Is it my imagination or does KDE get better "Looking" apps?

[PiggiePaul]

(Just wanted to add at the top, this posting may sound a bit critical, it's not meant to be, I'm just curious) ;)


Just something I've noticed a few times, and I'm wondering if this is a trend, or just "How it is" or I'm imagining it, or there's something else going on?

For some reason (being a new Linux/ubuntu user) I'm of course, still finding my "Preferred" apps to do certain jobs.

Now something that I seem to be noticing is that some of the bigger (more complex?) apps are appearing to be KDA ones, and these also appear to have a lot more work put into their front-end design.

Like someone (team) has actually sat down and "Designed" the front end/interface as opposed to just using the bog standard (yawn!) window elements to design (or lack of) the GUI front end.

Things like Amarok, DigiKam, SMplayer, and now notice K3B as well.

This was kinda my 1st thing from leaving windows.

With many (most) of the standard default programs in ubuntu (no offence) but it looks like someone has spend all of 30 seconds to design the front end.

It works and it's functional, and that's that.

Whereas these BIG? KDA prog, They look like they have been designed.

Possibly to the disgust of some/many Linux users who feel the front end should be just enough to do the job and no more.

Am I imagining this, and I've just happened across a few KDE apps that look like this, or of there a difference in the way KDA and Gnome packages are put together that's make things like this?

Not coming from a Linux background, I'd like to know what the deal is here?

[Toet]

Some people like apps to look the same. It gives a nice, clear desktop. Although you perform different task in different apps, they give you the feeling it's all one. It's more quite and peaceful. At least that's the way I like it.
To my taste the KDE apps you mention are not tidy and are loud, screaming sometimes. It's just a matter of taste and look at it.

[Soldierboy]

I've actually noticed that as well. I think Gnome always was about simplicity and ease of use, hence the current design. It begs the question, why not switch to KDE? I'm thinking about it myself (i've always hated KDE) but KDE4 is looking promising.

They both harp about "ease of use" on their About pages. But I know for certain KDE strives to provide the most configurability and options.

[aysiu]

I know you're asking this in all innocence, but any question that implies KDE might in some way be better than Gnome (or vice versa) will end up as a recurring, endless discussion about the relative merits of KDE and Gnome, so I've moved this thread out of Absolute Beginner.

[sancho panza]

I completely agree with Toet. What are you are noticing is the fundamental difference between KDE and Gnome. Its not becos nobody has put any thought into Gnome. On the contrary, lots of thought has gone into keeping the Gnome interface clutter free. The people who like a clutter free, simple interface, like me, use gnome...People who dont mind a crowded interface, and like to do a lot of customization (power users) prefer KDE...take your pick :)
This (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/kdevsgnome) might be a good place to start.

[jacob01]

it might not be you kde tends to be more user friendly and more visual effects that know or some of the others

[jacob01]

I completely agree with Toet. What are you are noticing is the fundamental difference between KDE and Gnome. Its not becos nobody has put any thought into Gnome. On the contrary, lots of thought has gone into keeping the Gnome interface clutter free. The people who like a clutter free, simple interface, like me, use gnome...People who dont mind a crowded interface, and like to do a lot of customization (power users) prefer KDE...take your pick :)
This (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/kdevsgnome) might be a good place to start.

i totally agree with you im the same way

opensource is about choice and freedom, if you like something that doesn't mean everyone likes it

[PiggiePaul]

I know you're asking this in all innocence, but any question that implies KDE might in some way be better than Gnome (or vice versa) will end up as a recurring, endless discussion about the relative merits of KDE and Gnome, so I've moved this thread out of Absolute Beginner.

Ok Thanks.

I in no way meant to start any kind of War/Argument.

In fact it's only in the past week or so I even knew there was such a thing called KDE (steep Linux learning curve and all that!) ;)

I must admit, I've spend the last few weeks (since installing ubuntu) getting it (very VERY slowly) to look like something I like and with the apps I think I like also.

This often means making mistakes as I swap from one program to another.

A good example:

I browsed these forums to search for what was the best MP3 player, as (like most apps) the one bundled with Ubuntu did not exactly set my world alight (coming from windows) and I noticed a lot of people say Amarok.

I downloaded it, and Whoa.... that looks different.

But I had issues with it, trying to use a remote drive for my music collection. So I went back to Rhythm Box, and thought, right then, I'll stick to something that looks dull and boring, but which works well.

Then Rhythm Box started showing up faults, stuttering at times, freezing, "Greying out." So I moved my music to a local drive, and still Rhythm Box was just not happy (I have about 7000 tunes)

So I went back to Amarok, and now the drive was local, it's performed superb, it LOOKS like it was "Designed" (some may say bloatware) but it works perfect, and has a zero CPU loading when minimized playing a tune.

Also running Audacious (another "Designed" looking app) as a tiny player for when I just click on a music file.

I know (I think) Audacious is not for any particular system, but they "Look" nice apps, and ones that (if you showed someone coming from Windows) they would be impressed.

I know I'm shallow, and easily swawed by Eye Candy at times, but of course, it MUST WORK WELL, otherwise there is no point.
But it is a nice "Icing on the top" if it Looks good also.

I mean, it looks like someone has used a bit of artistic talent and time to put together a nicely styled front end, rather that just some gui default box's scroll bars and drop down menu's.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, for serious (system apps)

I'd not need a all singing all dancing (with flashing lights and animated elephants) network configurations wizard!!!

But the "Biggie" programs, like Sound, Video, Graphics, etc etc, I (Personally) do like something that has a "Look" to it.

and seeing as how the Linux community is flooded with custom everything as add-ons left right and center (not forgetting Compiz) I know many people love eye candy too.

But, back to my original question.

I did wonder if it's a conscious decision, or some plan etc, that makes many Gnome apps (from my limited experience) just have a very default design, whereas there do seem to be more "Designed" KDE apps.

And I will hold my hands up now and say I don't know why you would choose Kubuntu over ubuntu (KDE over Gnome)
I currently don't know enough to even know why we have/need/continue with the 2 versions?

[PiggiePaul]

Thanks for your replies (and not taking my comments as insults - as they are in no way meant to be, I'm just curious and trying to find out things)

I did not know (until your postings on this thread) that ubuntu with Gnome was supposed to be the safe, secure, not too fancy, easy to understand face of ubuntu. If that's the case then great, I can go along with that.

And that kubuntu is the version for the person who like to fiddle more, perhaps more eye candy, and (the comment above) power user (whatever that really means!)

If that's the general view, then I'm happy with that explanation on things, and it would explain why ubuntu apps seem (shall we say politely) to have a basic plain interface, whereas the (some) KDE apps seem to have a more "designed" interface.

Both sides of the fence are equally valid, and I can see how some would like one, and some would like another.

Perhaps like a XP vs VISTA kinda way. (albeit nothing could be as bad as Vista!!!!)

However, sticking Compiz Fusion into ubuntu seems to slap gigantically in the face of this concept don't you think?

Like having Someone in a pink and green dayglo suit with a blue flashing light on their head reading the 6 oclock news on the BBC ;)

I love compiz by the way, and if honest, it was a YouTube clip of Compiz running which made my try Ubuntu in the 1st place (so glad I did now)

See, a sucker for useless eye candy..... That's me!

Else why would I still have wobbly windows and sticky edges (even though they are a pain a lot of the time) but it still looks cool :D



The one (I think) funny thing that (from comments above)

[tigerplug]

I think KDE is just a better looking environment. Although I currently run Gnome... I wouldn't mind giving KDE a go. I think I may switch in the coming days ;)

[SunnyRabbiera]

I dunno, you can get gnome to look and feel pretty good if you know what you are doing.
and whats this nonsense about KDE4? I think it looks ugly right now with its black taskbar and desktop applets, I am glad plasma will get theming support

[geoken]

I think the point of apps that use default widgets (like regular scrollbars, buttons, etc.) is that you can make them look how you want by themeing your entire system. If i go to the trouble of making or finding some awesome theme I don't want to open my music player and not have it conform to that (ie. Songbird).

It's the reason people go out of their why to theme WINE. They like a uniform look. If something looks bland then they blame their theme in gneral, and not the app in specific.