OPINIONS NEEDED: Why don't you use KDE?

[Gotaro]

I'm sort of konfused (lol), about why more people don't use KDE, and specifically, why they choose Gnome over KDE. I want to use Gnome, but I don't want to give up my transparent, Arezzo-themed panel.. Can I achieve this in Gnome?

[billgoldberg]

Yes you can, using compiz fusion.

[Gotaro]

Yes you can, using compiz fusion.
Thanks :). Good to know. Do you use Gnome or KDE?

[Firestem4]

Personally I chose to ues KDE because I like the interface a lot more. It has more eye-candy than GNOME, and both GUI's are very good. The other reaosn I chose KDE over GNOME, GNOME reminds me of Mac's. =*(

Plus (even though you you can use just about any program for gnome in KDE and vise versa), I like the native KDE programs more. (And it means less extra depends I need).

[rzrgenesys187]

I used to use KDE for its customization as well as I liked the native applications for it, however I felt the early KDE 4 releases had too many bugs so I went back to gnome and it really doesn't have any disadvantages over KDE so I haven't gone back.

[ridetheteapot]

For some reason gnome is more intuitive for me. I have tried kde and kde4, and I'm always stuck looking for stuff and I get annoyed, so maybe it's just that I'm used to gnome... I used to use enlightenment, but after compiz came around i just went with gnome.

[mcduck]

I like Gnome's way of only showing the relevant settings and things. Most of the time I don't need all the configuration options so why should the UI throw them at me all the time? When I need more advanced settings I can just open gconf-editor and change what I want. Most of the time I just want to get my work done. In other words, less is more. ;)

Besides, I haven't found as single KDE theme I'd like, they all look so cheap and plasticky. Actually I also find Gnome a lot more easy to customize than KDE is. You just need to know where to look for the options. ;)

(I used to like KDE more back in the days when I was at still a student and mainly used Linux to play around. Now that I'm actually earning my living working with computers and using Linux as my primary OS I like Gnome more.)

edit:
for the OP, you can use any picture you want as background for gnome-panel. Transparency works fine as well. Just drag&drop the picture to the panel or configure it in the panel's preferences.

[zero244]

I like gnome for the same reasons as stated above, plus I think its less complicated in its layout.
Less complicated might mean fewer things to go wrong.
Im using Hardy........this version of gnome seems very stable.
KDE is actually better looking out of the box, but with some help from compiz you can make gnome pretty nice as well.
I guess its a matter of preference and what apps you use the most.
Ive had lockup problems with Hardy from day one. Im hoping my last tweak will fix those problems.
If I can eliminate the lockups Hardy is a very good OS.

[nvteighen]

Because KDE is too confusing to me. It has a lot of features all present at once and that's... well.. too much choice.

GNOME doesn't do that, though it makes some configuration a bit more difficult (via text files sometimes).

[oldsoundguy]

I don't like Konquror. Since I transfer from Linux to Windows occasionally, I use Firefox to eliminate confusion errors. I KNOW that FF can now be installed in KDE, but there was a time when it could NOT be installed and you were stuck. Just never went back there because of that.

[kspncr]

I use GNOME because KDE sucks lol.

But seriously, GNOME is more intuitive to me and less buggy.

[LowSky]

I like KDE but for me it doesn't work well on a 37" HDTV. Text was either too small or too big, I could never get it just right. Gnome on the other hand works very well on that large screen size when trying to sit at least 2-3 meters away.

[Therion]

Because KDE is too confusing to me. It has a lot of features all present at once and that's... well.. too much choice.
Agreed, in a way.

I actually do like all the choices that KDE offers, BUT... I'd prefer to be able to "drill down" to those finer adjustments when I want or need to.

It seems just about any routine adjustment, to an installed theme for just one example, presents me with KDE's "Infinite Shader Palette Selection Tool" created by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation - and all of its 2.5 million possible color selections - when all I want to do is go from red to blue.

[donkyhotay]

I like gnome because it's a balance between the simplicity of xfce with the features of KDE. In my opinion KDE is too bloated, while xfce/fluxbox are too minimal. Personally though arguing whether KDE or gnome is better like arguing whether fedora is better then arch. They're just two different ways of doing the same thing. Use the one that works best for you and enjoy it. The biggest advantage of open source software is your ability to customize and choose what you want rather then having everything shoved down your throat whether you want it or not.

[smartboyathome]

I don't use KDE because it doesn't have a good bloat vs. eye candy ratio, imo. Neither does GNOME, actually. Instead, I like to use E17 on my Arch setup, as it gives me lightweight eyecandy. ;)

[Allegretto]

I've always found KDE buggy and confusing. GNOME seems far more intuitive in how it's laid out, and I prefer the look of it anyway (especially the font smoothing, which doesn't look good in KDE). I've given KDE several chances to convince me otherwise, but I always end up back with GNOME.

[cmay]

i just dont gt the trolltech libraries license. i go with gnome as it is default on debian and ubuntu and now i started to use openbox more and more. when i started out using linux the first year i used kde. when i read something about kde being free and still some parts of the libraries used in kde had some sort of commercial background or relations i just started using gnome always. i never really understood the article about the kde license anyway.

[nvteighen]

i just dont gt the trolltech libraries license.

KDE is GPL. Qt is proprietary only if you pay for it, something the KDE developers haven't done. It's 100% FOSS like GNOME (btw, GTK+ is LGPL, so it can be used in proprietary software).

It's curious: I like GNOME because it's closer to Mac... :p (without being Mac)

[ridetheteapot]

KDE is GPL. Qt is proprietary only if you pay for it, something the KDE developers haven't done. It's 100% FOSS like GNOME (btw, GTK+ is LGPL, so it can be used in proprietary software).

It's curious: I like GNOME because it's closer to Mac... :p (without being Mac)

QT is now controlled by nokia, and qt4.5 is going to by under lgpl.

even though i'm a gnomer, sometimes i get jealous of the great apps that are written for qt/kde.... :)

[jenkinbr]

Not to offend anybody, but...

KDE Knaming Ksucks!

I know GNOME does similar, but it is not as widespread and annoying as the friggin K at the beginning of ever app's name.

there's other reasons, too.

[cariboo907]

I find KDE to busy, there is to much on screen and need a roadmap to navigate the menus. I like a nice clean desktop witn nothing on it. See screenshot.

Jim

[jrusso2]

i just dont gt the trolltech libraries license. i go with gnome as it is default on debian and ubuntu and now i started to use openbox more and more. when i started out using linux the first year i used kde. when i read something about kde being free and still some parts of the libraries used in kde had some sort of commercial background or relations i just started using gnome always. i never really understood the article about the kde license anyway.

What don't you get about the license its LGPL just like Gnome.

[jrusso2]

Basically Gnome is for people that want things very simple and laid out for them. KDE is for people who want a lot of configuration options and don't like to be stuck with a simple way cause that's what the developers wanted.

I tried many times to use Gnome since it was new even but always come back to KDE cause nautilus is just terrible and things crash often and the lack of configuration options.

[Tibuda]

@jrusso: Back to KDE because of Nautilus? There are many file managers out there.

On topic: my first Linux experience was with KDE, and I never liked it because of everything people already talked: bloated settings, bloated applications. When I first used Gnome, everything was so intuitive... I tried xfce once, but I didn't notice performance improvement, so I'm still using Gnome. And I'm not jealous of bloated Qt applications, as I can use them. I just choose not to use them because I have better Gtk+ options.

[MarblePanther]

I like Gnome's way of only showing the relevant settings and things. Most of the time I don't need all the configuration options so why should the UI throw them at me all the time? When I need more advanced settings I can just open gconf-editor and change what I want. Most of the time I just want to get my work done. In other words, less is more. ;)

Besides, I haven't found as single KDE theme I'd like, they all look so cheap and plasticky. Actually I also find Gnome a lot more easy to customize than KDE is. You just need to know where to look for the options. ;)

(I used to like KDE more back in the days when I was at still a student and mainly used Linux to play around. Now that I'm actually earning my living working with computers and using Linux as my primary OS I like Gnome more.)

edit:
for the OP, you can use any picture you want as background for gnome-panel. Transparency works fine as well. Just drag&drop the picture to the panel or configure it in the panel's preferences.

+1 :popcorn:

[carml]

I tried once KDE,but I found it confusing and too Windows like,so I use Gnome and if I want I use applications with a K at the beginning :popcorn:

[Rokurosv]

I like KDE 4, and I used to hate KDE 3, the default themes where ugly and I always felt the GTK apps where superior. Now with KDE 4 I feel right at home, although sometimes I use Stumpwm or Awesome just to try something different.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Yes you can, using compiz fusion.

heck transparent BG's in gnome panel are there without the use of compiz...

[mcduck]

Basically Gnome is for people that want things very simple and laid out for them. KDE is for people who want a lot of configuration options and don't like to be stuck with a simple way cause that's what the developers wanted.

I tried many times to use Gnome since it was new even but always come back to KDE cause nautilus is just terrible and things crash often and the lack of configuration options.

Like I said, Gnome has almost as many configuration options as KDE does. It's just that they are not in the menus so you they don't get in the way in everyday usage, but instead you need to know where to look for the extra options (gconf-editor, most of the time ;))

So you could say that KDE is easier to configure for beginners, while customizing Gnome requires bit more skills. Neither one of them forces you to use them like the developers wanted.

Although I do agree that Gnome's features could be better documented somewhere, for example until yesterday I didn't even know Gnome can do animated wallpapers.. :o

[N4zgu1]

I am a Gnome user but now I am starting to try KDE with slax on my usb.

But I dont know how to connect the internet

Besides that i think that kde kontains too many k on its applikations names, and i dont like that

[Frak]

I don't use KDE because it clogs up the interface and menus with useless entries (well, useless in my view). Why do I need 4 seperate option menu's for 3 other apps I'm not even actively using?

[MikeTheC]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/B5_sheridan.jpg

Why don't I use KDE, Mister Gotaro? Well, how would you like it: Polite, or straight up?

[karellen]

I do

[cariboo907]

@MikeTheC

Your picture is kind of appropriate as I am in the midst of a B5 marathon, just started watching season tonight 4

Back on topic, I started using KDE around 2.54 and had used it up until I started using Ubuntu. Gnome just suits me better.

Jim

[MikeTheC]

@MikeTheC

Your picture is kind of appropriate as I am in the midst of a B5 marathon, just started watching season tonight 4

Back on topic, I started using KDE around 2.54 and had used it up until I started using Ubuntu. Gnome just suits me better.

Jim

Alright, and if you can tell me from what episode I appropriated that bit of dialog, I'll give you an extra ten intergalactic credits....


Ok, I'm assuming you want it "straight". So, here it goes...

KDE is and always has been ponderously complicated and convoluted, and typically involves far more menu navigation (as an example) to get to what you're interested in. Also, in later iterations, they've been trying to make it much more Windows-ish. Additionally, it runs slower and I find it has a tendency to become somewhat unresponsive.

I don't like Windows. I haven't liked Windows since Microsoft started putting it out, and I don't like it now. Given that KDE is known for kind of deliberately following in many of their UI guideline footsteps, why would I want to use it?

Gnome is far moe Mac-like. I find it well implemented, well executed, simple and elegant. It behaves the way I would desire an desktop environment to behave.

[Wv0wvw88wvw0vW]

I use GNOME because OpenSolaris doesn't ship in any other desktop environment and I don't want to mess around with it, and screw anything up :P

If I were using Linux... I'd choose XFCE. I'd understand why someone would choose GNOME over KDE though, it's more simplified, tasteful, everything is in a proper size (not Macifyed) etc... No offense... On the plus side KDE is far more stable, never crashed on me, easier to manage, and the eye candy is a lot better.

[mips]

I find KDE to busy, there is to much on screen and need a roadmap to navigate the menus. I like a nice clean desktop witn nothing on it. See screenshot.

Jim


rotflmao. The desktop is as busy as you choose it to be. Your desktop with it's two panels & lots of icons is busier than the default kde4.2 desktop.

Why can people simply not be objective & honest with themselves. Why this fanatical believe in one DE over another and lying to oneself to justify those believes. The same goes for linuxvswindowsvsbsdvsosx etc It's kinda similair to religion and it's stupid to be quite frank.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well I have used both Gnome and KDE and I can say that either one is better then the other.
Both offer much but there are things I dislike about both.
Gnome is very versatile and configurable, it has what is needed for a nice clean modern desktop.
But I wish the gnome configuration center had more of a gui, and I wish that the task manager could go 2 rows so I can eliminate the need of 2 panels.

KDE is very good for those who want a good looking desktop without the fuss, its on the cutting edge with the KDE 4 series that promises to be tghe desktop of the future.
But KDE4 is still very new, with many bugs and I found it to be unstable at times...
Once it gets going I feel KDE4 will probably be my next major desktop, but only the future can tell.

[Twitch6000]

I like any DE as long as it fits with the distro.

I have found that alot of the distros that use .rpms use KDE very well.. OpenSuse 11 and PClinuxOS come to mind.

For good gnome distros, Debain and Linux Mint come to mind.

Then there is even some good XFCE distros in the Debain based side.

Dream Linux and Linux Mint XFCE Community Edition.

[Foster Grant]

KDE is very good for those who want a good looking desktop without the fuss, its on the cutting edge with the KDE 4 series that promises to be tghe desktop of the future.
But KDE4 is still very new, with many bugs and I found it to be unstable at times...
Once it gets going I feel KDE4 will probably be my next major desktop, but only the future can tell.

Most of those bugs are gone with KDE 4.2. Better theme in 4.2 than was in 4.1, as well. The standard theme doesn't look like a Vista-black clone anymore.

Big props to the Kubuntu developers for setting up a PPA (http://www.kubuntu.org/news/kde-4.2) with the final release version of KDE 4.2 for downloading. :KS

[ryaxnb]

I'm sort of konfused (lol), about why more people don't use KDE, and specifically, why they choose Gnome over KDE. I want to use Gnome, but I don't want to give up my transparent, Arezzo-themed panel.. Can I achieve this in Gnome?

Because of the HIG that makes GNOME much much easier to work with and more consistent,, like how the mac is easy and consistent. GNOME is simple and productive, kde is scattered.

[Sand & Mercury]

I booted up into KDE for one last time to gather some ideas on how to answer this question, and have not left for the last couple of hours. I think I may even finally switch over completely.

Honestly my biggest problem was Kwin, because compositing with it has been ultra-slow for me. But installing xcompmgr solved that little problem and now it's smooth sailing.

[urbandryad]

I like my desktop to be as simple as possible. A single uncluttered bar at the bottom with a few icons for things I use often. I can get that with either KDE or Gnome, but I like Firefox and its in Gnome by default. I like the way Gnome has the settings and features, unobtrusive. I don't hate KDE, I can use it, but I enjoy Gnome more. ^^

[GammaRay256]

I really did like the look of KDE, but I found KDE4 to feel a bit unfinished... I couldn't get bluetooth to work on a new install (Kubuntu 8.10)
I also don't like Konquerer, I know you can install Firefox, but since it's not the default, I wouldn't recommend KDE to new users because of that.
I think once the bugs are worked out, KDE will be better than GNOME though, even if it doesn't include Firefox.

I currently use GNOME, but I have KDE installed. I am anxious to see how Kubuntu 9.04 turns out.

[scottuss]

Having applications that must have a K somewhere in their name is probably one of the most annoying things I've ever encountered in my computing life + Gnome is awesome, neat, tidy and doesn't depend on Qt rubbish = my reasons for not using KDE.

Don't get me wrong KDE 4x has improved hell of a lot, but not enough for me to leave Gnome.

[ibutho]

Having applications that must have a K somewhere in their name is probably one of the most annoying things I've ever encountered in my computing life + Gnome is awesome, neat, tidy and doesn't depend on Qt rubbish = my reasons for not using KDE.

Don't get me wrong KDE 4x has improved hell of a lot, but not enough for me to leave Gnome.

This was true in KDE 3, but if you look at the official KDE apps in KDE 4, many don't start with a K. I also don't see how having many apps starting with a "K" can influence ones choice of a desktop. There are many apps for GNOME that start with a "g" and many for macos that start with an "i". What matters is that you can be productive with the apps available.

I also think the KDE vs GNOME thing will be a bit biased on the Ubuntuforums because Ubuntu defaults to GNOME, so thats what most Ubuntu users are exposed to. If the same question was asked in the SUSE or Mandriva forums, the responses would be drastically different.

[MikeTheC]

Big Shiny Button.

Big Shiny Candy-like Button.

Can Cadet Stimpy resist?

Tune in next time, folks...

</sarcasm>

[scottuss]

I also don't see how having many apps starting with a "K" can influence ones choice of a desktop.

It does. :lolflag:

I can't apologise for the fact that every time I play around with KDE it irritates the hell out of me.


Probably my fault as opposed to KDE's, but the thread asked why people don't use it. That's my (main) answer.

[Helios1276]

Kant abide the knaming system in the vast kmajority of KDE k-apps..

[dannytatom]

I don't use KDE because it doesn't have a good bloat vs. eye candy ratio, imo. Neither does GNOME, actually. Instead, I like to use E17 on my Arch setup, as it gives me lightweight eyecandy. ;)

+1, except openbox not E17. Before using OB, I used gnome. I've never been able to look at a KDE desktop for more than a few minutes without hating it. Just not simple/light enough for me.

Oh, and I agree with scottuss that having (what seems like) more than 70% of your apps start with a K is so so annoying.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Most of those bugs are gone with KDE 4.2. Better theme in 4.2 than was in 4.1, as well. The standard theme doesn't look like a Vista-black clone anymore.

Big props to the Kubuntu developers for setting up a PPA (http://www.kubuntu.org/news/kde-4.2) with the final release version of KDE 4.2 for downloading. :KS

No I have had bugs and hiccups in kde 4.2

[oldos2er]

I like both Gnome and KDE (and xfce as well). I find that, when using KDE, I spend a lot of time tweaking and playing with all the settings, much moreso than I do in Gnome. In Gnome I get more work done.

[theDaveTheRave]

Gnome, KDE and xfce are my favourite GUI front ends.

I keep coming back to gnome however due to it's less cluttered principle screen.

I'm sure I could get KDE not to have ANY icons on the screen but sometimes things seem to end up there "by accident"!

Some things that I do miss from KDE.... being able to have each virtual desktop with a different background colour / picture. And it's other extensive configurability options.

Something I miss from XFCE is the menu opening when you right click on the desktop, I wish I could get gnome to do this... anyone??

I must say that I loved Compiz / Beryl, but it absolutely caned my memory, and I found that only being able to have "6 sides on a cube" was becoming "insufficent" for my requirements (I'm now toying with the idea of having a seventh virtual desktop... essentially 1 for each type of activity I get involved in!).

In fact I may re-install compiz so as I can show off at presentations, as that cube thing allways gets a good buzz from the audience - do you get 2 cubes if you extend your desktop onto another screen??

The best thing about the cube thing though... Having 3 different films playing with a different sound track coming out of the left headphone speaker, right headphone speaker and the main system... That WAS REALLY IMPRESSIVE, I've never seen windows do anything close to similar!

for now I'm staying with gnome!

David

[HavocXphere]

KDE4 ftw. The default look on it is fairly close to what I want. Plus its still early days...can only get better from here with KDE4.

Never touched Konquerer though. The idea of cramming many different things (control panel, file browser, web browser etc) into one app sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

The other thing is, that the initial choice makes a huge difference on what one "likes". I started with Kubuntu, so the KDE way seems more intuitive and "right" to me. To most of the people here its the other way round. Taking that initial bias and claiming that the one is superior is over the other based on that is um...narrow-minded. To each his own.;)

[Vadi]

Because their design philosophy is inexistent, and the result shows.

[betterhands]

the only reason i don't use it is because it wasn't the default when i installed. i'm a case-study in path of least resistance :)

[Gotaro]

Thanks for all of the responses, guys (and girls?)! It was somewhat a KDE-bashing thread, which was expected (as said earlier) from the UBUNTU forums. But that is exactly what I wanted! And I think I've decided to stay with KDE. I was hoping to be convinced that Gnome has the potential to look just as flashy as KDE, but I instead heard repeatedly that KDE is definitely better for eye candy (implying that Gnome is a step backwards). That's no good for me, when I already feel like KDE is lacking.. Just for kicks, though, I'm going to try out the mentioned E17.

Thanks again!

[cardinals_fan]

I do use KDE 3.5 on my ancient NetBSD setup. It is configurable, powerful, and includes panels and other DE components (my mom uses that machine sometimes). I have no interest in KDE 4 because I see it as offering limited benefits. The move to Qt4 is the only tempting feature I see in KDE 4.x.

[Tibuda]

I was hoping to be convinced that Gnome has the potential to look just as flashy as KDE, but I instead heard repeatedly that KDE is definitely better for eye candy (implying that Gnome is a step backwards).

Who said that? That is not true.

[perlluver]

I started in Linux with Kubuntu 7.10, it was pretty buggy for me. Moved to Ubuntu, I loved the fact that it didn't look like Windows. In Slackware I use KDE, because Slackware knows how to do KDE right. If I am using and Ubuntu Derivative I will use Gnome, Ubuntu does Gnome right. So If and when Slackware releases KDE 4.2, I will try it out, but KDE 4.2, in Kubuntu is buggy, and I still haven't found a Weather Plasmoid.

So I might try KDE 4.2, when Kubuntu 9.04 comes out, but in the meantime I am sticking with Gnome.

[Tomosaur]

I keep 'trying' to use KDE. KDE 4.2 is a big improvement over the last version of KDE4 I tried - but KDE in general just annoys the hell out of me. I don't like how it's always trying to get my attention. Gnome does exactly what I tell it to do (which is not much - I use software, not my desktop). Yes, KDE is arguably 'better' at many things, but I hate how using KDE means everything is affected by that decision. Oxygen is a disaster, and KDE 4.2 is still too buggy for me to use full time.

Gnome doesn't do much - and that's the way I like it. It keeps out of my way, and looks as nice as I want it to look (I prefer plain styles, not flashy crap which is what KDE seems to want to force down my throat).

[hyperdude111]

I always "try" to like kde but never can.

On all my machines kde is slower, bloated, less responsive, less customizable and so bloated it feels like windows. It also has HUGE numbers of bugs, plasma crashes every five minutes emereald wont work with kde 4.2 inly 4.1 and Oxygen is disgusting, it feels like a theme from the stone age.

On all new release of kde i give it 1-2 weeks before i switch back to gnome.

[Foster Grant]

I always "try" to like kde but never can.

On all my machines kde is slower, bloated, less responsive, less customizable and so bloated it feels like windows. It also has HUGE numbers of bugs, plasma crashes every five minutes emereald wont work with kde 4.2 inly 4.1 and Oxygen is disgusting, it feels like a theme from the stone age.

On all new release of kde i give it 1-2 weeks before i switch back to gnome.

Use Kwin for compositing window management in KDE, not Compiz/Emerald.

[SuperSonic4]

KDE 4.2 seems so much better than any other KDE version including KDE 3.5.x

Dolphin is an excellent file manager but in case you don't like it you have konqueror and krusader. The konsole plugin works excellently and amarok 1.4.10 is art

[Gotaro]

Personally I chose to ues KDE because I like the interface a lot more. It has more eye-candy than GNOME, and both GUI's are very good. The other reaosn I chose KDE over GNOME, GNOME reminds me of Mac's. =*(

Plus (even though you you can use just about any program for gnome in KDE and vise versa), I like the native KDE programs more. (And it means less extra depends I need).

I like gnome for the same reasons as stated above, plus I think its less complicated in its layout.
Less complicated might mean fewer things to go wrong.
Im using Hardy........this version of gnome seems very stable.
KDE is actually better looking out of the box, but with some help from compiz you can make gnome pretty nice as well.
I guess its a matter of preference and what apps you use the most.
Ive had lockup problems with Hardy from day one. Im hoping my last tweak will fix those problems.
If I can eliminate the lockups Hardy is a very good OS.

Like I said, Gnome has almost as many configuration options as KDE does. It's just that they are not in the menus so you they don't get in the way in everyday usage, but instead you need to know where to look for the extra options (gconf-editor, most of the time ;))

So you could say that KDE is easier to configure for beginners, while customizing Gnome requires bit more skills. Neither one of them forces you to use them like the developers wanted.

Although I do agree that Gnome's features could be better documented somewhere, for example until yesterday I didn't even know Gnome can do animated wallpapers.. :o

I use GNOME because OpenSolaris doesn't ship in any other desktop environment and I don't want to mess around with it, and screw anything up :P

If I were using Linux... I'd choose XFCE. I'd understand why someone would choose GNOME over KDE though, it's more simplified, tasteful, everything is in a proper size (not Macifyed) etc... No offense... On the plus side KDE is far more stable, never crashed on me, easier to manage, and the eye candy is a lot better.

Well I have used both Gnome and KDE and I can say that either one is better then the other.
Both offer much but there are things I dislike about both.
Gnome is very versatile and configurable, it has what is needed for a nice clean modern desktop.
But I wish the gnome configuration center had more of a gui, and I wish that the task manager could go 2 rows so I can eliminate the need of 2 panels.

KDE is very good for those who want a good looking desktop without the fuss, its on the cutting edge with the KDE 4 series that promises to be tghe desktop of the future.
But KDE4 is still very new, with many bugs and I found it to be unstable at times...
Once it gets going I feel KDE4 will probably be my next major desktop, but only the future can tell.

I really did like the look of KDE, but I found KDE4 to feel a bit unfinished... I couldn't get bluetooth to work on a new install (Kubuntu 8.10)
I also don't like Konquerer, I know you can install Firefox, but since it's not the default, I wouldn't recommend KDE to new users because of that.
I think once the bugs are worked out, KDE will be better than GNOME though, even if it doesn't include Firefox.

I currently use GNOME, but I have KDE installed. I am anxious to see how Kubuntu 9.04 turns out.

Big Shiny Button.

Big Shiny Candy-like Button.

Can Cadet Stimpy resist?

Tune in next time, folks...

</sarcasm>

I was hoping to be convinced that Gnome has the potential to look just as flashy as KDE, but I instead heard repeatedly that KDE is definitely better for eye candy (implying that Gnome is a step backwards).Who said that? That is not true.
At least, to me, it seems like pretty much universally the general attitude is that Gnome can maybe almost make it to KDE standards, but never that it is on par, and that KDE is definitely the better choice for aesthetics-lovers. You are disagreeing with them?

[Tibuda]

At least, to me, it seems like pretty much universally the general attitude is that Gnome can maybe almost make it to KDE standards, but never that it is on par, and that KDE is definitely the better choice for aesthetics-lovers. You are disagreeing with them?

Yes, I disagree. You just have to choose the right theme and both desktop environments can look the same.

[hyperdude111]

I have set up gnome to be beautiful, kde is far less customizable.

https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/424821/My%20desktop.png

Kde is not like this

[mikewhatever]

I'm sort of konfused (lol), about why more people don't use KDE, and specifically, why they choose Gnome over KDE. I want to use Gnome, but I don't want to give up my transparent, Arezzo-themed panel.. Can I achieve this in Gnome?

At least, to me, it seems like pretty much universally the general attitude is that Gnome can maybe almost make it to KDE standards, but never that it is on par, and that KDE is definitely the better choice for aesthetics-lovers. You are disagreeing with them?


Where did you get the idea that people don't use KDE?
Wherever all these assumptions come from, they aren't true, and your problem is solved by simply getting rid of them.

[OutOfReach]

I have set up gnome to be beautiful, kde is far less customizable.

https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/424821/My%20desktop.png

Kde is not like this

Contrary to your belief, KDE is a lot more customizable than you think.

I like KDE because it's default applications are a lot better than GNOME's. I use a lot of KDE's default apps, not so much in GNOME.
Plus, the eyecandy is nice too.
And it uses Qt (which is a personal plus for me)

[Tibuda]

Where did you get the idea that people don't use KDE?
Wherever all these assumptions come from, they aren't true, and your problem is solved by simply getting rid of them.

Yeah, he's right: I don't use KDE.

[Gotaro]

I have set up gnome to be beautiful, kde is far less customizable.

https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/424821/My%20desktop.png

Kde is not like this
That does look good! I'd like to see screenshots of other programs as well. Can I see your FF (or browser of your choice) and default file manager? Also, is your task manager on your top bar? Or is it integrated into your dock?

[hyperdude111]

Here you go

https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/424821/ffn.png

The task-bar is integrated into the dock but you can have it in the top bar if you want. Those small arrows under the icons show which apps are open and if you have multiple windows open you right click the icon and choose the one you want.

If you want to try it look for "gnome-do 0.8" and set the theme to docky

[jrusso2]

I have set up gnome to be beautiful, kde is far less customizable.

https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/424821/My%20desktop.png

Kde is not like this

Your kidding my KDE 3.5 looks just like that with the google gadgets even and the mac bar. Just the photo is different.

[Tibuda]

Your kidding my KDE 3.5 looks just like that with the google gadgets even and the mac bar. Just the photo is different.

As I said: both desktop environments can look the same good. There's no better in eye-candy.

[hyperdude111]

If there is no better in eye candy you have to look at speed and functionality and gnome wins.

Kde is incredibly slow and plasma crashes whenever you add a new plasmoid. The naming of every app with a "K" makes me want to kill myself and the apps for kde are about equal to the gnome ones.

I always have both installed and give kde a chance on each new release, but gnome is always the eventual winner for me.

[Foster Grant]

Kde is incredibly slow and plasma crashes whenever you add a new plasmoid.

You mean whenever you add a new plasmoid. I personally haven't found KDE 4.1 or 4.2 to be slow and have had no problem adding plasmoids.

[shadylookin]

I preferred the look of kubuntu, but the last time I gave it a whirl I had a lot of stability issues and the bottom bar wouldn't go away when I'd fullscreen an app(incredibly annoying when you're trying to watch a movie). I just wasn't willing to sacrifice on stability.

Hopefully when I try 4.2 it will be as stable as gnome for me.

[liamnixon]

I actually don't like the look of KDE; plus I don't like that it installs four-hundred thousand programs on my computer whenever I try it.

[maybeway36]

The reason I'm still on KDE3 is so I can set up my panels like this:
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6594/snapshot1dx3.png

[seanc7]

I just prefer simple, Gnome gives me that. Theme it a bit and it looks very good.

[Gotaro]

As I said: both desktop environments can look the same good. There's no better in eye-candy.
Well, I understand what you're saying. But he said KDE 3.5 looks just like that, which makes it pretty far behind. If I can integrate the task manager into the top bar, then move it to the bottom of the screen, and then give it the look of the Arezzo theme, I'll be happy. Does anyone know where to look to find the image file for the "Desktop Theme" panel in KDE?

[-jay-]

kde is to cartoonish for me if i wanted something that reminds me of cartoons i would of stayed with windows xp

[Tibuda]

kde is to cartoonish for me if i wanted something that reminds me of cartoons i would of stayed with windows xp

you mean kartoonish

[WiseMaturin]

I have set up gnome to be beautiful, kde is far less customizable.

https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/424821/My%20desktop.png

Kde is not like this


There seems to be a lot of resentment towards other DE, and I really don't understand that. But I've never really understood certain kinds of people, like those who tend to overlook the flaws of the things they support.
Be unfair if you want, but at least realize you are being a hypocrite.


KDE is more customizable than I have ever found GNOME to be. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I found it less of a hassle to customize KDE, whereas I have to fight with GNOME to get it to do some of the things I wanted it to do.
I'd like to try out GNOME in earnest for a length of time, but I keep having to fall back to KDE so I can get real work done, because GNOME keeps being problematic.

[mips]

Be unfair if you want, but at least realize you are being a hypocrite.


See post#37 ;)

[hyperdude111]

Gnome is far easier to customize than kde, with the gconf editor you can even re-arrange the "minimize,close,maximize" buttons with ease. Gnome is faster and once you get used to it you will find it easier. The reason most people use KDE is because it is more similar to windows and that is what they are used to (i did the same). KDE 3.5 was nice but kde4.2 is just too slow, buggy and "windows like"

[ibutho]

Gnome is far easier to customize than kde, with the gconf editor you can even re-arrange the "minimize,close,maximize" buttons with ease. Gnome is faster and once you get used to it you will find it easier. The reason most people use KDE is because it is more similar to windows and that is what they are used to (i did the same). KDE 3.5 was nice but kde4.2 is just too slow, buggy and "windows like"

You can do what you said in KDE and you don't even need to tinker with registry settings via the gconf editor. I like KDE because I find easier to customise than GNOME and advanced features are not hidden in some silly registry.

[benerivo]

I'm not too keen on the look of kde. It just appears to be slightly bland, and some elements looking mismatched and misplaced.

http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.2/screenshots/systray-progress.png

Also, I prefer compiz over the kde4 desktop effects, as you can configure it more.

[MarblePanther]

:guitar:

Both are great for whomever (whoever?) needs them...

[benerivo]

It's not mine, it's from the kde website. Right click on the image to get its properties.

[MarblePanther]

I like Gnome's simplicity and clean interface, while KDE stings my eyes with glossiness

:)

[Gotaro]

kde is to cartoonish for me if i wanted something that reminds me of cartoons i would of stayed with windows xp
Funny.. That's the exact reason I'm using KDE.. because I want to break out of the cartoonish decoration era. But I have a feeling neither Gnome or KDE are capable of this natively.
I'm not too keen on the look of kde. It just appears to be slightly bland, and some elements looking mismatched and misplaced.

http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.2/screenshots/systray-progress.png

Also, I prefer compiz over the kde4 desktop effects, as you can configure it more.
I agree that Plasma clashes with the native themes. I don't understand why they split things into separate themes like they did (style, window decoration, GTK theme, Plasma theme).

[Buffalo Soldier]

I'm sort of konfused (lol), about why more people don't use KDE, and specifically, why they choose Gnome over KDE.

For me it's more on look and feel. KDE is too "flasy" or "bling bling" for my taste.

I like how GNOME keeps a minimal, clean, "boxy" kinda feel.

[T2manner]

It's just too much.
There's too much stuff going on.
I like my DE to be simple and easy to use.
I also hate the way KDE looks.

[mcduck]

Like I said, Gnome has almost as many configuration options as KDE does. It's just that they are not in the menus so you they don't get in the way in everyday usage, but instead you need to know where to look for the extra options (gconf-editor, most of the time )

So you could say that KDE is easier to configure for beginners, while customizing Gnome requires bit more skills. Neither one of them forces you to use them like the developers wanted.

Although I do agree that Gnome's features could be better documented somewhere, for example until yesterday I didn't even know Gnome can do animated wallpapers..

At least, to me, it seems like pretty much universally the general attitude is that Gnome can maybe almost make it to KDE standards, but never that it is on par, and that KDE is definitely the better choice for aesthetics-lovers. You are disagreeing with them?

At least you misunderstood what I said, probably might apply to others as well.

If your ead the whole post, I said I think Gnome is better. I only said that KDE has bit more configuration options,a t least in graphical dialogs. But amount of configuration options doesn't make anything better, or more aesthetic.

Both can be just as pretty (depending on your taste, of course), and have more options than more people ever need. If you simply consider the amount of possible desktop eye-candy, there is absolutely no difference between those two.

To my eyes, KDE's interface is too crowded and not very pleasing to eyes or to work with, and don't like the way QT and it's themes look like.

[CraigPaleo]

I've asked this over and over again. KDE 4.2 is much faster at launching apps, DE effects, and starting up on my machine. Why? After updating my Nvidia driver, Gnome/Compiz works faster than they used to on Gnome but KDE is still faster yet. I've been trying to get used to KDE because I like the speed on my machine but Gnome is just much simpler and I love the media icon previews. In KDE, all icons are the same size. The media preview icons are just too small.

Also, wireless in KDE won't connect unless I've run Gnome and then logged out and logged in with KDE. If I boot directly into KDE, wireless doesn't work.

[KuroYoma]

I do not choose one over the other. I use XFCE woot

[monkeyKata]

:guitar:

Both are great for whomever (whoever?) needs them...

I agree. Whichever feels and fits best. And so people saying that Gnome feels simpler or more intuitive are not being biased or dismissing KDE but rather offering their reason for prefering gnome. Just the same for those that dig KDE.

And in this case it's whoever. The rule is replace the "who" in question... if only he or she logically fits, then use whoever, and if only him or her sounds right, then use whomever.

"Both are great for who---- needs them." --> He/she needs them --> whoever

[CraigPaleo]

I agree.

And in this case it's whoever. The rule is replace the "who" in question... if only he or she logically fits, then use whoever, and if only him or her sounds right, then use whomever.

"Both are great for who---- needs them." --> He/she needs them --> whoever

What makes it confusing is the preposition "for," which sends your mind searching for an object pronoun.

[jomiolto]

Because I use Openbox... isn't that reason enough? ;)

Seriously, though, Gnome and KDE are both too visually bloated and in many ways too heavy for my current preference. I want something minimal and something easy to tweak, and that's what Openbox gives me.

I also love the right click menu of Openbox. You can probably get something similar for KDE (at least by running Openbox as the window manager), but in Openbox it comes default :)

[daniel014]

I prefer GNOME because KDE is too like Windows and I don't like the default programs.

[monkeyKata]

What makes it confusing is the preposition "for," which sends your mind searching for an object pronoun.

Oh yeah... maybe I messed that up.

Because with the for you can't have he or she, it has to be for him, or for her.

I overlooked that. "Both are great for him/her" --> so "Both are great for whomever needs them" ?

Which is it?

[Chrisj303]

I don't use KDE, because it makes my desktop look like its been designed by a 7-year-old with a pack of crayons.

like Fisher-Prices "My First Desktop" !

[pol666]

I'm sort of konfused (lol), about why more people don't use KDE, and specifically, why they choose Gnome over KDE. I want to use Gnome, but I don't want to give up my transparent, Arezzo-themed panel.. Can I achieve this in Gnome?

Hello Gotaro, Thread have got 11 pages, and I only read the first, so, I don't know if someone told you, How to make a 3D transparent panel?. You can make with a .png image, and then, put in the panel properties.

like these screenshots...(Do click on pictures)


http://i35.tinypic.com/1scqax_th.png (http://i35.tinypic.com/1scqax.png)

http://i33.tinypic.com/ws5gxt_th.png (http://i33.tinypic.com/ws5gxt.png)

http://i32.tinypic.com/2mfltlx_th.png (http://i32.tinypic.com/2mfltlx.png)

http://i27.tinypic.com/1fbhxd_th.png (http://i27.tinypic.com/1fbhxd.png)

http://i26.tinypic.com/2q80u14_th.png (http://i26.tinypic.com/2q80u14.png)



I use KDE 4.2 But also Gnome in Ubuntu.

[MarblePanther]

I agree. Whichever feels and fits best. And so people saying that Gnome feels simpler or more intuitive are not being biased or dismissing KDE but rather offering their reason for prefering gnome. Just the same for those that dig KDE.

And in this case it's whoever. The rule is replace the "who" in question... if only he or she logically fits, then use whoever, and if only him or her sounds right, then use whomever.

"Both are great for who---- needs them." --> He/she needs them --> whoever

Thanks, I'll remember that :)

[MarblePanther]

Oh yeah... maybe I messed that up.

Because with the for you can't have he or she, it has to be for him, or for her.

I overlooked that. "Both are great for him/her" --> so "Both are great for whomever needs them" ?

Which is it?

That's what I'd like to know ;)

Because I use Openbox... isn't that reason enough? ;)

Seriously, though, Gnome and KDE are both too visually bloated and in many ways too heavy for my current preference. I want something minimal and something easy to tweak, and that's what Openbox gives me.

I also love the right click menu of Openbox. You can probably get something similar for KDE (at least by running Openbox as the window manager), but in Openbox it comes default :)

I recently switched fulltime to fluxbox for just these reasons.

[elbasquo]

I been using KDE for the last 5 years with PClinuxOS and I love it. Now I'm trying to dual boot by installing Ubuntu Studio and I'm stuck with no GUI for Ubuntu.

[monkeyKata]

That's what I'd like to know ;)



Yeah I'm scratching my head on that one. But that above rule is correct, I'm sure of it. It's a good one to remember. Yet with the preposition for I'm not sure how it would be applied.

[CraigPaleo]

Yeah I'm scratching my head on that one. But that above rule is correct, I'm sure of it. It's a good one to remember. Yet with the preposition for I'm not sure how it would be applied.

You're right. It's definitely whoever. It's just that the preposition confuses the brain so that neither case really sounds quite right to the ear.

Who, whom, whoever, whomever. In deciding which case of who you should use in a clause, remember this important rule: The case of the pronoun is governed by the role it plays in its own clause, not by its relation to the rest of the sentence. Choosing the right case of pronoun can be especially confusing because the pronoun may appear to have more than one function. Look at the following sentence.

*

They gave the money to whoever presented the winning ticket.

At first, you may be tempted to think whomever rather than whoever should be the pronoun here, on the assumption that it is the object of the preposition to. But in fact the entire clause, not whoever, is the object of the preposition. Refer to the basic rule: The case should be based on the pronoun's role within its own clause. In this clause, whoever is the subject of the verb presented. (A good way to determine the right pronoun case is to forget everything but the clause itself: whoever presented the winning ticket, yes; whomever presented the winning ticket, no.)

The following two sentences show more dramatically how you must focus on the clause rather than the complete sentence in choosing the right pronoun case.

*

We asked whomever we saw for a reaction to the play.
*

We asked whoever called us to call back later.

In each sentence the clause is the direct object of asked. But in the first sentence, whomever is correct because within its clause it is the object of saw, while in the second sentence, whoever is correct because it is the subject of called.
From: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Types-of-Clauses.topicArticleId-29011,articleId-28968.html

[MarblePanther]

Thanks CraigPaleo :KS

[Dekkon]

Most people don't use KDE 4 because Kubutu's implementaton of it is horrible and thats what most people try it on.

I use it because of it's usability, reminds me more of OSX and with a decent look too.

[SonnHalter]

i don't use kde because:

1: it is loaded with games I will never play.
2: it hides programs with a harder-than-what-its-worth menu
3: You have to go the extra mile to change compiz settings and get things just the way you like
4. it reminds me of windows

[Gotaro]

i don't use kde because:

1: it is loaded with games I will never play.
2: it hides programs with a harder-than-what-its-worth menu
3: You have to go the extra mile to change compiz settings and get things just the way you like
4. it reminds me of windows
Funny that you say it's loaded with games you'll never play.. Kubuntu didn't come with any games for me, but Ubuntu came with like 10. Also, changing theme settings and effects seems a lot harder in Gnome, but maybe that's just because I haven't really figured it out yet.. Is there a GUI way to edit things?..

Anyway, my primary OS is now Windows 7. When I switch into Linux, I'm running regular Ubuntu with Gnome instead of KDE.. It seems a lot cleaner and the theme is way more consistent (and nicer looking, IMO). The effects don't even compare, really.. The same effects from KDE in Gnome look way glitchy, so I just keep settings at normal. Also, the menus are WAY more intuitive in Gnome. I hate to jump ship on my KDE friends, but their better application of effects only brings them sub-par with the modern OS standard (IMO), so I might as well go with the better-designed.

[pol666]

Hay gotaro read page 11, I answered your question.

[Paul41]

To me Gnome looks cleaner and feels faster than KDE.

[Sand & Mercury]

i don't use kde because:

1: it is loaded with games I will never play.
2: it hides programs with a harder-than-what-its-worth menu
3: You have to go the extra mile to change compiz settings and get things just the way you like
4. it reminds me of windows
While you're free to do, use and think whatever makes you happy, I'd just like to address your points you've raised here, in case you weren't aware:

1: The games can be removed easily. If you install only the kde-core package, they won't be installed in the first place.
2: There's also a classic Gnome-like menu you can use, if you don't like the default one.
3: Kwin comes with compositing and effects out of the box, making Compiz unnecessary. However, if you're insistent on Compiz, it can be run just as easily as it is under Gnome, same goes for Emerald.
4. It's just as customizable as Gnome is, you can make it look any way you want if you're so inclined.

I think the problem most Gnome users have with KDE (and vice versa) is that they're just used to their current setup and thus they expect the alternatives to work in the same way. When they find they don't, it's easier to give up and stick to what you know, which is perfectly reasonable of course. It took me some time to get used to KDE and I really had to force myself at first, but I wouldn't go back to Gnome at this point. I'm loving KDE and all the things you can do with it, it's very rich in customizability and eye candy, and you don't have to cut corners to make it look good like you must do with Gnome. Both are great DEs and made by some very talented people though and there's no point in debating why one or the other is better, but it's always good to make sure everyone's educated on exactly what both of these DEs are capable of before forming a concrete opinion.

[deepclutch]

because I like simplicity.Gnome works :) and now stability too after the gnome 2.12 release(IIRC) .I used to like kde3.x kdemod in archlinux.
kde-4.2 is really a eyecandy(saw a screenshot).I hope they resolve the bugs.good luck.
Gnome is far easier to customize than kde, with the gconf editor you can even re-arrange the "minimize,close,maximize" buttons with ease. Gnome is faster and once you get used to it you will find it easier. The reason most people use KDE is because it is more similar to windows and that is what they are used to (i did the same). KDE 3.5 was nice but kde4.2 is just too slow, buggy and "windows like"

This points are so true.

[quazi]

You can't customize the desktop right-click menu on KDE4. I've heard that 4.3 might incorporate that, but until then, KDE is a no-go.

[dragos240]

For some reason gnome is more intuitive for me. I have tried kde and kde4, and I'm always stuck looking for stuff and I get annoyed, so maybe it's just that I'm used to gnome... I used to use enlightenment, but after compiz came around i just went with gnome.

enlightenment is just a window manager.

[Sand & Mercury]

enlightenment is just a window manager.
You can use it as a DE.

[tsali]

I've never had much luck with most distros that use KDE as the DE (MEPIS was the exception, it worked well).

KDE just seems busy...obsessive compulsive. It just plain irritates me to use it. Which is odd, because it's very Windows-like and I don't feel the same irritation using Vista.

Gnome is simple and clean...like earlier Mac OSs. It fits my idea of desktop "feng shui".

Bottom line: personal preference.

[LinuxGuy1234]

There are a few reasons that I don't use KDE at all.
1. To update KDE :p
2. Updating the compiler (from single-user mode)

That's all :)