Good god that's a frustrating UI. Am i blind or is there no meaningful way to find a company you're interested in? Ie, a search.
I used the alphabetical list, but scrolling through what seems like thousands of companies is a bit asinine. What am i missing?
edit: This is bothering me more than it should, so i figured i would try to automate scrolling to the bottom of the page so i can try and find the company i wanted. Once opened devtools, i saw it making requests to an API, looks like i was on page 30:
Sorry, not trying to be harsh. If we have the ability to manually paginage, that would be enough. As it is, it would take me a long time (30m? no idea, honestly) to get to the bottom request on my trackpad.
I want to use the service, but seeing as i can only view the first dozen pages or so with any sanity, it basically makes it impossible.
I think the right answer would be to force reboots at the right time, but - and this is the technical challenge - ensure that you can bring the users environment mostly (almost entirely) back to normal. Eg, store memory states, bring everything that the user wants back as it was before the reboot.
That's likely a pipe dream, as apps do a bunch of complicated things - but it seems like a merger of security and UX. I'm not saying it's possible.. just that it seems like the best compromise.
Hate? Everyone i know loves slack. I love slack. I've used it for my last two companies for (~many) years now. That doesn't make it innovative though, imo.
I can't think of a single feature they've done that is innovative. Attaching a file to a message?. Searching history? These aren't new or special in any way shape or form.
What slack did far more than UI, was UX. Top to bottom, it's a very nice UX. It's why i love Slack.
There's no hate coming from me - i'm just a realist. Slack didn't do anything amazing. It just did things right. Which is unfortunate for all of us users, as it took so many years to do things right. Unfortunately for slack though, they showed what is a good UX.. how hard do you think it is to copy that UX? Not easy, sure, but the template is there. Spend some time copying Slack, and i think you can manage to make Slack.Clone.
It sounds a lot like all the people that bash StackOverflow - "It's just posts and a voting system, I could write that in a week!", ignoring all the complexity and design behind it, operating at scale and cultivating the environment.
If people need something to be 'amazing' not to put it down, and 'amazing' doesn't include doing the right things to be highly successful...
Microsoft has a well regarded developer network and Q&A system regarding Microsoft technologies, at least in my (limited to primarily Azure) experience.
Similarly, Microsoft has already operated a widely used integrated chat, profile, and community system at scale. Given their recent pushes, it wouldn't be entirely surprising for them to bring back similar platforms for business users integrated with LinkedIn.
That would eat a lot of Slack's potential big clients, because MS has a history of enterprise grade support on products like that, and Slack has scale issues for large orgs.
Does Slack even allow on-premise installs yet? That instantly disqualified them from the last 3 jobs I've had. (All of which had data protection issues that prevented them from using off-premises IM systems, mostly HIPAA regulations.) Microsoft's got that market already sewn-up, right out of the gate.
As far as I'm aware Slack does not offer on-premise installs. (On-premise in this case could mean running in my own account at a cloud service provider) It's unfortunate because I'd love to adopt them as well at my current company, but it will be very difficult to achieve if the only option is to become yet another tenant of some large multi-tenant infrastructure.
Microsoft will quickly take over this market if they offer an easy-to-manage on-prem solution that's integrated with the company directory, as it seems they've done. Plenty of firms already have Exchange and ActiveDirectory and Skype for Business.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Microsoft Team doesn't currently have a self-hosted option. I hope it's in the pipeline because my company can't use an offsite IM service. It would be nice if Microsoft added support and then Slack followed. Competition is good!
There is also Matrix (matrix.org), an open standard for decentralized communications. Our goal is to let all apps talk to each other - including Slack, Mattermost, and Microsoft Teams!
For enterprise companies that already use a lot of MS services, and which have tight security policies on what software can be used/licensed/installed, an MS Slack clone could be a wonderful thing for employees.
Having worked for a company with security concerns and tightly coupled to Microsoft, Lynx fucking sucks and a MS Slack alternative would have made my short time there much more bearable.
I think you are interpreting the rhetoric as "Slack is not innovative, therefore it is not praiseworthy."
The claim is something else entirely: "Slack is not innovative, therefore it is not immune to competition."
There isn't any value judgment with the second claim. "didn't do anything amazing" is a statement of fact, not a put down. It's not somehow morally bad to do nothing amazing! If anything, it's morally good. There's no sense wasting time building amazing technological breakthroughs when the problem space doesn't need it, and just needs someone to execute well on boring problems. (Slack is particularly good at recognizing this and just getting the job done; see also their tech stack running on PHP.)
Stack overflow was hugely popular before their draconian moderation. And I use it less because of it. The most valuable questions I have as a developer are things like "what are they trade offs between using system.js or webpack". "How should I use flux Or redux to get the most benefit?" Or "how does the js build ecosystem work". These are much more valuable in my opinion then "I got error 4602 how do I solve it?".
I enjoy using Slack. There were a lot of nuances that together adds up into substantial improvements over Hipchat or IRC.
I am also a remote software engineer who have been working on distributed teams for the past 8 years. I've tried a bunch of different things to collaborate remotely, including IRC. Your mileage may vary.
Wasn't a downside to IRC so much as there are UI/UX stuff in Slack that helps a lot. These are small things that seems obvious now, but they help with communication.
I've been working on applying the theory of Kanban starting from first principle: "Make work visible." Visibility helps develop trust. Slacks helps with signaling a lot, and there are obviously a lot of thought put into the design.
Some examples:
1. URL for every message. I can paste that URL into Github PRs or Jira to reference a conversation where people talk through something.
2. Cross-device notifications and fallbacks, and other controls such as Do Not Disturb, etc. This allows me to control heads-down coding vs. when people needs help.
3. Notification integration helps. I know there are IRC bots that can do that, but how well you can just click through things depends upon the IRC client you choose. Being able to see a log of say, Github and Jira (usually in a separate channel) helps stay in the loop. The same with when adding CI/CD notifications.
4. Starring messages helps me manage time. I don't read everything people send over the chat. I certainly do NOT try replacing person-to-person contact with Slack (or IRC or HipChat). Sometimes I'll star something I want to read later (which may or may not happen).
5. URLs posted often have previews, which also helps with managing whether I go read it or not.
I'm sure these things can be done with IRC, and Hipchat probably copied over some of these ideas. Mattermost has certainly cloned the important stuff. By no means am I saying any of this seem earth-shattering innovative, but it is clear to me that Slack was designed around remote working, and it works well.
To keep things in perspective too: before Gmail, I used to run my own web server and used terminal-based apps for that. I don't do that anymore because it was easier to just dump things in Gmail and then search for things I need. I'm still keeping my tmux+emacs setup though -- maybe I'm missing out with web-based development.
So yeah, Slack is a great tool, and it works well with what I do. If you don't use it with discipline, or you have not developed much of a philosophy on how this all works together, it's not going to work well. You won't have a philosophical framework in which to curate or vet what you want in your life or attention-space.
i agree, the search and history are its achilles' heel right now. i still cut and paste important stuff out of slack into a big notes text file because i know it will be a shitty experience finding it later.
Marketing yeah. They weren't the first to do the obvious "make IRC in the cloud with persistent storage and notifications/app/etc." I had been waiting for, just the first I heard of.
Do you have any other issues, just curious or is their search algorithm enough to make the Slack platform a net bad UX?
So what? you don't have to innovate to be a success, that's where a lot of HNers get stuck imo.
Sure, i'm not calling Slack amazing - but i very clearly said i use slack, love it, pay for it and recommend it. I used Dropbox too.
I don't think anyone here is claiming Slack isn't a massive success. Nor that the product is any less great because it's not innovative. A comment like:
> This time we are saying this after Slack has already established itself. :-]
seems to suggest "we" are somehow wrong.. but i'm not sure where. Is my above statement somehow wrong? Or are you simply linking success and innovation where as i am not?
The general response in the thread was hoping that Slack would get gutted and dismissing it as trivial. Not being 'innovative' isn't a sin. Thinking there is nothing to learn from slack sounds like a mistaking to me.
But MS already operated a widely used webchat, profile, and community network, before social networks were a thing. As usual, MS did a meh implementation ahead of the market, got scooped by a bunch of slick implementations, and will come back a few years later with a relatively solid enterprise offering.
MS is going to bundle LinkedIn with a Slack-clone tied to their CMS and AI chat systems, and provide an easy-to-scale-in-private-cloud platform to enterprise. Part of their Azure smart services.
That's all people mean: Slack did a pretty good job, but it's very similar to stuff MS has done before, and there's not really a secret sauce trench. So MS will probably be able to win a lot of the enterprise market.
I have the feeling doing Dropbox right is a lot more difficult than doing Slack right. I still use Dropbox because somehow Drive and iCloud still don't work quite as nicely as Dropbox does. But I might be wrong; I've never built chat or file-sync apps.
We're actually investigating switching over to an XMPP server and completely ditching slack. No-one in the company uses it, no-one likes using it and XMPP just seems to work.
I wasn't a pro about it, but I set up and ran our XMPP at a previous company. What I saw as a real problem was a split between clients, servers, modules over the protocol, so it definitely wasn't painless in what functionality worked between one server, modules, a client and inevitably someone choosing a different client. You might do it better than me and it ends up working great for you, or it's gotten better in the last few years since I tried it, but if my experiences are any indication I wouldn't recommend that route. YMMV.
But if you don't like Slack, I'm guessing Mattermost is out of the question as well. I'm still using IRC in a lot of places which "just works", but obviously that is missing a lot of features and fluff of newer technologies, even if some can be retrofitted in.
Please et me know what you decide and your success since it's still relevant for me in a couple of places.
Both Slack and Dropbox are simple ideas, executed extremely well. I see that for both of them the challenge is there's quite many customers who don't demand the best execution, but can settle for not-so-good-but-a-bit-cheaper alternative.
Both companies can probably make well enough money to survive and achieve growth, but maybe not such an exponential growth the investors where expecting.
After having read http://www.asymco.com/2014/04/16/innoveracy-misunderstanding... I think that people often misuse the term innovation. From my understanding Slack is innovative, precisely because it is useful. Its novelty is not in features but in the delivery. Yes IRC had all the features but it is hardly something one can recommend. Slack made the long process of setting up a server, shell/bouncer, dcc a matter of a few clicks. On top of that they provide a unique client for everybody which means that everybody sees the same thing. Throw in the integrations and you have a very compelling package. The features one by one are not new or revolutionary, but they were the first to push the whole deal out.
Plus, Microsoft can throw engineering power at integrating their 'clone' with all their other tools. While I can't seem myself buying into their ecosystem anytime soon, that's a huge advantage that will be hard for Slack to compete with.
I'd imaginethe developers of the products integrating their own things into Slack would give more and better thingts than Microsoft integrating other products into their things. We'll have to see if people start shifting where they integrate.
> Top to bottom, it's a very nice UX. It's why i love Slack.
I wouldn't even credit them with that. 20 minutes ago I yet again pressed up-arrow to scroll up one line to see a message off the top of the page and yet again it dropped me into an editing prompt for my last message. What?
And then there's the click-click-click of jumping between channels to see the latest messages, instead of having some form of summary.
In my experience people tolerate the UI of Slack, they don't praise it.
For a year or so I smoked casually when i was a teen in the 90s (to look cool) with intermittent bouts of heavy smoking over days at friends homes/etc. Probably average ~1-2 packs a week. One day i just got bored and stopped. Never felt any withdrawal signs.
I'm not countering your point of it being addictive. I was so, so so lucky not to have been hooked by that at all. I don't know if i just didn't smoke enough, or what... but it's one of the few points in my life i feel like i made the right choice.
Weirder yet, it wasn't even a choice.. i just sort of stopped.
Fwiw, i sort of like that. I understand it really sucks not being able to replace chips, especially something as simple as adding RAM, but i've not really seen a super compact laptop also allow me to replace RAM easily. My Macbook Pro Retina is quite compact, and it's proven to be a really important trait.
If someone makes them as compact and replaceable i'm on board, i just haven't seen it. Not saying it's not possible of course :)
I personally value far more the possibility to easily replace hw (battery for sure, cpu, ram, and ssd at minimum, but even looking also for screen, keyboard and wlan cards). For me is a good compromise in exchange of even 1-2 cm more in thickness.
Just recently I was looking for a new laptop and ended up buying a refurbished thinkpad t430 (270e with 8gb [gonna become 16] ram, ssd and i5 3rd gen)just because I am sure I can change basically every part of it whenever I want for a low price.
One nice thing though is that the "Pro" market for developers is mainly centered around Unix, not OSX. Sure, some devs might like OSX specific tools like a GUI for Git or some such.. but at its heart, most tools are Unix oriented, with plenty of crossover between OSX and Linux.
Sidenote, that is indeed a pretty app! If i was sure i was staying on OSX (probably migrating to Linux), i'd purchase this! Shame i never found it sooner. I use a combination of Todoist and a Pomodoro timer on my phone.
I mean, sure - the design is pretty, but OSX has been terrible for me quality wise. I know what you mean about pretty, but currently i'm feeling like i need to pick between pretty (OSX) and stable (Linux).
Worse yet, is if i pick a stable variety of Linux, it's likely to not be pretty. The pretty Linux OSs (in my experience) tend to be at least as unstable as OSX. Ugh.
(Note: I upgraded to Sierra, crash or have weird crap happen ~4times a week)
edit: Why the downvote? Note that i explicitly stated this was my experience. Furthermore, i had the same experience when my Macbook Pro Retina was new, and came with OSX Mavericks. Both Mavericks and Sierra have gave me the impression that Apple releases unstable OSs for major versions, and need time to make it stable again.
Clearly something, but no idea what. I only use a small number of apps (iterm2, neovim, chrome, spotify, etc). Spend most of my day in iterm2, and avoid using new programs because i prefer cli programs.
Not sure about the last crash reports (the os froze until i force restarted it), but other weirdness are things like the keyboard going apeshit. Spazzing out like a variety of buttons are being held down. That's happened 3 times since updating, never before. Another one is all input not working, etc. Both keyboard/pad related though, i assume there's a wonky driver in Sierra but i haven't researched it (and frankly don't want to atm).
I'm not complaining/etc, just saying i'm not getting a crash report on the last two items - and i'm unsure about if i received one the times the OS actually crashed.
I really wish someone would start a paid OS based on Linux and OSS tools. I'd happily pay $100/y (year being, new versions/etc) for a stable and awesome UI/UX.
As it is, my Macbook Pro Retina has been crashing a lot and doing weird things frequently since i upgraded to Sierra. Between that and the latest Macbook Pro notebooks, i just don't like Apple anymore. I'm pretty set on buying a highend laptop _(similar build quality to Apple)_ and putting Linux on it... but that's where the fun stops. Linux UIs tend to lag behind significantly.
I want a for-profit UI company working on a Linux UI. OSS just can't compete with Apple on design it seems.. and in my opinion, users shouldn't have to choose between OSS and pretty design.
It's bad enough that if/when i leave OSX, i lose a lot of my apps due to them not supporting (or not supporting competently) Linux, but losing apps and UX.. well, it's a tough pill to swallow.
You just described elementary (fwiw, it is a for-profit LLC).
I think you're massively underestimating the magnitude and difficulty of what you're seeking. elementary has been at this for 5 years and made an immense amount of progress, though. But it's definitely still not at the level of Apple, which has had decades and billions of dollars poured into this.
It's not a "paid OS" in that it doesn't force you to pay a particular dollar amount, though. (People tend to lose their minds when you charge them for open-source software.)
I think this is one big problem with the OSS community: there is no concept of 'value'.
People complain about iOS' race to the bottom, but in the OSS community, I frel like this has been there for a long time. "You want to _charge me for it_ ?! Pffft!"
We may complain about macOS now with Sierra but for thr most part, macOS has been stable for a long time. I haven't seen a kernel panic in probably a decade. Not saying it's perfect, but there's a point you hit when people are paid to make things happen and macOS hit that point yeats ago.
I would argue Elementary provides a lot of value and should therefore weed out the complainers and worst of the bunch by charging. I would remove the 'pay what you want' and just charge $30 or $40.
We don't live in the Star Trek universe yet, so people still need money to live. I fully believe in and support companies, individuals, and groups that provide a good value for what they charge.
I _want_ those people making great things and doing it full time. Otherwise, you just get abandonware or crappy products where people don't fix bugs because they have a day job to deal with. That's the reality in my mind.
Ironically, Elementary might have an easier time charging money for it if they positioned it less as an open source project. macOS is built largely atop open source software, and while they do make the GPL'd sources available for download they're not nearly enough to compile an OS with an experience approaching macOS.
I can throw $XX at a linux distro, pray that it goes to the right things and gets improved proper, and then wait until it becomes good, or I could throw $XX at a closed source solution, and have something that works good right now.
Its all fine to donate $XX, but buying for $XX to get something significantly worse than its competitors is a bit weird, and can only really be justified through "I support free software even if it has binary blobs", which is still a bit weird
I believe elementary OS is the closest thing to what you're looking for. They're an LLC with the team that focuses on building a good looking UI and a nice UX. Pantheon is the only desktop environment which I wouldn't call outdated in the Linux world and somewhat stable and easy to get (Solus project is attempting to do the same, but I think they just don't have enough man power to pull it off).
I wish them the best of luck but recall Eazel (?) attempting to do this with Gnome back in the day and ended up folding as not enough people were willing to pay.
I agree, been using mint linux (Debian based, borrows some "just works" stuff from Ubuntu) plus the Cinnamon Desktop, is a dream, on high end hardware or not. I will concede though, most people coming from iOS/Mac will want something tailored and curated for them, even though *nix offers unlimited possibilities in customization and software.
I'm right there with you. The only thing that keeps me on a Mac is the combination of Unix + Half decent UX. If someone built a paid Unix/Linux distro that could run Mac Apps, I'd give away my extra kidney for it.
Windows almost has me sold with their new Ubuntu subsystem.
I've come to a conclusion that if you have high standards, you can't look to other people for happiness. Even if I had a dream system for a while, at some point they'd follow a new trend that annoyed me and I'd feel left out again. Or they'd fail to follow a trend, and I'd complain that they'd fallen behind.
I've been orphaned from several platforms. OSX surprised me. It appeared to be the dream commodity unix. But then a release broke my workspace usage.
Eventually, I completely switched to a stripped-down unix. I use a bash menu for controlling things like wireless and screen lock. Tmux/dwm are my window managers, I use whatever the latest browser is.
All this required effort to learn and set up. People who look to the big companies for fashion would sneer at this. But it's a sharp tool, and it'll never be made obsolete by shifting trends.
I gave that up in 10 minutes. I really tried spinning up a basic docker project (docker compose) without luck. Sure, having a bash is a step forward and I see it getting better but it's no way near to a developer's basic needs.
It works tolerably well, but the hyper-v thing that it runs on is currently my #1 suspect when Windows takes > 30 seconds to connect to any network :-/
> Is that not what Red Hat is? I thought that's what the Red Hat license provided?
I won't say anything bad about Red Hat, but calling the UX awesome isn't something I would do based on my experience. Then again, they might have changed but I haven't heard anybody mentioning it.
(This used to be Canonicals niche before they picked up the assumption that Mac-like == Good ; )
I may have skipped over the awesome UX. More of the stable and paid dev work.
I'll agree most UX on Linux isn't great. But GUI is such a pain in the ass that most people really don't want to work on it. Plus, plenty of Linux users aren't casual users and will accept or prefer function over form.
I myself am a heavy terminal user and pretty much limit my GUI use to the occasional image editor and the browser.
Fedora is ahead of RedHat server, kernel and package-wise. That's the point: pish the edge with the desktop, keep the server conservative and very stable.
RedHat makes their money on support licensing for the server. Employees are paid to work on Fedora, but it is not the RedHat product.
That's really sad to hear.. if you think the GNOME 3 UI is buggy, childish, opinionated, and hard to customize (I've yet to get a downloaded theme to work right the first time) Fedora is a non-starter.
Which is really too bad. It's the only RPM distro I've seen that's reasonably well put together.
Probably nothing that can't be easily dismissed as personal preference. I recall YaST had a bad habit of unnecessarily cycling network interfaces when certain changes were made, but that was a long while ago.
Awesome UI/UX is where everything falls apart. Everyone wants something different and just about everything beyond a rectangle with a few handy buttons on it actually slows productivity. Nothing's worse than waiting for an animation to complete so you can click a button you have to click 100 more times today. On top of that, people get bored really fast and then everything has to be overhauled for absolutely 0 gain.
I'm a KDE user / occasional contributor. I love the new Breeze theming and all the effort that went into the icon set along with it. I've used Macs in the past, and find the UI garish and much more intuitive, and way less customizable.
It is definitely a case of "to each their own", but the only issue with KDE right now is developer churn. As the writers and more experienced developers in some applications reduce their participation due to time constraints, it is incredibly hard for anyone to step into those shoes in often millions of LOCs code bases. A lot of UI rot isn't because we don't have technologies (Kirigami, Qt Quick Controls 2, Plasmoids, etc) that enable fantastic UI and UX experiences, it is because porting forward hundreds of applications comes down to who has the time and willpower to either continue maintaining their 10 year old project or someone having the willpower to learn what can often be very ugly C++ or ancient PyQt codebases.
I also have no problem with what Gnome is doing. Their applications may not be for me, but I can recognize the beauty in what they are trying to accomplish, and still think they have a much better design language than anything MS / Apple is putting out. Whenever I sit down at OSX / Windows I feel like both are stuck in the 90s, often because half their applications (especially system management) were written then and never updated since, and because they just make random UI splits every release to look shiny and new by just changing the shell look and keeping the rest jarringly legacy.
It's all subjective but I find that KDE apps need a lot of work in terms of control flow, UI hierarchy, white space usage. To me, these are some of the things that macOS and most third party applications for it get very much right, and coming from it KDE feels... jarring. In some ways it feels modern but in others I feel like I'm using Win9x, complete with overcrowded windows and dialog tunnels, with a new coat of paint. It would greatly benefit from someone sitting down and giving it all a rethink.
GNOME sits on the other side of the spectrum on these issues but I personally find it and in fact most GTK+ apps more aesthetically pleasing and more well organized even if all the buttons are too huge and its white space is like a football field.
> I'd happily pay $100/y (year being, new versions/etc) for a stable and awesome UI/UX.
The problem is that many people have differing ideas of what the UI/UX would look like.
If you asked me to provide such a thing I'd just use Debian. Others might prefer RedHat, or similar. But copying an existing distribution, and keeping up to date with new versions would be a full-time job in itself, and that wouldn't leave any room for actual development.
The GNOME project, and KDE project for that matter, have spent years creating a unified environment, and even with their funds and developers the project is never-ending.
I wouldn't say a minimal & unified distribution is impossible, but it would require a lot more users to pay, up-front.
You can always pay for Ubuntu. BTW, that is probably the one closest to what you're describing, not elementary, but they have a tendency to focus in fixing not the broken things.
As a daily Linux user I feel your pain, but have you considered Windows 10 with their Ubuntu coop install? I'm seriously considering it for user-space apps.
>I'd happily pay $100/y (year being, new versions/etc) for a stable and awesome UI/UX.
Good luck with that. The problem is that no one will make a UI/UX that's both awesome and stable. It's not like the resources aren't there: there's a ton of DEs for Linux, and they've been working on them for 20 years now. But the problem is they can't ever agree on anything, and they can't ever just leave well enough alone: every time they get something stable, they abandon it and make up something completely new and unstable. It's easily the 2nd biggest hindrance to Linux-on-the-desktop adoption (the biggest of course being application compatibility/inertia with Windows).
>but that's where the fun stops. Linux UIs tend to lag behind significantly.
That's the Linux community's fault. It's not the features that lag, either; KDE, feature-wise, has always been far ahead of the commercial UIs. For one simple example, I can't middle-click and vertically maximize a window on any other DE that I know of, but in KDE that's been a standard feature for at least 15 years. For another simple example, multiple desktops have been standard on Unix UIs for over 30 years, but never in Windows or Mac. The problem with Linux UIs isn't design, it's stability: everyone's constantly revamping stuff (Gnome3, KDE4, KDE5, etc.) and never spending any time fixing bugs. For instance, I have the Dvorak keyboard set on my LM17.3/KDE desktop, but several KDE apps don't respect that and go back to Qwerty. (To be fair, Windows is even worse: I have my work Win7 desktop set so I can switch between Qwerty and Dvorak, and the stupid thing is constantly switching back and forth randomly.)
Totally agree with this. Except, I've never liked the KDE look and feel. It's like the worst glossy cartoon ui ever. Yuk. To be fair, I haven't looked at it recently, so the gloss might have been toned down or removed.
But to your point of bug fixing, I absolutely agree. macOS is plagued by this as well, but mot to the degree Linux DE's are.
I've used multiple desktops since the 90's and loved it. macOS has had support for a while, but the animation switching from desktop to desktop was horrendous. I got a utility to fix that, but it's a joke they don't just include a checkbox to toggle the animations. This is one huge UX fail in my mind.
KDE's changed its look, but more importantly, it's not set in stone: it's entirely possible to change its settings and theme. It's the most configurable DE out there.
I really wonder sometimes why distros don't use it more, and make their own custom themes for it, instead of just leaving it at the default. It wouldn't take that much work to make themes to make it look almost like anything you want. Or you could even make a different version of Plasma which emulates some other OS/DE if you needed to, leaving all the underpinnings intact.
I used the alphabetical list, but scrolling through what seems like thousands of companies is a bit asinine. What am i missing?
edit: This is bothering me more than it should, so i figured i would try to automate scrolling to the bottom of the page so i can try and find the company i wanted. Once opened devtools, i saw it making requests to an API, looks like i was on page 30:
So, i just started poking around the pages of that list. With that said... it seems to stop at page 79. Eg: That works... but this: Does not. It looks like page 79 is on the Cs of the A-Z listing.. hmm