R.L. Dane :Debian: :OpenBSD: 🍵 :MiraLovesYou:<p>If not for security implications, I'd almost rather use a 2010 version of a linux desktop and add on the one or two components (like Rofi) that would make it <strong>perfect</strong>, than constantly have to scale back the stupid design ideas on modern desktops.</p><p>Even my beloved <a href="https://polymaths.social/tags/kde" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>KDE</span></a> <a href="https://polymaths.social/tags/plasma" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Plasma</span></a> requires tweaking, particularly restoring the scroll bar buttons (yes, they're occasionally useful, no I don't use a trackpad or trackpoint most of the time), and <em>especially</em> restoring proper contrast between active and inactive window titlebars.</p><p>Go look at Apple Lisa and Macintosh titlebars from 1983/4 before you try to tell me that light gray vs dark gray is the way to go for that. Yes, I know those were monochrome systems, the point is that they made the difference very glaring, even when screens were so much smaller.</p><p>The modern design choice of having active and inactive window titlebars look almost identical is freaking braindead and I will absolutely die on this hill.</p><p>P.S. I've literally compared modern Ubuntu Mate and Ubuntu 2010.something in VMs side-by-side, and I actually liked old Gnome 2.x over modern Mate. Other than the clunky application launcher menu, everything was just more visually clear, contrasty, easier to use and easier to read.</p>