KDE, XFCE/Pretty, GNOME, not so much

[Poyntz]

Is it just me? or are both xfce and kde more naturally aesthetically pleasing than gnome?

I'm judging kde on kubuntu and xfce on dreamlinux (so i can't make any comment for xubuntu)

I believe both environments have slicker interfaces than the default Ubuntu GNOME. The main difference is that kde is the slowest and xfce is the fastest.

Given this, why is the Ubuntu default gnome? (my perceptions could differ from other's of course)

[Psumi]

It would be nice if help.ubuntu.com or wiki.ubuntu.com would have a WhyGNOME article. :|

[SunnyRabbiera]

Actually Gnome can look quite nice if you want it to be.
Look at Linux Mint or Fedora, you cant judge Gnome based on its looks in Ubuntu.
To many blue and gray themes are very appealing so to you Ubuntu's colors might look ugly.

[Psumi]

Actually Gnome can look quite nice if you want it to be.
Look at Linux Mint or Fedora, you cant judge Gnome based on its looks in Ubuntu.
To many blue and gray themes are very appealing so to you Ubuntu's colors might look ugly.

What about GNOME Shell in September?

[Slug71]

I like XFCE too. Looks good in Xubuntu but too many Gnome dependencies.

I made a custom install with Crunchbang and XFCE but i keep breaking it trying to remove more Gnome dependencies and updating to Karmic.

Will be doing a reinstall and trying again soon and just get it set up the way i want it and get it working.

[ve4cib]

I've always thought that XFCE looked like a cheap, incomplete version of Gnome personally. And if you're just looking at the default orange-and-brown theme of Ubuntu you're missing out on a lot that Gnome has to offer in terms of aesthetics.

[MaxIBoy]

It's not exactly difficult to get a better theme for GNOME or customize it... gnome-look.org and gtk-apps.org are your friends here.

The idea is that Gnome and KDE are more user-friendly than XFCE4 (not saying it's true, but this has been the "common knowledge.") Also, there is more GTK software than Qt software, so things are more likely to match up with your theme under Gnome and XFCE4 than under KDE.


I honestly don't know whether I'll end up liking Gnome-shell in Gnome 3. I do intend to give it an honest try. If I don't like it, I will experiment with XFCE, KDE, mixing and matching components accross all three, or hacking together something myself. Might even switch to E17.

[Exodist]

KDE is nice. I just prefer GTK.
XFCE 4.6 is much like early GNOME 1.x was, just nicer looking now.
Gnome2.x doesnt have much longer to live (RIP).

I am really liking XFCE 4.6, its got all the features I like and would want in a desktop environment with less just I dont need. I will be making the move to XFCE when Debian Squeeze is released.


If you are wanting a nice Gnome theme. .check out my latest. (http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=115142). If you like it please vote good.

[hoppipolla]

Gnome's alright. Yeah it lacks the speed of XFCE or the good looks and customizability of KDE, but... it's robust and dependable, it's a solid desktop and yeah it can be made to look nice!

I'm not a HUGE fan of the project most of the time... but I appreciate Gnome 2.x for what it is :)

[SunnyRabbiera]

What about GNOME Shell in September?

Well we still dont know if Gnome shell will be officially shipped or not with Gnone3

[blueshiftoverwatch]

What about GNOME Shell in September?
If I don't like GNOME Shell and if it's like what I've seen and theirs no way to switch it back to "classic mode" I'm switching WM's. To what I don't know, but I'll deal with that when the time comes. I have it pretty much narrowed down to either Enlightenment, Fluxbox, Openbox, Afterstep, WindowMaker, and EvilWM. Which really isn't narrowed down at all now that I think about it :)

But this is the great thing about Linux, if you don't like something your not stuck with it.

[Psumi]

If I don't like GNOME Shell (based on the screenshots, I probably won't) I'm switching WM's. To what I don't know, but I'll deal with that when the time comes. I have it pretty much narrowed down to either Enlightenment, Fluxbox, Openbox, Afterstep, WindowMaker, and EvilWM. Which really isn't narrowed down at all now that I think about it :)

But this is the great thing about Linux, if you don't like something your not stuck with it.

Compiz is not a WM, neither is GNOME Shell.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

Compiz is not a WM, neither is GNOME Shell.
From Wikipedia:

GNOME Shell is a compositing window manager for X11 which is designed for primary integration with the GNOME desktop environment as a replacement for Metacity, GNOME's current default compositing window manager. GNOME Shell also integrates the Clutter toolkit for interaction with applications, and is slated to be used in GNOME 3.0.

[hoppipolla]

Compiz is not a WM, neither is GNOME Shell.

they are WMs (window managers), they're just not DEs (desktop environments)!

[blueshiftoverwatch]

Based on KDE 3.5 -> 4.0 and now Metacity -> GNOME Shell, it looks like they're taking the traditional GUI interfaces and trying to make them accessible to 5yo's.

[BuffaloX]

Based on KDE 3.5 -> 4.0 and now Metacity -> GNOME Shell, it looks like they're taking the traditional GUI interfaces and trying to make them accessible to 5yo's.

Gotta get them hooked while they're young. :p

[Poyntz]

Actually Gnome can look quite nice if you want it to be.
Look at Linux Mint or Fedora, you cant judge Gnome based on its looks in Ubuntu.
To many blue and gray themes are very appealing so to you Ubuntu's colors might look ugly.

see but that's the thing. you are saying that it can be customized to look nice. any OS can be customized to look nice :P. it's like the 'would you prefer a chair or a treestump argument'? you can modify a treestump to look nicer than a given chair if you wanted.

i'm basing this off face value. download DreamLinux, it looks cute out of the box. Download KDE, it looks cute out of the box. Download gnome, you need to configure this, configure that, enable compiz, etc, to get it looking nice. odd how the least aesthetically pleasing is the default

[Exodist]

see but that's the thing. you are saying that it can be customized to look nice. any OS can be customized to look nice :P. it's like the 'would you prefer a chair or a treestump argument'? you can modify a treestump to look nicer than a given chair if you wanted.

i'm basing this off face value. download DreamLinux, it looks cute out of the box. Download KDE, it looks cute out of the box. Download gnome, you need to configure this, configure that, enable compiz, etc, to get it looking nice. odd how the least aesthetically pleasing is the default

I have made this argument a thousand times, no one that responds to this argument understands the value of first impressions. /sigh

[MaxIBoy]

see but that's the thing. you are saying that it can be customized to look nice. any OS can be customized to look nice :P. it's like the 'would you prefer a chair or a treestump argument'? you can modify a treestump to look nicer than a given chair if you wanted.

i'm basing this off face value. download DreamLinux, it looks cute out of the box. Download KDE, it looks cute out of the box. Download gnome, you need to configure this, configure that, enable compiz, etc, to get it looking nice. odd how the least aesthetically pleasing is the defaultTaking your treestump analogy further, it's easy to carve away wood but hard to add it back. The rougher it is to start, the finer it can be when you've finished with it.

And now I will take the analogy in the opposite direction, because it is convenient for me. It is one thing to between download a theme and install it. It is quite another to carve a chair by hand. If carpentry was that easy, I would have built at least five houses by now.

Note that I am NOT claiming Gnome is more customize-able than KDE.

[SomeGuyDude]

It's just you.

Especially considering XFCE uses GTK by default anyway. Give me ten minutes and I can make GNOME, XFCE, Openbox, and Compiz all look the exact same.

[Dullstar]

Maybe a KDE that uses GTK would be a good idea.

[Eruaran]

Maybe a KDE that uses GTK would be a good idea.

Please... don't...

[Hallvor]

“Is it just me? or are both xfce and kde more naturally aesthetically pleasing than gnome?”

XFCE and Gnome are quite equal and both look OK out of the box, imho. KDE 4 looks good no matter what. The point is that all desktop environments can be tweaked and altered almost beyond recognition. You can make KDE 3.5 and 4 look stunning, but the same also goes for XFCE and Gnome. On the other hand, “aesthetically pleasing” is subjective.

[Poyntz]

Taking your treestump analogy further, it's easy to carve away wood but hard to add it back. The rougher it is to start, the finer it can be when you've finished with it.

LOL. "The rougher it is to start, the finer it can be when you've finished with it." ? - can you refer to any empirical studies that prove this?

And now I will take the analogy in the opposite direction, because it is convenient for me. It is one thing to between download a theme and install it. It is quite another to carve a chair by hand. If carpentry was that easy, I would have built at least five houses by now.

hence why it's an analogy, not a literal representation ;)
FYI, according to dict,
analogy - drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect; "the operation of a computer presents and interesting analogy to the working of the brain"; "the models show by analogy how matter is built up".

At an any rate, I'd like to know your on-topic point of view on my question :D

[Keyper7]

Yet another "why Ubuntu isn't optimized for my personal needs and opinions by default" thread...

[michaeldt]

I like Gnome really. And how it looks in Ubuntu is just a theme, and themes can be easily changed.

I don't know why they chose Gnome as the default for Ubuntu but it is easy to use and is "simpler" to use. And that's simple as in, no unneeded fluff, not simple as in lack of features.

[UbuntoJO]

It's all subjective, but I'm back to Xfce with Xubuntu Karmic now....looks great and runs fast on this little Vostro.

Drawbacks to me: CXOffice is not fully compatible with Xfce, i.e. the menu (won't generate menu entries)
Programs like DropBox depend on gnome. I've not got it successfully to work yet.

[imol]

Personally, I've never been able to get along for long with the look and feel of KDE. 3.x was tolerable for short periods, but 4.x is awful. It feels like a badly made cartoon version of what an OS should look like.

Luckily, the Linux world is built around choice, so I can choose to avoid KDE and still get my work done :D

IMoL

[joey-elijah]

I've always thought that XFCE looked like a cheap, incomplete version of Gnome personally. And if you're just looking at the default orange-and-brown theme of Ubuntu you're missing out on a lot that Gnome has to offer in terms of aesthetics.

That is pretty much how i've always found it to look like.

Xubuntu 9.10 does looks very nice though.

[overdrank]

Moved to Recurring Discussions

[zagz]

KDE is nice. I just prefer GTK.
XFCE 4.6 is much like early GNOME 1.x was, just nicer looking now.
Gnome2.x doesnt have much longer to live (RIP).

I am really liking XFCE 4.6, its got all the features I like and would want in a desktop environment with less just I dont need. I will be making the move to XFCE when Debian Squeeze is released.


If you are wanting a nice Gnome theme. .check out my latest. (http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=115142). If you like it please vote good.


Same here I like Xfce but I found something critical that was not right about it so switched away. car'nt for the life of me remember what it was though/

Gnome 3 is on the horizon so using Gnome now seems like running something with limited time & support left, and I just don't like that, not one bit knowing soon that a whole new interface will come and you have to learn everything over.

[Poyntz]

but it is easy to use
...but so is everything if you're used to it...

and is "simpler" to use
to you, maybe... xfce on DreamLinux has been quoted in several articles as a preference for simplicity. that's xfce, not gnome.

And that's simple as in, no unneeded fluff, not simple as in a lack of features.
you'll have to define 'unneeded fluff'. I assume by 'unneeded' you mean 'not wanted'. people often chose an OS on what they want, not what they need. if it was all about necessity, i'm guessing you'd see far more xubuntu users. as for the view on 'want', some people want what KDE offers, some people want the speed of xubuntu. xfce is sufficient to fulfil many desires, and they'd look at gnome as having much 'unneeded fluff'.

just a thought. do you use every application gnome provides you with, or will you sometime in the future? if not, there is 'unneeded fluff'. i'd contest that every OS no matter how lightweight has 'unneeded fluff', subjective to its user. there's bound to be something that appears to the masses which doesn't appeal to you individually.

[RiceMonster]

I find Xfce and GNOME to be on the same level in terms of appearance as they both use GTK, so you can make them look pretty similar.

KDE is a whole different beast because of Qt/Plasma. By default I think KDE looks better than either of them, but It's not hard to make them all look good, and there's more themes available for GTK.

[Poyntz]

I find Xfce and GNOME to be on the same level in terms of appearance as they both use GTK, so you can make them look pretty similar.
If by similar you mean, 'good', yes. it's hard to match what emerald & compiz can do on gnome and kde, on xfce, so similar wouldn't be the word i'd use to make a comparison in looks.

and there's more themes available for GTK.
true. but it doesn't mean there's not a lot of themes that exist that are below par for many people