96
why didnt Enlightenment desktop recieve much adoption
(thelemmy.club)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
I tried it a few years ago. I was really impressed by how lightweight and gorgeous it is. In particular, I found it really cool and actually useful that you got a live view of your other workspaces on your panel. You could even fullscreen a video on your other workspace and then watch (a very small version of) it in your panel.
But yeah, even though I came back to it multiple times, I never ended up sticking around. It would crash regularly (not the worst thing, since recovery was generally seamless, but still meh), but in particular, it had some peculiar design decisions.
For example, if you double-click a window titlebar in virtually any window manager, it will maximize. In Enlightenment, I believe it got shaded (i.e. the contents of the window got hidden and only the titlebar was still visible).
Another prominent one was that its applet for connecting to WiFi and such didn't support NetworkManager, but rather only ConnMan. If you've never heard of ConnMan, yeah, I only know it from Enlightenment, too. Similarly, my distro (openSUSE) didn't package it either (and openSUSE was said to offer a relatively good Enlightenment experience). That's something which should just work, because you can't expect people to look up how they can connect to WiFi while they can't reach the internet.
And yeah, these are just the big ones that stuck in my head. There were lots of smaller usability issues, too. Many things you could fix by changing the configuration, but we're talking many in an absolute sense, too, i.e. you might spend an hour or more just tweaking things so that they behaved like you might expect.
Maybe a controversial opinion here, but the one thing that everyone says about it is that it looks gorgeous, and I really don't see it. Never have.
Even back when I first tried it out, maybe 15 years ago, I thought it looked strangely retro. Nowadays, compared to the eye candy that is completely standard in GNOME, KDE, MacOS, Windows etc., it looks incredibly dated.
It's all hard edges, low res icons, ugly fonts, and eccentric design choices. Yeah, it can make window elements transparent, but you can't dine out on that one trick for ever.
I certainly think that it has many eccentric design choices. It's not going to be for everyone. Some parts of it, I also think just look bad, which I had to customize. Well, and openSUSE's theming made a big difference, too: https://simotek.net/tech/projects/opensuse-e/enlightenment-on-opensuse-13-2/nggallery/thumbnails
"Retro" is also definitely a word I would use, though more positively connoted. It has *different* eye candy to the usual desktop designs, which is a big part of the charm. In a sea of flat designs and tiling window managers, it stands out as its own thing.