This is a very good point, and I totally agree with it. Unless for people with a fixed limited workflow or people doing work on vintage tech, a GUI should just evolve with time. I used to be the biggest Gnome fan, because of the efficiency, up until Wayland. RedHat has not invested in Gnome as it should have done, they've pushed through Wayland because they thought everyone would just take it like systemd, one huge argument and then everyone likes it. That's not the case though, there have been nothing but complaints on Gnome Shell since Wayland became default, because people on the workfloor, non-IT people, who used to get along with Gnome Shell very well, suddenly had their workflow come to a standstill, because there are just too little options. RedHat does not understand that IT support staff has to be able to solve problems on the workflow from all sides, if someone needs to hook up a printer, you don't go to the management console on your dedicated admin machine, and you don't ssh into it and you don't use any mobile app to do the same, but you open a terminal and take care of it in two seconds right there right now. Or you do it through the management console. You have to be able to get at everything from all sides, because people work like that. RedHat of course wants to sell their management software and wants to impose their specific protocols because that's where they get money from, but it's very Microsoft-like strategy, not very workfloor-orientated at all. SuSE does that a lot better than RedHat. That's why I switched from RHEL to SuSE a few years ago, that and similar policies.
Ubuntu Core is certainly very decent. The Ubuntu Community Flavours and the many Ubuntu derivatives are the living proof of that. The worst implementation amongst the wellknown Ubuntu Core based distros was actually Ubuntu Unity, not that it was bad per se, but it was never streamlined like other DE's, there was a lack of consistency, and the dicking around with the menus and stuff were the wrong interpretation of OSX. Gnome Shell did a much better interpretation of OSX, surpassed it in so many ways. OSX is now old though, so is Gnome Shell. There is newer and better around now. It needs to evolve. For Windows, updating nothing but the GUI look over the same old shit has worked for two decades. Users who are not IT pros, only get to work with the GUI. That's why you can't take functionality away, that's why you can't keep rising the system requirements. KDE has made the same mistakes Gnome Shell is making now, with KDE4. They also kept it alive for way too long. But then they understood, and they made KDE Plasma 5, and that's not only the DE with the most functionality and the most customizability (it's perfectly possible to make it look and behave like Unity or Gnome or anything else), but it's also the full featured graphical DE with the lowest system requirements, as a full blown full functionality KDE Plasma 5 will clock in at under half a Gig of RAM, and will be snappy and smooth. Gnome should have to do something like that, a total redesign of gtk, but RedHat has completely different priorities, and they don't care about anything else than to have a technical system that only authorised support contractors can service, and to not supply a universal management tool of any kind for free. SuSE has Yast, Mageia/Rosa have their versions of Mandrake Control Center, even MS has standard GUI config tools... RedHat has other visions, they want to sell the RHEL Management Console, and cut that functionality from the client machines. Canonical did the same with Ubuntu. It did also work for them like it works for RedHat.
