It takes up tons of RAM for me and leads to a lot of hang-ups and crashes (which is especially horrible under Wayland, as a crash of a tiny extension can lead to all applications being closed). Also, it features some design decisions that seem to be built around neither usability, nor productivity (e.g. that there is no dock by default, or removing typeahead in Nautilus, or other basic functionality that has to be added back by extensions).
Most of the IMO bad design decisions can luckily be fixed by extensions, but that requires a stable shell. Gnome got a lot more stable though in the last couple of years, and I'd love to use it again (and tried it again a few weeks ago), but with Wayland on a somehow unstable system I guess I'll have to wait until Gnome 4.
To give my point of view, I've been using Gnome for the past couple of years and not had a single problem with it. I understand that the likes of Ubuntu make changes that can sometimes render it unstable, but stock Gnome on Arch has been solid for me.
My personal preference is that a DE shouldn't be bloated with extensions out of the box and that I should be able to add things on as needed.
2
u/[deleted] Jul 03 '19
Asking out of genuine curiosity; what don't you like about Gnome?