Even though the Linux ecosystem does not need another desktop environment, creating a new desktop environment is very much in the spirit of how the Linux world does things. It allows for the introduction of new ideas without disrupting existing users or fighting battles to get those ideas incorporated into existing projects. If the ideas do turn out to be popular, they will either be adopted by other desktop environments or the adoption of the new desktop environment will grow to fill its niche.
I find it paradoxical that people would question the need for a competitive marketplace of ideas in societies that tout competitive marketplaces for businesses. I also find it paradoxical that societies that tout individuality and freedom would question the need for others to express those very values, in preference of conformity and centralized decision making. We have seen the consequences when it comes to both commercial products and open source projects. Just consider the uproar of when KDE, Gnome, or Windows changes the user interface in controversial ways.
Yes, it does cost Linux in terms of user base. On the other hand, it is better (in my opinion) for the open source community to differentiate itself based upon its core values and to ensure its long term viability because of that.
The past is littered with failed companies that tried to take on the juggernauts while Linux has survived. A big part of the reason for Linux's survival is it's fluidity. When one project stalls, another can take over. When one group's needs are unmet, a new project can emerge.
The main problem is manpower scarcity. Every time fragmentation increases, typically each project gets a bit weaker - from a situation where they are already very very weak.
> When one project stalls, another can take over.
Desktop environments are too big an effort to see this sort of dynamic. And it shows: the two major projects after 25 years are still the very first two. Around them we have a plethora of little projects who typically die as soon as their main sponsor dies, and contribute very little "R&D" to the main two - in fact, KDE and GNOME more often than not push experiments that the minnows then implement or reject.
There is often strength in inefficient redundancy. For one, it allows smaller groups of people to act in empowered ways without a lot of communication and coordination overhead.
I also don't see it as necessarily a zero sum game. The choice is not always "do thing A or contribute to a similar incumbent project B" but "do my own thing A or nothing at all, because B doesn't want my idea."
I'm fine with the marketplace of ideas and all that but linux has plenty of shiny desktop environments. This was never really an impediment to its success.
what desktop linux is really lacking (especially with respect to hardware compatibility) though is really good QA.
It might have been coincidental but i can still remember when ubuntu threw it's weight behind unity after 10.04 (which i remember fondly coz it was absolutely rock solid) and quality really dropped off for a few years.
it's a perpetual problem with FOSS that people chase shiny baubles and underrate fundamental, boring stability and quality (or, for that matter, power usage).
This is somewhere where MS actually has a non-unfair advantage coz it takes stability, QA and power usage very seriously on windows.
> Even though the Linux ecosystem does not need another desktop environment, creating a new desktop environment is very much in the spirit of how the Linux world does things
Playing devil’s advocate herem by this logic we should also splinter the kernel development for multiple, competing, projects.
The open source world has the BSD kernels in addition to the Linux kernel. There are also other open source operating systems based upon their own kernel, like Haiku. Each kernel is backed by developers who have their own particular vision, just as each desktop environment is backed by developers with their own particular vision.
I think this is a better comparison since only a few desktop environments are forks of other desktop environments, and most of the viable ones are forks of Gnome (much as most of the viable forks of kernels are forks of BSD).
I find it paradoxical that people would question the need for a competitive marketplace of ideas in societies that tout competitive marketplaces for businesses. I also find it paradoxical that societies that tout individuality and freedom would question the need for others to express those very values, in preference of conformity and centralized decision making. We have seen the consequences when it comes to both commercial products and open source projects. Just consider the uproar of when KDE, Gnome, or Windows changes the user interface in controversial ways.
Yes, it does cost Linux in terms of user base. On the other hand, it is better (in my opinion) for the open source community to differentiate itself based upon its core values and to ensure its long term viability because of that.
The past is littered with failed companies that tried to take on the juggernauts while Linux has survived. A big part of the reason for Linux's survival is it's fluidity. When one project stalls, another can take over. When one group's needs are unmet, a new project can emerge.