

Odds are they’re doing the same thing only in theory. In practice, the picture changes - typically the KDE devs are far more willing to maintain old and marginal features and/or support benefiting only a small chunk of the userbase. While the GNOME devs are way more likely to ditch it, babble something about their design vision, then try to convince the user “ackshyually you don’t need it”.
(A major exception is perhaps accessibility, mentioned in the text. It isn’t just the Wayland devs worried about it, but also the KDE and GNOME devs. In this regard props to all three.)
I ditched GNOME in 3.0 times. And I still gave it a second try, a third, even a fourth. And my system has GNOME (and KDE, and Xfce…) applications, so certain patterns are visible even in everyday usage. And I fuck around with virtual machines to find out about random stuff, including DEs that I ditched (like GNOME and KDE) or I never used directly in my machine (like Elementary).
So don’t assume “ditched it = ignorant about it”.
O rly. And the point still stands: GNOME has a tendency to drop support to older software before the newer one is ready.
Unless you want to claim Wayland reached parity with X11, and there’s totally no reason people might want to stick with X11 instead.
This does not address what I said.
That is not what I said.
*Yawn* Given that
It’s safe to disregard you as meaningless noise, so I ain’t wasting my time further with you.
[inb4 people discussing the semantics of “ditch”]