• PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago
    • Plasma is more similar to Windows
    • Plasma is more customizable
    • Plasma is just as beginner-friendly
    • Plasma has more features
    • Plasma is more actively developed
    • Plasma looks better

    Don’t get me wrong, Cinnamon is fine, but it gets recommended religiously to beginners for some reason. It just doesn’t make sense, so I will keep repeating this, not least to keep alive the ancient linux tradition of Desktop wars.

    Still, any Windows to Linux transition is a step forward and I support this, upvoted.

    • Karu 🐲@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 hours ago

      As someone who has extensively used both Cinnamon and Plasma: I find Plasma a lot less polished, by a huge margin. Not only do settings have unusual defaults and are located in places you wouldn’t expect, it also often has desktop-breaking bugs out of nowhere even in stable versions, and this has only gotten worse with Wayland. Even as someone who has been using Arch for years now, I still struggle with getting Plasma to not shit itself every once in a while.

      Cinnamon on the other hand does have a lot less features out of the box, but the few things it does, it does them well, and every setting is where a sane person would search for them.

      I would not recommend Plasma to a Linux beginner at all. It’s the kind of unpolished mess that would make anyone who doesn’t care enough about computers to just give up and go back to Windows.

      • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Hm thanks for sharing your experience, it’s very different from mine though. Have you used Plasma recently (Version 6+) ? And have you used it on a distro where it came pre-packaged? In my (limited) experience any DE installed on Arch is janky out of the box.