PDA

View Full Version : Can someone explain why everybody say that KDE is more "windows like"



Raffo
April 29th, 2007, 02:17 PM
Can someone explain why everybody say that KDE is more "windows like"? I'm a KDE user and I can't understand why... I hope it's not because of the single panel :lolflag:

fuscia
April 29th, 2007, 02:24 PM
it's the default location of the kmenu. they practically stole that from microsoft.

FoolsGold
April 29th, 2007, 02:43 PM
it's the default location of the kmenu. they practically stole that from microsoft.

Not stole, "borrowed". :)

M$LOL
April 29th, 2007, 02:48 PM
Umm... because it is?

Raffo
April 29th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Umm... because it is?
I can post a screenshot of gnome configured with one panel and you'll say that it is the same thing. So it is just because of the default one panel configuration :confused:

Phatfiddler
April 29th, 2007, 03:01 PM
While the _default_ KDE setup looks very similiar to the Windows desktop, it is very different in the fact that is extremely customizable. I use KDE and I have the bar at the top of my screen MacOS style menubar(Edit, View, Bookmark menus for programs on the taskbar). I also have a dock bar at the bottom of the screen. Instead of a task list, I have a single-click icon that shows all windows, minimized and/or open. None of these features would suggest Windows. Despite the obvious Mac-alikes, it doesn't look like MacOS X either in that I use an invisible task bar at the bottom for System Tray. It is a combination of what, I think, are the best features from all desktop environments.

I could say that Gnome looks more "Apple like" if I wanted to, since it has the default bar at the top and has the menus like a Mac OS would. I could also argue that the bottom bar serves as a copy of the Mac DockBar.

Either way, does it really matter? Linux is about choice, and if I want my desktop to look like Windows, then I should be able to - without getting flak from anyone.

Raffo
April 29th, 2007, 03:06 PM
This is my desktop, I don't think it is like windows.
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/492/snapshot1mq6.th.png (http://img178.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot1mq6.png)

With this thread I just want to understand why everybody says that....

graabein
April 29th, 2007, 03:23 PM
While the _default_ KDE setup looks very similiar to the Windows desktop, it is very different in the fact that is extremely customizable. I use KDE and I have the bar at the top of my screen MacOS style menubar(Edit, View, Bookmark menus for programs on the taskbar). I also have a dock bar at the bottom of the screen. Instead of a task list, I have a single-click icon that shows all windows, minimized and/or open. None of these features would suggest Windows. Despite the obvious Mac-alikes, it doesn't look like MacOS X either in that I use an invisible task bar at the bottom for System Tray. It is a combination of what, I think, are the best features from all desktop environments.

Give us a screenshot then! You got me curious.

ComplexNumber
April 29th, 2007, 03:23 PM
Raffo
that screenshot doesn't count. one can make any desktop look however one wants it to look with a bit of customising.
i think the reason why so many people say that kde is very windows like is more to do with the operations of kde that seem to try to mimic windows as closely as possible. an example being the dialogue that is displayed when you insert some media, etc. they are both exactly the same(virtually word for word) in windows and kde.

panickedthumb
April 29th, 2007, 03:28 PM
No screenshot counts. I can make a screenshot of windows that doesn't look like windows.

Phatfiddler
April 29th, 2007, 03:33 PM
@ graabein

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2556619&postcount=657


@panickedthumb

You are right. There are lots of programs for Windows that let you customize it just as you could for Linux or BSD. In fact, I used them when I ran XP on my laptop. Custom boot screens and logins, OS X clone desktop and background. Even had a finder and apple logo on the menu bar. I had several Mac users ask how I got it running on a Gateway laptop! There are also 3d desktop programs for XP as well.

dbbolton
April 29th, 2007, 04:34 PM
Umm... because it is?
this doesn't look like windows to me...

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs14/i/2006/357/3/a/sabayon_by_envyouraudience.png

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 05:05 PM
Kubuntu should just do what Xubuntu did and add the extra panel. Making KDE look more like Gnome by default is better than having it look like Windows.

Here's my KDE:

Phatfiddler
April 29th, 2007, 05:15 PM
Making KDE look like Gnome is NOT a solution. And I stress, NOT a solution.

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 05:29 PM
Why not? Why is making it look like Windows or MacOS THE solution. And I stress, THE solution?

fuscia
April 29th, 2007, 05:35 PM
here's kde looking like openbox with pypanel (it's really kicker). it even has a right-click menu.

aysiu
April 29th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Why do people say KDE is more Windows-like?
From my short time on the forums, I'd say the answer is "Kubuntu defaults to one panel on the bottom." I suggested in a Gutsy idea thread that we add a second panel to KDE by default (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=421772&highlight=kubuntu+default+two) and people were outraged and said that if you want two panels, you should use Gnome (what?! that's the only difference between the two?).

In what ways is KDE more Windows-like?
Windows has more customization options in the immediate GUI than Mac (where you have to edit .plists for advanced configuration options), and KDE also has more customization options in the immediate GUI than Gnome (where you have to go to gconf-editor for advanced configuration options).

KDE also, like Windows, has an Apply button when you make changes. Gnome, like Mac, has the change take place immediately.

Do those things make KDE "more Windows-like"? Well, overall, I'd say no. But those are a couple of ways in which KDE is more Windows-like than Gnome.

Other ways in which KDE isn't more "Windows-like":
* KDE defaults to single-click instead of double-click
* KDE gives you the ability to have a universal toolbar (like Mac OS X)
* KDE has almost all applications quit with Control-Q (Gnome often has you Control-W to "quit"--i.e., just close the window instead of quit the application)
* KDE, like Mac, defaults to having annoying bouncy icons when you launch applications

Bottom line:
People emphasize whatever supports their ideas about one being "more Windows-like" than the other, and that's usually KDE...mainly because of the default one panel on the bottom of the screen. KDE is, in some ways, more similar to Windows than Gnome is, but, in other ways, more similar to Mac than Gnome is.

Phatfiddler
April 29th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Why not? Why is making it look why Windows or MacOS THE solution. And I stress, THE solution?

No-one said it was:) And I guess you meant to be witty my copying my statement and spinning it back at me.:popcorn:

The reason there are multiple desktop environments is so that users have a choice in the matter. Making them all look and behave the same serves no purpose except to make migration between them easier for new users, which would in turn serve no purpose since they would all be the same.

I can also argue the same for Linux and Windows. Users may have a difficult time using the new layout in Gnome when switching to Ubuntu, so lets make it look exactly like Windows XP. And while we are at it, lets make all of the media players look the same, and the browsers, and the text editors, and ....

But don't get me wrong, adding another panel would not be a problem. But "making it look more like Gnome" is pointless.

ComplexNumber
April 29th, 2007, 05:47 PM
i think its already been well established that any desktop can look like anything else, so there's no need for anyone to post screenshots of kde looking like <fill in desktop environment or OS here>. thats not really the point. its not so much the appearance that is windows-like.

Phatfiddler
April 29th, 2007, 05:54 PM
DOS 2.66 screenshot :lolflag:

http://www.ubuntu.com/files/u3/desktop-tn.png

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 06:16 PM
No-one said it was:) And I guess you meant to be witty my copying my statement and spinning it back at me.:popcorn:

The reason there are multiple desktop environments is so that users have a choice in the matter. Making them all look and behave the same serves no purpose except to make migration between them easier for new users, which would in turn serve no purpose since they would all be the same.

I can also argue the same for Linux and Windows. Users may have a difficult time using the new layout in Gnome when switching to Ubuntu, so lets make it look exactly like Windows XP. And while we are at it, lets make all of the media players look the same, and the browsers, and the text editors, and ....

But don't get me wrong, adding another panel would not be a problem. But "making it look more like Gnome" is pointless.

Like I said, People's major criticism with KDE's default is that it looks too much like Windows. Is it justified? Not really, but that is the initial perception for most people. By having the default have the second panel, the initial criticism of people claiming that it looks like Windows will become moot.

Making the panels look like MacOS or Windows is a far worse solution because when I'm showing my laptop to other people, I don't want them to be asking "Is that MacOS X?"or "Is that Windows Vista?". I want them to say "What is that?". I like the fact that Gnome actually looks unique to Linux.

SuSE actually goes with a one panel layout for Gnome, does that make SuSE's version of Gnome KDE like? Even if you do add the extra panel to KDE, there are still plenty of differences to make each DE unique in their own way. To me, the DE is more than just the amount of panels. The panels serves more of a first impression more than anything.

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 06:22 PM
i think its already been well established that any desktop can look like anything else, so there's no need for anyone to post screenshots of kde looking like <fill in desktop environment or OS here>. thats not really the point. its not so much the appearance that is windows-like.

It's well established for the vets to know that any DE can look like another; however, this isn't the case for new users. By not allowing us to post these screenshots, it puts limitations on our ability to demonstrate what is not well established to new users.

edit: needed to do some rewording... I don't think it came out right the first time.

Phatfiddler
April 29th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Like I said, People's major criticism with KDE's default is that it looks too much like Windows. Is it justified? Not really, but that is the initial perception for most people. By having the default have the second panel, the initial criticism of people claiming that it looks like Windows will become moot.

Making the panels look like MacOS or Windows is a far worse solution because when I'm showing my laptop to other people, I don't want them to be asking "Is that MacOS X?", "Is that Windows Vista?". I want them to say "What is that?"

SuSE actually goes with a one panel layout for Gnome, does that make SuSE's version of Gnome KDE like? Even if you do add the extra panel to KDE, there are still plenty of differences to make each DE unique in their own way. To me, the DE is more than just the amount of panels. The panels serves more of a first impression more than anything.

I completely agree with you on this point. I posted a link several posts above of a screenshot of my desktop. While I cited use of a MacOS style menu bar etc, you will notice that there are obvious differences and that there should be little confusion as to what I am using.

Moving, adding, or removing bars is perfectly fine. Configuring the desktop to look like another is fine to, if thats what you really want. I am simply against deliberately making one DE look like another exiting DE by default. I think it will only further confuse new users into not knowing the difference between the two.

RAV TUX
April 29th, 2007, 06:34 PM
Can someone explain why everybody say that KDE is more "windows like"? I'm a KDE user and I can't understand why... I hope it's not because of the single panel I think it is more because of the start menu, similarity.

Which can be edited, to not show every single program.


I prefer e17 and Fluxbox over KDE, Gnome, or XFCE, but I find it hard to live without KDE applications.

So my solution is to use e17 and then simply use all the KDE applications I have come to enjoy in the e17 environment.

aysiu
April 29th, 2007, 06:35 PM
I am simply against deliberately making one DE look like another exiting DE by default. I think it will only further confuse new users into not knowing the difference between the two. So Xubuntu and Ubuntu are the same, then, because they both have two panels by default? While I agree that you shouldn't go out of your way to make them look exactly alike, most of the justification for having two panels by default in Gnome and Xfce has to do with notions (how valid they are is another story) of usability and accessibility, not distinction from KDE. If two panels by default has to do with usability and accessibility, two panels should be in by default for all three major desktop environments in Ubuntu.

You can still make the KDE panel silver. You can still have the KMenu be K. You can still have ugly huge mouseover tooltips. You can still have bouncing icons. You can still have a different color scheme and a different background. The panel is not the only thing that defines a look.

RAV TUX
April 29th, 2007, 06:40 PM
here's kde looking like openbox with pypanel (it's really kicker). it even has a right-click menu.fuscia thanks for posting this screenshot, it really is helpful. I was trying to find a way to explain how easy it to customize KDE to work like Fluxbox.....here your illustration is worth a thousand words.

Thank you again.

fuscia
April 29th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Thank you again.

my pleasure.

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 06:46 PM
I completely agree with you on this point. I posted a link several posts above of a screenshot of my desktop. While I cited use of a MacOS style menu bar etc, you will notice that there are obvious differences and that there should be little confusion as to what I am using.

Moving, adding, or removing bars is perfectly fine. Configuring the desktop to look like another is fine to, if thats what you really want. I am simply against deliberately making one DE look like another exiting DE by default. I think it will only further confuse new users into not knowing the difference between the two.

How many people do you know that are confused between Ubuntu and Xubuntu? If this isn't the case with these two, why would this be the case with Kubuntu?

I understand that your desktop doesn't look exactly like MacOS, but people in public might get that first impression and say "That looks an aweful lot like MacOS". The last impression I want to give to people when showing off Linux is that it copies from Windows and Mac. A Linux DE looking similar to another Linux DE is a non issue for me because both products are still related to Linux and not copying another OS.

Phatfiddler
April 29th, 2007, 06:58 PM
How many people do you know that are confused between Ubuntu and Xubuntu? If this isn't the case with these two, why would this be the case with Kubuntu?

I understand that your desktop doesn't look exactly like MacOS, but people in public might get that first impression and say "That looks an aweful lot like MacOS". The last impression I want to give to people when showing off Linux is that it copies from Windows and Mac.

I was referring to new users that may be interested in migrating to Ubuntu. If every version looks exactly alike, they may not understand the differences between versions. Also, what if they decide that they don't like the layout? Many users are unaware that they can customize the panels (specifically users of Windows), and they may steer away completey for fear of being stuck with a single layout that they don't like. By having multiple setups, it increases the chance of hooking a new user, and possibly a lifetime user and/or supporter.

maniacmusician
April 29th, 2007, 07:04 PM
I was referring to new users that may be interested in migrating to Ubuntu. If every version looks exactly alike, they may not understand the differences between versions. Also, what if they decide that they don't like the layout? Many users are unaware that they can customize the panels (specifically users of Windows), and they may steer away completey for fear of being stuck with a single layout that they don't like. By having multiple setups, it increases the chance of hooking a new user, and possibly a lifetime user and/or supporter.
I'm against having similar looks by default as well. As aysiu said, there's more to looks than just panels, but panels are the most obvious thing when you first log in. If anything, I think all the DEs should look radically different, just to provide a broad range of tastes and feelings.

ComplexNumber
April 29th, 2007, 07:07 PM
If anything, I think all the DEs should look radically different, just to provide a broad range of tastes and feelings.
quite true. if they are all the same or similar, there is no choice. the greater the variation, the more meaningful the choice.

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 07:11 PM
I was referring to new users that may be interested in migrating to Ubuntu. If every version looks exactly alike, they may not understand the differences between versions. Also, what if they decide that they don't like the layout? Many users are unaware that they can customize the panels (specifically users of Windows), and they may steer away completey for fear of being stuck with a single layout that they don't like. By having multiple setups, it increases the chance of hooking a new user, and possibly a lifetime user and/or supporter.

So far, the vast majority of people that are migrating from Windows go to Ubuntu rather than Kubuntu. Why is that? I believe that people that are migrating want to see something different and better rather than the "same old, same old".

I want users to get the first impression that it's different first and later explain that you're not pidginhold to that specific look. It's easier for me to explain that Linux is customizable to look the way you want than it is for me to justify how Linux is not a copycat OS.

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 07:17 PM
I'm against having similar looks by default as well. As aysiu said, there's more to looks than just panels, but panels are the most obvious thing when you first log in. If anything, I think all the DEs should look radically different, just to provide a broad range of tastes and feelings.

I remember having this argument with you when I first joined these forums, and I understand your point. Now that I know a little bit more, I can defend my position a little bit more.

The worst criticism that I hear for KDE is that it looks too much like Windows, and I see that as huge problem. KDE's default look is inadequate at this moment if people will quickly relate KDE to Windows. It's unfair because I know that KDE is much more than a Windows clone.

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 07:24 PM
quite true. if they are all the same or similar, there is no choice. the greater the variation, the more meaningful the choice.

I understand the need to have choices, but when one of the choices gets criticized mostly because it looks too much like another OS, I see a problem.

Raffo
April 29th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Why do people say KDE is more Windows-like?
From my short time on the forums, I'd say the answer is "Kubuntu defaults to one panel on the bottom." I suggested in a Gutsy idea thread that we add a second panel to KDE by default (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=421772&highlight=kubuntu+default+two) and people were outraged and said that if you want two panels, you should use Gnome (what?! that's the only difference between the two?).

In what ways is KDE more Windows-like?
Windows has more customization options in the immediate GUI than Mac (where you have to edit .plists for advanced configuration options), and KDE also has more customization options in the immediate GUI than Gnome (where you have to go to gconf-editor for advanced configuration options).

KDE also, like Windows, has an Apply button when you make changes. Gnome, like Mac, has the change take place immediately.

Do those things make KDE "more Windows-like"? Well, overall, I'd say no. But those are a couple of ways in which KDE is more Windows-like than Gnome.

Other ways in which KDE isn't more "Windows-like":
* KDE defaults to single-click instead of double-click
* KDE gives you the ability to have a universal toolbar (like Mac OS X)
* KDE has almost all applications quit with Control-Q (Gnome often has you Control-W to "quit"--i.e., just close the window instead of quit the application)
* KDE, like Mac, defaults to having annoying bouncy icons when you launch applications

Bottom line:
People emphasize whatever supports their ideas about one being "more Windows-like" than the other, and that's usually KDE...mainly because of the default one panel on the bottom of the screen. KDE is, in some ways, more similar to Windows than Gnome is, but, in other ways, more similar to Mac than Gnome is.
Thank you, great reply. I've been using only linux for 4 years but I didn't notice a lot of things you wrote ;)

maniacmusician
April 29th, 2007, 07:32 PM
So far, the vast majority of people that are migrating from Windows go to Ubuntu rather than Kubuntu. Why is that? I believe that people that are migrating want to see something different and better rather than the "same old, same old".

Nice try, but don't try to slip in that kind of BS :) People usually go to Ubuntu because they're not aware of Kubuntu. I'm not saying that they would all go to Kubuntu if they were aware of it; but if they're not aware of it, they don't even have a chance to. Ubuntu is the brand name that people know...when they go to ubuntu.com, they'll get the gnome-based Ubuntu, not Kubuntu. That's what they see, and that's what they download. If they were more educated about the different choices, I'm pretty sure that we would have a more even division concerning which one they decide to download. BTW: This is not a complaint or a rant, I was just stating the facts.


I remember having this argument with you when I first joined these forums, and I understand your point. Now that I know a little bit more, I can defend my position a little bit more.

The worst criticism that I hear for KDE is that it looks too much like Windows, and I see that as huge problem. KDE's default look is inadequate at this moment if people will quickly relate KDE to Windows. It's unfair because I know that KDE is much more than a Windows clone.
I totally agree with you on this front. I don't think that KDE's default look is great. I think that in our previous argument, I showed you my custom KDE setup which I prefer much more. I'm not against changing it...but I don't think that changing it is the greatest priority either. It would be more fruitful to give users the education needed to customize it themselves and let them get a setup that they want.

ComplexNumber
April 29th, 2007, 07:40 PM
I understand the need to have choices, but when one of the choices gets criticized mostly because it looks too much like another OS, I see a problem.
i don't remember any credible opinion claiming that it looks too much like windows. but it is true about kde being the most closely related to windows out of all the linux desktops - the common areas between windows and kde are more to do with how they other operate and its whole philosophy and feel, not their appearance.

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 07:51 PM
Nice try, but don't try to slip in that kind of BS :) People usually go to Ubuntu because they're not aware of Kubuntu. I'm not saying that they would all go to Kubuntu if they were aware of it; but if they're not aware of it, they don't even have a chance to. Ubuntu is the brand name that people know...when they go to ubuntu.com, they'll get the gnome-based Ubuntu, not Kubuntu. That's what they see, and that's what they download. If they were more educated about the different choices, I'm pretty sure that we would have a more even division concerning which one they decide to download. BTW: This is not a complaint or a rant, I was just stating the facts.


With the screenshot enclosed, it's hard to not know that Kubuntu exists. The first thing I did before I downloaded Ubuntu was to look at all the related projects. The default KDE look was so unattractive that I chose Ubuntu over Kubuntu initially.

I understand what I'm saying doesn't sound convenient, but it doesn't mean that it's BS. If it was BS, then why do most Ubuntu users stick to Ubuntu rather than do the switch?

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 07:53 PM
i don't remember any credible opinion claiming that it looks too much like windows. but it is true about kde being the most closely related to windows out of all the linux desktops - the common areas between windows and kde are more to do with how they other operate and its whole philosophy and feel, not their appearance.


I never said that the opinion is credible, but it is the opinion most people use when criticizing KDE.

maniacmusician
April 29th, 2007, 08:02 PM
With the screenshot enclosed, it's hard to not know that Kubuntu exists. The first thing I did before I downloaded Ubuntu was to look at all the related projects. The default KDE look was so unattractive that I chose Ubuntu over Kubuntu initially.

I understand what I'm saying doesn't sound convenient, but it doesn't mean that it's BS. If it was BS, then why do most Ubuntu users stick to Ubuntu rather than do the switch?
the link is in there as related projects. I'm not unncessarily defending KDE; I like Gnome too. But most users that hear about Ubuntu being so great are going to go to the site, and look for the prominently displayed "Download" button. Also, before the revamp of the website this time around, I think the links were also less obvious, under "Derivatives" somewhere. I'm not trying to be a bigot here, I'm just saying that most new users don't even know that Kubuntu exists when they go to install, so they naturally choose Ubuntu. So your statement was BS in the sense that the facts clearly say something different as to what you were complaining; no personal offense intended. BS was perhaps an unnecessarily harsh term.

As for most users sticking to Ubuntu, several things;

- Is there any evidence to back that up?
- Many users still don't know about Kubuntu or Xubuntu after installing Ubuntu. In fact, a large number don't even come online to Ubuntu Forums or anything. They just install ubuntu on their computer and chug happily along, without any knowledge of alternatives
- It is somewhat of a hassle to switch. you can do a simple "apt-get install kubuntu-desktop", but then the menus become cluttered since there is nothing implemented to cleanly separate the menus or make them look presentable. If you do a fresh install, it can be a pain to migrate all your data.

fuscia
April 29th, 2007, 08:43 PM
The worst criticism that I hear for KDE is that it looks too much like Windows, and I see that as huge problem.

it's only a problem for people who don't use kde. speaking for myself, i'm not sure i could care any less.

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 09:53 PM
it's only a problem for people who don't use kde. speaking for myself, i'm not sure i could care any less.

When I see that Compiz has a lot of gnome dependencies, I care and you should too. Gnome is the popular choice, and you should care if KDE is not as popular if you want more support.

maniacmusician
April 29th, 2007, 10:20 PM
When I see that Compiz has a lot of gnome dependencies, I care and you should too. Gnome is the popular choice, and you should care if KDE is not as popular if you want more support.

ah...sorry to say it, but do you know what you're talking about? Most distros use KDE and it is often seen as the more popular choice. In fact, Ubuntu was really instrumental in making Gnome more popular, and it's one of the few Gnome-centric distros that does well. Gnome is not more popular than KDE. Compiz has gnome dependencies...but that's why Beryl was created.

awakatanka
April 29th, 2007, 10:55 PM
If kde had put the panel on top like gnome nobody compared it to windows. Kicker and the foot and start are mostly doing the same thing. So its only the place where it's putted that make people believe it's looking like windows.

Customize windows look? nah not without 3th party software. So that part doesn't look like kde.

Can someone point out points that makes it windows like without that panel place?

aysiu said apply button, but in the same post he pointed more points that makes it less windows like.

Some say gconf-editor looks like a windows register and konqueror looks like IE ( filemanager,browser).

http://www.hawo.stw.uni-erlangen.de/~helmi/Seminarvortrag/pics/06%20Win_Explorer2.jpg
Hmm looks like
http://www.hawo.stw.uni-erlangen.de/~helmi/Seminarvortrag/pics/06GnomeExplorer3.jpg

and
http://www.hawo.stw.uni-erlangen.de/~helmi/Seminarvortrag/pics/06%20Win_Explorer.jpg
hmm looks a little bit like
http://www.hawo.stw.uni-erlangen.de/~helmi/Seminarvortrag/pics/06KDEexplorer1.jpg

BTW. about that 1 our 2 panel thing. If we look at screenshots i see a lot of 1 panel shots with a OSX docker like thing. Maybe better to change to 1 panel and a OSX docker like thing for all buntu's. Argue about how many panels the buntu's need ](*,)

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 11:13 PM
ah...sorry to say it, but do you know what you're talking about? Most distros use KDE and it is often seen as the more popular choice. In fact, Ubuntu was really instrumental in making Gnome more popular, and it's one of the few Gnome-centric distros that does well. Gnome is not more popular than KDE. Compiz has gnome dependencies...but that's why Beryl was created.

1. Ubuntu is a giant compared to all the other distros, so developers are more likely to support the more popular distros than the unpopular ones.

Top 10 in the last 6 months:
Ubuntu - Gnome
PCLinuxOS - KDE
OpenSuSE - Either
Fedora - Gnome
Mepis - KDE
Debian - Gnome
Mandriva - KDE
Sabayon - KDE
DamnSmallLinux - Fluxbox
Mint - Gnome

Source: www.distrowatch.com "look under default desktop"

2. Beryl is gone. It's being merged with Compiz, so using Beryl as an argument to counter Compiz is no longer valid. I hope that the Beryl devs will solve this issue for KDE users after the merge, but I haven't heard any news as of yet.

3. LimeWire/FrostWire is another app that I use that is using Gnome dependencies. I'm not going to boycott software because it has Gnome dependencies, but that doesn't mean that I don't care about them. The more KDE gets supported, the less chances my apps will depend on Gnome. I feel that this is very important.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean that I do not know what I'm talking about. After all, the only thing I want is to make KDE more attractive initially so that it gets more support. KDE's default look gets put down for looking like Windows, and that's not fine.

maniacmusician
April 29th, 2007, 11:34 PM
1. Ubuntu is a giant compared to all the other distros, so developers are more likely to support the more popular distros than the unpopular ones.

Top 10 in the last 6 months:
Ubuntu - Gnome
PCLinuxOS - KDE
OpenSuSE - Either
Fedora - Gnome
Mepis - KDE
Debian - Gnome
Mandriva - KDE
Sabayon - KDE
DamnSmallLinux - Fluxbox
Mint - Gnome

Source: www.distrowatch.com "look under default desktop"
Distrowatch measures popularity by how many hits a certain OS gets on their website. So what this equates to is that Ubuntu is getting the most media coverage right now, not that it's the most popular or has the most users. If you wander outside of the Ubuntu bubble on the internet, you'll find that the majority of Linux users despise Ubuntu.


2. Beryl is gone. It's being merged with Compiz, so using Beryl as an argument to counter Compiz is no longer valid. I hope that the Beryl devs will solve this issue for KDE users after the merge, but I haven't heard any news as of yet.
One of the primary reason for the Beryl fork was because of the horrible KDE support. This is why Compiz-Quinn was created, which eventually evolved into Beryl. Using Beryl as an argument is still very valid. If the merge doesn't result in a proper product that everyone is satisfied with, then the Beryl folk will simply fork again and re-establish Beryl.


3. LimeWire/FrostWire is another app that I use that is using Gnome dependencies. I'm not going to boycott software because it has Gnome dependencies, but that doesn't mean that I don't care about them. The more KDE gets supported, the less chances my apps will depend on Gnome. I feel that this is very important.
Frostwire has Gnome dependencies? I'm pretty sure I've used it on Xubuntu before without having to install a large portion of the Gnome environment. And also, you wouldn't have to boycott software. Frostwire simply uses the Gnutella network, which can be accessed by a number of other clients. Or you can use Frostwire if you want; I'm installing it right now on my KDE system just to see how it goes, and I'm just getting 1 library as a dependency (already have java), so what Gnome dependencies are you talking about?

Just because you disagree doesn't mean that I do not know what I'm talking about. After all, the only thing I want is to make KDE more attractive initially so that it gets more support. KDE's default look gets put down for looking like Windows, and that's not fine.
You're misunderstanding me. I don't really disagree with you on too much. You've said a couple of okay things in the beginning. I just had a problem with it when you started citing incorrect facts, like Gnome is more popular than KDE. If you've ever spent a significant amount of time outside the Ubuntu community, you would know that this is not the case. Your reasoning was just flawed and I was pointing it out to you in good conscience, to make sure that you knew the facts. Nothing against you or your ideas.

And just to make it clear, though I primarily use KDE since it suits me the best, I also enjoy using Gnome and XFCE occasionally to mix things up. All three are pretty good systems, though XFCE is still a little young.

dspari1
April 30th, 2007, 12:57 AM
I'm currently using LimeWire Pro, and gconf is a dependency for it. I automatically assumed that FrostWire is exactly like LimeWire since they are based on the same code.

As for the Compiz merge, I really do hope that the KDE issue gets resolved because I'm pro KDE, and I rather be wrong than right if it means that KDE is going to get support.

However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't care about what non KDE users think. That kind of mentality will polarize rather than unite the community. If the #1 criticism of KDE is being too much like windows, then something needs to be done about it. Giving the critics the finger and ignoring them is not a good strategy in winning the DE war.

maniacmusician
April 30th, 2007, 01:21 AM
I'm currently using LimeWire Pro, and gconf is a dependency for it. I automatically assumed that FrostWire is exactly like LimeWire since they are based on the same code.

As for the Compiz merge, I really do hope that the KDE issue gets resolved because I'm pro KDE, and I rather be wrong than right if it means that KDE is going to get support.

However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't care about what non KDE users think. That kind of mentality will polarize rather than unite the community. If the #1 criticism of KDE is being too much like windows, then something needs to be done about it. Giving the critics the finger and ignoring them is not a good strategy in winning the DE war.
No one is doing that. Firstly, the #1 criticism of KDE is not that it looks like windows; it's not even one of the top ones. KDE can look like anything you want it to look like, as has been revealed earlier in this thread. Looking like windows or not looking like Windows is not important....The current default look is one from tradition. A lot of people use it, and a lot of people like it. Just because Windows uses it as well, does that mean that they shouldn't?

I too think that the default look is not very appealing, and that is why I always customize my setup to my liking. I believe that it's important to teach users how to get the most out of their system, rather than wasting our time arguing. Is the default look perfect? No, of course not. But does it at least appease the majority of first time users? Probably. It may be changed one day, but for now, it seems like most people are fairly satisifed with the default look. At least we're finally getting to the heart of the matter here.

It would be more productive, in my opinion, to teach displeased users how to change their system and get the most out of it, rather than create dissent over what the current default is (since that default pleases most people)

darkhatter
April 30th, 2007, 01:37 AM
:popcorn: :confused: :confused: :confused: I think anyone who says kde looks more like windows can be safely ignored. I think they main reason they have to panel on the bottom is thats the first place people look for it. Novell did a huge study on this which is why gnome only have one panel, and its on the bottom. If your adding panels just to be different then I think you've lost sight of your original goal, which (I hope) is to make a good desktop environment. No fan-personism (trying to be politically correct) intended.

igknighted
April 30th, 2007, 01:38 AM
Kubuntu should just do what Xubuntu did and add the extra panel. Making KDE look more like Gnome by default is better than having it look like Windows.

Here's my KDE:

Umm... no? I really wish the Xubuntu didn't aim to look like gnome, because it looks bad that way. Use a more fitting Xfce look (see Zenwalk, SAM, Dreamlinux for details). Also, each disto should choose their own layout. Lots of distros (Sabayon, Mint, Suse for example) use a single panel for gnome. Some KDE distro's (Sabayon is the only one that comes to mind off the top of my head) use a 2 panel layout. The layout is so customizable that we should get away from one/two panels etc. being relevant in this discussion.

I would agree that KDE is SLIGHTLY more windows like, but overall, neither Gnome or KDE are truly windows like, so it's a meaningless argument.

forrestcupp
April 30th, 2007, 02:39 PM
Just because you hate Windows, doesn't mean KDE doesn't look more like Windows than other DE's. There has to be some similarity. That is the whole reason Linspire uses KDE. They are out to make a distro that is familiar to Windows users. Yeah, you can customize it to look different, but in Windows, I could move my taskbar to the top, or either side without 3rd party software. I could even hide my taskbar so that it didn't appear until I moused over it. In Linux, pretty much everything is 3rd party software.

Anyway, they're all a knock off. Just look at the buttons at the right side of the title bar. You have an X to close the window, a box to maximize or double boxes to unmaximize, a line to minimize. If you click on the right edge of the title bar, it will give you a window menu. Wow, so all of these DE's just happened to come up with that idea separately and on their own?

macogw
April 30th, 2007, 05:26 PM
No screenshot counts. I can make a screenshot of windows that doesn't look like windows.

BB4Win - Blackbox for Windows ...won't look like Windows at all.

I think it's about the panel / KMenu location. But if you look at GNOME on SuSE, it's only got one panel and the menu's on the bottom left, so...

fuscia
April 30th, 2007, 06:01 PM
When I see that Compiz has a lot of gnome dependencies, I care and you should too. Gnome is the popular choice, and you should care if KDE is not as popular if you want more support.

i get plenty of support for kde. i have no use for compiz. i don't dislike gnome, i just prefer kde (today, that is).

ThinkBuntu
April 30th, 2007, 07:46 PM
Because Torvalds loves it.

Castar
April 30th, 2007, 09:09 PM
I think KDE4 is a great opportunity to change the rather dull panel of KDE3. I personally like Gnome's looks and two-panel layout, but I like everything else more in KDE. So, I emulate these on KDE (and I can!).

I don't think KDE4 should have 2 panels necessarily but something more... innovative!

panickedthumb
April 30th, 2007, 09:20 PM
It's well established for the vets to know that any DE can look like another; however, this isn't the case for new users. By not allowing us to post these screenshots, it puts limitations on our ability to demonstrate what is not well established to new users.

edit: needed to do some rewording... I don't think it came out right the first time.
First off, nobody is "not allowing you" to upload screenshots. Feel free to do so! I just don't think it matters. You argue that new users don't know that it can be configured to look differently, but then EVERYTHING can be configured to look differently. I was using what looked like OSX in Windows, Blackbox for Windows, Litestep, the list goes on... same goes for KDE, same goes for Gnome, same goes for Apple (though it's a bit harder). I don't think default setup matters nearly as much as people think it does. And I don't think KDE is like Windows any more than Gnome is honestly.

izizzle
May 2nd, 2007, 04:07 AM
personally, I postively abolutely HATE KDE! because it has a windows like feel and I hate WINDOWS and Micro$oft. It also has too many flaws and bad user interface. Go XFCE!

steven8
May 2nd, 2007, 04:52 AM
The first time I saw KDE, I thought "Hmm. This looks more like windows." Of course, this was on Freespire, so they were probably aiming for that. However, it didn't take me long to figure out that no matter what it looked like, it wasn't anything like windows at all.

aysiu
May 2nd, 2007, 04:57 AM
personally, I postively abolutely HATE KDE! because it has a windows like feel and I hate WINDOWS and Micro$oft. It also has too many flaws and bad user interface. Go XFCE!
Your post isn't in earnest, is it?

Gang_Star
May 10th, 2007, 12:35 AM
What exactly is it that makes a DE superior? I think we can agree it is not the default number of task bars. In the spirit of linux and Ubuntu, I would suggest customization ability is what makes a DE great. If you ask me the best DE is limitless. I can make it flawlessly duplicate any other OS, any other DE, or make my own environment.

I drifted to linux to escape the never-ending combat against viruses, and frustrating invasive applications. Once I had installed Ubuntu I set about making it my own. I had no problem changing most things to how I wanted them.

The point at which I became frustrated with Gnome was when I had to start hacking and installing 3rd party apps, to get it how I wanted - namely more like the OSX layout and design.

Could someone please tell me: Which desktop envroment is most customizable? Or otherwise which is most customizable to look like OSX?

mips
May 10th, 2007, 12:45 AM
Or otherwise which is most customizable to look like OSX?


KDE has the Baghira theme that makes it look & feel like OSX. Add a dock or whatever you call it and it looks just like OSX.

Do a search here for "Baghira" and you will find lots of information.

http://baghira.sourceforge.net/
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=8692
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghira
http://baghira.sourceforge.net/OS_Clone-en.php
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=406340

Gang_Star
May 10th, 2007, 01:18 AM
Yeah - I've just been looking at it. Very impressive...

What do I lose out on in KDE? Say I eventually got bored of the osx look and wanted to do something different (I love that you can do that in linux). Would there be any overall disadvantage to general KDE customization?

Thanks

Castar
May 10th, 2007, 11:33 AM
Actually it's quite customizable, you can make it look like OSX, Windows, Gnome,,,

www.kde-look.org
(http://www.kde-look.org)
is your friend! :)

use a name
May 10th, 2007, 01:15 PM
A little maybe (one panel, K-menu), but I've been falling in love with the double layer in the taskbar over and over again. I need space and KDE gives it to me (yes, I only mean by default). Enlarging the taskbar in Windows just isn't the same.

blueturtl
May 10th, 2007, 02:27 PM
I don't know what has been written before this (I didn't want to go through pages and pages of replies) and alas I probably repeat someone's great wisdom (or lack of).

Studies show that people on average can only follow about 3-6 graphical stimulae at the same time and thus overflow of attention grabbers (flashy banners, buttons, etc) on screen can easily become overwhelming to many. Grouping things and separating them clearly helps and I think this is why so many people prefer Gnome over KDE. KDE has more options on screen at once (which can **** off people who have a small field of vision or who can only keep track of so many things). Gnome tries to include more advanced functionality in layers (which in turn pisses off people who want everything accessible quickly). Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages.

Windows I think is closer to KDE in it's approach, OS X is closer to Gnome. This is why people say "KDE is more Windows-like".

fuscia
May 10th, 2007, 02:35 PM
Studies show that people on average can only follow about 3-6 graphical stimulae at the same time and thus overflow of attention grabbers (flashy banners, buttons, etc) on screen can easily become overwhelming to many. Grouping things and separating them clearly helps and I think this is why so many people prefer Gnome over KDE. KDE has more options on screen at once (which can **** off people who have a small field of vision or who can only keep track of so many things).

what are you talking about? if you look at the default setups of ubuntu and kubuntu, you'll notice they're about equally 'busy'.

blueturtl
May 10th, 2007, 03:07 PM
what are you talking about? if you look at the default setups of ubuntu and kubuntu, you'll notice they're about equally 'busy'.

Well it could be just me, I've used KDE previously in another distribution. I don't know what the default Ubuntu KDE desktop looks like. I thought the question was about KDE in general or without ties to any spesific distro.

fuscia
May 10th, 2007, 04:27 PM
Well it could be just me, I've used KDE previously in another distribution. I don't know what the default Ubuntu KDE desktop looks like. I thought the question was about KDE in general or without ties to any spesific distro.

generic kde is pretty plain (usually just a panel, four or five icons, a clock and a stupid looking wallpaper).

Ateo
May 15th, 2007, 10:11 PM
Can someone explain why everybody say that KDE is more "windows like"? I'm a KDE user and I can't understand why... I hope it's not because of the single panel :lolflag:

Ignorance. They don't know any better. KDE is far from 'Windows like'. In fact, if people say that about KDE, the same can then be said about Gnome.

Footissimo
May 15th, 2007, 11:09 PM
Ironically, Linux XP (http://www.linux-xp.com/) is based on Gnome rather than KDE (http://www.linux-xp.com/faq/1987.php)

userundefine
May 16th, 2007, 12:13 AM
Saying KDE is windows-like is an insult to the functionality of KDE. It's without basis. The argument earlier about screenshots of customized KDE being illegitimate because you can customize windows as well is invalid because KDE allows you to customize FAR MORE _by default_ than Windows does. Using windowblinds or objectdock and saying it is the same thing as customizing KDE within Kcontrol is incorrect. Compare Kcontrol to Windows Display "Theme" or "Appearance" tabs and then it becomes more accurate, and KDE clearly wins.

People who say it's 'windowslike' are argumentative fools.

ComplexNumber
May 16th, 2007, 12:58 AM
Saying KDE is windows-like is an insult to the functionality of KDE. It's without basis. The argument earlier about screenshots of customized KDE being illegitimate because you can customize windows as well is invalid because KDE allows you to customize FAR MORE _by default_ than Windows does. Using windowblinds or objectdock and saying it is the same thing as customizing KDE within Kcontrol is incorrect. Compare Kcontrol to Windows Display "Theme" or "Appearance" tabs and then it becomes more accurate, and KDE clearly wins.

People who say it's 'windowslike' are argumentative fools.
the appearance isn't the issue.

maniacmusician
May 16th, 2007, 01:19 AM
the appearance isn't the issue.
Correction: There is no issue.

This argument has been going in circles for a long time. Can someone just close this thread? It's going nowhere. It's bothersome to have it dug up every other week.

userundefine
May 16th, 2007, 03:20 AM
Correction: There is no issue.
Agreed.

Ptero-4
August 4th, 2007, 05:04 AM
Sorry if Iīm late on this discussion, but I think the reason KDE is said to be windoze-like isnīt the appearance, itīs the underlying philosophy that the KDE dev team follows. When linux was created it was created by linus torvalds to run in his 386 box from there lots of people began to run it in their x86 computers and to improve it in them (hence why linux has better support for the x86 arch than for every one of the gazillion arches it also runs on), in time linux became an alternative OS for x86 computers and that meant they had to cather to windoze users, to do that first they had to acquire a gui subsystem and they took xfree86 then some guys decided to create a DE, they made KDE, they made KDE look and function like windoze to cather to windoze users, then gnome was created to go around the licensing issues of qt 1 (which were fixed later), gnome was made to look like windoze for the same reason kde was, then came helix along, with them the gnome dev team changed their philosophy to cather to those who want a clean, simple and usable DE which meant cloning the Mac interface which was the one closest to their usability plans and the working from there, the KDE guys OTOH kept their philosophy of cathering to windoze users by making KDE look and function like windoze.

HermanAB
August 4th, 2007, 05:15 AM
KDE is more Windows-like, primarily because both KDE and Windows adhere closely to the standards set by CDE.
http://www.opengroup.org/cde/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Environment

Cheers,

Herman