideas of Windows Vista.
> I don't understand Plasma at all - I don't use "activities" I tried it but found it useless. I don't care about widgets.
This stuff constantly gets in your way. Because it is a solution in frantic search of a problem. Unworldly and counter-intuitive to the greatest extent.