Actually they are, I cannot name a single system that has not changed in some significant ways since the 90s, unless development has slowed to the point where it basically stopped and became a time capsule.
>Yes, it was terrible, people hated the change and that it was hard to make it work like the older versions, it's still famous for being horrible and unusable and MS basically rolled it back in the face of overwhelming criticism.
I think this is still a poor example to illustrate your point. They rolled back some aspects, other aspects were changed in Windows 10 and now again in Windows 11.
>I never claimed that only the gnome people have done this
Yes, my point was that they all do it. It makes no sense to fixate on GNOME doing this.
>Yep, and you could always switch back and forth, easily. Gnome 3 was scorched earth.
I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. You could always switch easily, even now there are many distros that offer GNOME as only an option, or do not really have GNOME as a supported option at all. Maybe you were using a distro that only supported one option, but it was always within their authority to do that just like they could decide to only offer KDE Plasma as an option. So this complaint still makes no sense to me.
>Yet here I am, and here most people on Windows are, and on OS X. MacOS X from 2001 is still recognisable today. Move the start button on Windows 11 to the left and you've basically got an evolved Win 95/NT 4.
Again that is describing one specific area, other things have been completely redone or rewritten. And I have spoken to some other people who were very bothered by that change and didn't like it.
>Evolutionary changes and improvements are great. People choosing to work differently is great. Designers exploring different ways of working, great. Wading in and hamfistedly breaking everything about how people work, then telling them they're wrong for wanting to keep working that way, is virtually never well received.
Just to clarify, it is very possible for a user to be wrong about something. If someone is telling you they are never wrong, that will virtually never be well received either. It is very hard for me to interpret this in a way other than that you're describing changes that don't bother you as "evolutionary" but ones that do bother you as "hamfisted". Try to be a little bit more objective about this, perhaps if you feel like it, go through a list of many changes across these and compare them. You might be surprised as to what you find.
Actually they are, I cannot name a single system that has not changed in some significant ways since the 90s, unless development has slowed to the point where it basically stopped and became a time capsule.
>Yes, it was terrible, people hated the change and that it was hard to make it work like the older versions, it's still famous for being horrible and unusable and MS basically rolled it back in the face of overwhelming criticism.
I think this is still a poor example to illustrate your point. They rolled back some aspects, other aspects were changed in Windows 10 and now again in Windows 11.
>I never claimed that only the gnome people have done this
Yes, my point was that they all do it. It makes no sense to fixate on GNOME doing this.
>Yep, and you could always switch back and forth, easily. Gnome 3 was scorched earth.
I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. You could always switch easily, even now there are many distros that offer GNOME as only an option, or do not really have GNOME as a supported option at all. Maybe you were using a distro that only supported one option, but it was always within their authority to do that just like they could decide to only offer KDE Plasma as an option. So this complaint still makes no sense to me.
>Yet here I am, and here most people on Windows are, and on OS X. MacOS X from 2001 is still recognisable today. Move the start button on Windows 11 to the left and you've basically got an evolved Win 95/NT 4.
Again that is describing one specific area, other things have been completely redone or rewritten. And I have spoken to some other people who were very bothered by that change and didn't like it.
>Evolutionary changes and improvements are great. People choosing to work differently is great. Designers exploring different ways of working, great. Wading in and hamfistedly breaking everything about how people work, then telling them they're wrong for wanting to keep working that way, is virtually never well received.
Just to clarify, it is very possible for a user to be wrong about something. If someone is telling you they are never wrong, that will virtually never be well received either. It is very hard for me to interpret this in a way other than that you're describing changes that don't bother you as "evolutionary" but ones that do bother you as "hamfisted". Try to be a little bit more objective about this, perhaps if you feel like it, go through a list of many changes across these and compare them. You might be surprised as to what you find.