I think that’s the perfect choice of distinguishing phrases.
KDE is very customizable (perhaps too much for more casual users) while Gnome is hackable with the extension system - but it will always feel a little more tacked on, be a little less stable, prone to upgrade breakage, etc.
As a corollary to OPs argument, there’s also a reason Niri and Cosmos didn’t stay Gnome extensions.
(But at the end of the day, if the Gnome experience niche works for you, more power to you.)
Customisable isn’t an adjective I’d use for gnome. It might be more hackable but UX customization is broken in Gnome.
I think that’s the perfect choice of distinguishing phrases.
KDE is very customizable (perhaps too much for more casual users) while Gnome is hackable with the extension system - but it will always feel a little more tacked on, be a little less stable, prone to upgrade breakage, etc.
As a corollary to OPs argument, there’s also a reason Niri and Cosmos didn’t stay Gnome extensions.
(But at the end of the day, if the Gnome experience niche works for you, more power to you.)
Or as Gnome devs say: you don’t need that power. Use a config file or install extensions or install gnome tweaks to increase that power