KDE vs. Gnome

[fela]

what do you think is better? KDE or Gnome? i prefer gnome myself (although that's prejudiced as i have used it much more)

[LaRoza]

Come now, what did you expect?

[Whiffle]

AwesomeWM, obviously.

[fela]

Come now, what did you expect?

i was just wondering if anyone preferred one or the other, and if they had a good reason for it. And ubuntu comes in both flavours, so i didn't think it'd be prejudiced (and this forum is for both Kubuntu and ubuntu, so that wouldn't make a difference)

[fela]

AwesomeWM, obviously.

is that an actual window manager/desktop environment? or are you joking? :)

[Whiffle]

is that an actual window manager/desktop environment? or are you joking? :)

Joke? Me? Never. :D

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=678902


But in all honestly, I use KDE, I've posted it before, probably more than once. But really boils down to personal preference.

[NightwishFan]

They are even on many things.

Plus for Kubuntu: Better default applications, Better GUI Configuration, A bit lighter on memory. Configurable screen savers.

Plus for Ubuntu: I like the look better, way more organized, Easier to dramatically customize.

I think I will use Xubuntu when it is released. If I see some cool reasons to use XFCE I will get the beta.

[atomkarinca]

Well, you can't say one is "better" now, can you? It depends on what you expect from a window manager. Also I can't see E17 here. That's not fair.

[santiagoward2000]

Why no Xfce? :(

[NightwishFan]

I can understand only wanting opinions about KDE or GNOME. My favorite window manager is JWM however lately I have just been using GNOME. Like I said I want to convert to XFCE.

[cardinals_fan]

Xfce.

[waspbr]

I prefer gnome, I think it is a little easier to use, it's all nice and shiny, although KDE4 looks superb, so there's a tie there.

also, I find gnome to be more customizable and organized, which is what I want for my everyday use.

I think that kubuntu however is more efficient , snappier than gnome.

[fela]

Joke? Me? Never. :D

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=678902


But in all honestly, I use KDE, I've posted it before, probably more than once. But really boils down to personal preference.

speaking of which, have you tried fluxbox?

[fela]

Why no Xfce? :(

cause i thought 'kde and gnome are most popular', if i start doing all the less popular ones then i'd go past my limit of 10 choices. you can do your own one, with xfce, if you want. :)

[Whiffle]

speaking of which, have you tried fluxbox?

I did some time ago, along with Openbox and FVWM and probably a couple of others. It was nice and fast and such, but what bugged me about it was that while I could easily control the looks of fluxbox itself, getting all the fonts, styles and colors right for the rest of the programs I use was a pain in the butt. Same goes for AwesomeWM as well. That, and it didn't feel that much faster to me than KDE does, which didn't really give me much benefit to sticking with flux. The reason I do use AwesomeWM from time to time though (depending on my mood), is that in addition to being rediculously fast, it does tiling windows, which comes in very very handy and isn't a feature I can get in KDE.

[MRiGnS]

Plus for Kubuntu: Better default applications, Better GUI Configuration, A bit lighter on memory. Configurable screen savers.

Plus for Ubuntu: I like the look better, way more organized, Easier to dramatically customize..

That is soooo wrong lol.

And Ubuntu != Gnome, and Kubuntu !=KDE

[NightwishFan]

That is soooo wrong lol.

And Ubuntu != Gnome, and Kubuntu !=KDE

I am sorry, but what?

[MRiGnS]

Gnome isn't easily customisable, it's actually very restrictive if you compare possible settings with KDE.

That's fine, maybe it makes things easier by not having much things to configure.

But to say Gnome would easier to customise is just plain wrong.


The other part of the point is that neither ubuntu nor kubuntu are the vanilla DEs.

[LaRoza]

Gnome isn't easily customisable, it's actually very restrictive if you compare possible settings with KDE.

That's fine, maybe it makes things easier by not having much things to configure.

But to say Gnome would easier to customise is just plain wrong.


Depends on what you want to customize.

I setup GNOME and KDE similiarly, and GNOME is closest to what I want, in its typically default setting.

I like both, and would use the same apps anyway (Pidgin/Kopete, Opera, VLC, and Vim) so it doesn't matter what DE I use.

I am sure if I were to try to put either through their paces, KDE would have most possibilities, but the way I like it, KDE and GNOME are easily configurable.

Windows is harder, as you can't put anything on the panel in a useful way.

(My setup is a thin panel on top, with a menu on the left, Terminal, Text Editor, Opera, and IM client launchers in the middle, window list, notification area, clock, network, workspace swither and exit all in a row. Nothing on the desktop, and no other panels.)

[munkyeetr]

Gnome, mostly because I've used it more, and I have found KDE to be too cluttered (though I could always unclutter it I guess).

When I was newer to gnome, I had a hard time finding things because the menus seemed so sparse, but in KDE I felt overwhelmed by so much stuff.

[NightwishFan]

Gnome is customizable just not with a simple gui method. :lolflag:

[MRiGnS]

Gnome is customizable just not with a simple gui method. :lolflag:

That's the point.

[Iandefor]

Gnome is customizable just not with a simple gui method. :lolflag:gconf-editor's not simple? A lot of the keys used in GNOME are pretty well-documented.

[NightwishFan]

:) Geez just agree with me!!!!!!!! Gnome is customizable and its easy!

[fela]

:) Geez just agree with me!!!!!!!! Gnome is customizable and its easy!

yes, I love gnome cause it's actually very customizable, just that the customizablity doesn't get in the way (like IMO KDE does)

and gnome's simpler. another small thing i like about it is not having to click 'apply' every time you change something using the gui. This may sound trivial, but for a power user like me things like that do slow my work down.

[Whiffle]

yes, I love gnome cause it's actually very customizable, just that the customizablity doesn't get in the way (like IMO KDE does)

and gnome's simpler. another small thing i like about it is not having to click 'apply' every time you change something using the gui. This may sound trivial, but for a power user like me things like that do slow my work down.


I'm just curious...what about KDE's customizablity gets in the way?

[fela]

I'm just curious...what about KDE's customizablity gets in the way?

i just found (when i had kde installed) that when i wanted to do work there were just too many things to click (including the 'apply' button, which is nonexistent in gnome)

[ComputerHermit]

Gnome

[drubin]

i just found (when i had kde installed) that when i wanted to do work there were just too many things to click (including the 'apply' button, which is nonexistent in gnome)

It is great not to have to apply every thing.

[drubin]

But to answer the question:
Gnome I used KDE once, i found it way to cluttered and i like the clean minimalistic approach to my desktop. (Reason i changed from windows)

[dmgExP]

I've been installing Ubuntu and then adding KDE and apps from Kubuntu afterwards (I don't know how to do it the other way round). So I've got the best of both worlds.

Some Gnome apps are superior, eg. gnome-system-monitor is way better than ksysguard. And gnome just feels more polished whereas some KDE apps feel crude.

But KDE is like a sweet-shop stuffed with irresistible goodies. Lately I've been defaulting to KDE and growing to love it.

Questions:

1) Is there a performance penalty running gnome apps under KDE? (RAM / CPU usage etc.)

2) Must one install both environments to install and run everything?

3) What is the easiest way to add KDE and apps to Ubuntu (from the Kubuntu install DVD).

[LaRoza]

Questions:

1) Is there a performance penalty running gnome apps under KDE? (RAM / CPU usage etc.)

2) Must one install both environments to install and run everything?

3) What is the easiest way to add KDE and apps to Ubuntu (from the Kubuntu install DVD).

0. No, they take a second longer to start up, but run at the same speed.

1. No, you can use KDE apps in GNOME without KDE.

2. Just install them. You can add the disk as a repository (the Ubuntu DVD will also have the KDE apps on it)

[Quillz]

Everytime I use Kubuntu, I eventually find myself going back to Ubuntu. Maybe GNOME is technically behind KDE, but there's just something about it I prefer. It's simple yet functional, and that's the most important thing, I think.

[fela]

Everytime I use Kubuntu, I eventually find myself going back to Ubuntu. Maybe GNOME is technically behind KDE, but there's just something about it I prefer. It's simple yet functional, and that's the most important thing, I think.

i installed KDE alongside Gnome once, but it didn't take me long to uninstall it...

also, maybe it's just me but i find gnome easier to customize (i don't mean more customizability, just easier to customize) than KDE.

[samjh]

Prior to Gnome 2.16, I preferred KDE. But these days I prefer Gnome.

My previous preference for KDE was because of it was easier to configure than Gnome, and its applications had a more integrated look and feel. However, I did think that KDE was a little overwhelming in its range of options. On the flip side of the coin, Gnome was far too simplistic, rigid, and fragmented.

However, since Gnome 2.16, it appears that Gnome developers have finally woken to the fact that Gnome needs to be easier to configure. Furthermore, I think Gnome generally is more stable than KDE, and with increasing support by the commercial sector, it is likely to evolve faster than KDE.

[fela]

i think gnome kicks KDE's *** myself.

[n8schicht]

KDE, of course. I love to be able to configure almost every pixel the way I like, and to have a central place to go to and do all the customization.
But I think Kubuntu is not the very best KDE-distro out there. I actually prefer Arch Linux because it doesn't come with a given DE and it has KDEmod, a pimped and patched KDE version which is just awsome.
I try Gnome from time to time, but I still think it's just too damn easy (or stupid?) and doesn't give me enough possibilities to set things up my way. Plus the gconf editor is just insane, reminds me a lot of regedit in Windows :mad: Also Gnome takes more of your system resources than KDE does.
Well there are many reasons why I prefer KDE over Gnome, but as I said, not Kubuntu...

[geoken]

I should like KDE more than Gnome, but I could never get into it.

When I say "I should like it" what I mean is that I prefer KDE apps in almost every situation. IMO Amorok>all, Digikam>F-spot, Kmail>Evolution, Dolphin>Nautilus(x10), etc. I like Krita more than gimp and I also feel more comfortable in Karbon than Inkscape (even though inkscape may be technically stronger).

I also like the customizability. For example, a while back I was looking for an Mplayer front end with 2 specific options. 1) re-open videos in the same window and 2) don't resize that window to the size of the video (in other words, if I open the player and resize it don't change that sizing if the video file I load is larger). The only app that fit my needs was SMplayer, a KDE app. I had another similar situation with my Mp3 player, Amarok was the only app that let me specifiy a folder on my Mp3 player to transfer music onto. All the gnome based players tried to transfer the music directly on to the Mp3 players root directory, which made the files useless because the player wouldn't read them unless they were in it's 'Music' directory.

Unfortunately, it was too complicated for me to theme KDE and I never got into the DE because I disliked the default theme.

[Ripfox]

Gnome ftw.

KDE reminds me of windows. :popcorn:

[Iandefor]

KDE right now. I don't like the way the QT toolkit renders things (don't ask me why) but it's kind of nice having a system integrated as well as KDE's.

[cardinals_fan]

Just started using Openbox, and I think it might be nicer than Xfce *gasp*

[articpenguin]

I use gnome. Might switch to kde 4 when 4.1 Comes out but i doubt it.

[Foster Grant]

I like GNOME because it's uncomplicated, updated more frequently than KDE and new versions don't break as many old installations as new K versions do. (K 4.0 is going to be an unpleasant surprise for some people.)

[NightwishFan]

KDE4 is pretty cool, I just hope Gnome3 is better. :)

[Foster Grant]

KDE4 is pretty cool, I just hope Gnome3 is better. :)

GNOME doesn't update like KDE does, fortunately. Instead of shipping a totally new version every so often that breaks a lot of old dependencies, the GNOME and GTK teams make lots of incremental changes. Over time, the features tend to match item for item, but where K does it all at once (and sometimes imperfectly) GNOME adds new features when they're ready. GNOME 1 was realies in mid-1999 and GNOME 2 — the last major upgrade (switched to GTK+2 and initiated the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines) — debuted in June 2002.

Basically, both projects number their releases the same way — X.0 releases break binary and source compatiblity with the preceding version, while minor update releases only change the numbers after the decimal point.

Any "GNOME 3" would involve the next major rewrite of GTK+, and there are no plans for that at this time. See this link (http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero) for the dev team's reasons.

[NightwishFan]

I see well, I had already looked that up. I meant I would like gnome to get better and better in the future as I do like its interface.

[Changturkey]

All the apps I like are GTK V_V. But I like both, though some of the lighter D.Es appeal more to me.

[ibutho]

On an Ubuntu forum, I think a poll like this one will be highly biased towards GNOME because thats whats shipped as the default in Ubuntu. I personally prefer KDE, but not as its shipped in K/Ubuntu because I believe openSUSE and Mandriva have better implementations. I like KDE because of the features, the apps and the configurability. I do use GNOME, but I find its lack of features and the whole simplicity thing rather annoying.

[Ptero-4]

I like Xfce4, I voted for gnome though because xfce4 wasn't in the poll.

KDE, of course. I love to be able to configure almost every pixel the way I like, and to have a central place to go to and do all the customization.
But I think Kubuntu is not the very best KDE-distro out there. I actually prefer Arch Linux because it doesn't come with a given DE and it has KDEmod, a pimped and patched KDE version which is just awsome.
I try Gnome from time to time, but I still think it's just too damn easy (or stupid?) and doesn't give me enough possibilities to set things up my way. Plus the gconf editor is just insane, reminds me a lot of regedit in Windows :mad: Also Gnome takes more of your system resources than KDE does.
Well there are many reasons why I prefer KDE over Gnome, but as I said, not Kubuntu...

I prefer gnome, I think it is a little easier to use, it's all nice and shiny, although KDE4 looks superb, so there's a tie there.

also, I find gnome to be more customizable and organized, which is what I want for my everyday use.

I think that kubuntu however is more efficient , snappier than gnome.

Actually waspbr & n8schicht. KDE isn't lighter than gnome (it's the opposite actually), it runs faster because some computers are designed to cheat on their performance. Basically the videocard is scanned constantly to see what kind of desktop layout it is sending to the display (it does this because the only way M$ have to try and see which OS you're running is looking at known GUI defaults) the mecanism offcourse assumes that a windoze-like gui must be windoze and if it finds such layout it automatically unlocks the hardware's full performance, if it detects something else it assumes you're on a non-M$ OS and locks the box in low-performance mode. Off course since linux have different DE's a DE with windoze-like default settings would trigger a false "approved OS found" result (hence why the computer goes fast on KDE, the locking thingie thinks you're on windoze and unlocks) the other DE's having non-windoze like defaults trigger the opposite result causing the locking thingie to go off and make the computer slow (hence why gnome felt slower, it was the locking thingie at work).

I've been installing Ubuntu and then adding KDE and apps from Kubuntu afterwards (I don't know how to do it the other way round). So I've got the best of both worlds.

Some Gnome apps are superior, eg. gnome-system-monitor is way better than ksysguard. And gnome just feels more polished whereas some KDE apps feel crude.

But KDE is like a sweet-shop stuffed with irresistible goodies. Lately I've been defaulting to KDE and growing to love it.

Questions:

1) Is there a performance penalty running gnome apps under KDE? (RAM / CPU usage etc.)

2) Must one install both environments to install and run everything?

3) What is the easiest way to add KDE and apps to Ubuntu (from the Kubuntu install DVD).

1) Assuming your machine doesn't have the locking thingie I talked about earlier, loading the first gnome app on KDE or the first KDE app in gnome will take some time because it loads the entire toolkit and supporting libraries into RAM, the rest of the apps will load instantaneosly since the toolkit is already in RAM, as for running they all run at normal speed.

2) No. The package manager will install the minimal set of support libraries for the app you install.

3) Just add the DVD as repository (gnome asks automatically when you insert the DVD the first time).

[Kiri]

Can I install KDE in ubuntu without messing anything up?
And later uninstall if I want to, and leave my ubuntu install and gnome intact?

[ibutho]

Yes you can. You can use aptitude for that e.g.
sudo aptitude install kubuntu-desktop

[awakatanka]

I like Xfce4, I voted for gnome though because xfce4 wasn't in the poll.





Actually waspbr & n8schicht. KDE isn't lighter than gnome (it's the opposite actually), it runs faster because some computers are designed to cheat on their performance. Basically the videocard is scanned constantly to see what kind of desktop layout it is sending to the display (it does this because the only way M$ have to try and see which OS you're running is looking at known GUI defaults) the mecanism offcourse assumes that a windoze-like gui must be windoze and if it finds such layout it automatically unlocks the hardware's full performance, if it detects something else it assumes you're on a non-M$ OS and locks the box in low-performance mode. Off course since linux have different DE's a DE with windoze-like default settings would trigger a false "approved OS found" result (hence why the computer goes fast on KDE, the locking thingie thinks you're on windoze and unlocks) the other DE's having non-windoze like defaults trigger the opposite result causing the locking thingie to go off and make the computer slow (hence why gnome felt slower, it was the locking thingie at work).



1) Assuming your machine doesn't have the locking thingie I talked about earlier, loading the first gnome app on KDE or the first KDE app in gnome will take some time because it loads the entire toolkit and supporting libraries into RAM, the rest of the apps will load instantaneosly since the toolkit is already in RAM, as for running they all run at normal speed.

2) No. The package manager will install the minimal set of support libraries for the app you install.

3) Just add the DVD as repository (gnome asks automatically when you insert the DVD the first time).
FUD, try to post evedence this totaly FUD

[GrueTamer]

xmonad is the only real option for the future :)

I don't really like KDE or Gnome, so I'll vote E17, as it's the closest thing to those that I have (IE, it's not just a tiling WM).

[Erunno]

Actually waspbr & n8schicht. KDE isn't lighter than gnome (it's the opposite actually), it runs faster because some computers are designed to cheat on their performance. Basically the videocard is scanned constantly to see what kind of desktop layout it is sending to the display (it does this because the only way M$ have to try and see which OS you're running is looking at known GUI defaults) the mecanism offcourse assumes that a windoze-like gui must be windoze and if it finds such layout it automatically unlocks the hardware's full performance, if it detects something else it assumes you're on a non-M$ OS and locks the box in low-performance mode. Off course since linux have different DE's a DE with windoze-like default settings would trigger a false "approved OS found" result (hence why the computer goes fast on KDE, the locking thingie thinks you're on windoze and unlocks) the other DE's having non-windoze like defaults trigger the opposite result causing the locking thingie to go off and make the computer slow (hence why gnome felt slower, it was the locking thingie at work).

My sarcasm detector is slightly tingling. Anyway, this was my first good laugh of the day. :)

[fela]

Actually waspbr & n8schicht. KDE isn't lighter than gnome (it's the opposite actually), it runs faster because some computers are designed to cheat on their performance. Basically the videocard is scanned constantly to see what kind of desktop layout it is sending to the display (it does this because the only way M$ have to try and see which OS you're running is looking at known GUI defaults) the mecanism offcourse assumes that a windoze-like gui must be windoze and if it finds such layout it automatically unlocks the hardware's full performance, if it detects something else it assumes you're on a non-M$ OS and locks the box in low-performance mode. Off course since linux have different DE's a DE with windoze-like default settings would trigger a false "approved OS found" result (hence why the computer goes fast on KDE, the locking thingie thinks you're on windoze and unlocks) the other DE's having non-windoze like defaults trigger the opposite result causing the locking thingie to go off and make the computer slow (hence why gnome felt slower, it was the locking thingie at work)

ROTFLMAOOL :lolflag:

[NightwishFan]

(More truth to it than we likely all would believe I bet) But that was great. :lolflag:

[ShanghaiTeej]

KDE vs. Gnome fights always remind me of those Flash conspiracy videos that are out there on the net: "Gnome is faster....actually KDE is faster". I bet the difference is marginal at best, and I will never believe otherwise.

Now if you are speaking code, QT 4.4 has the functionality lead at the moment, but people on the Gnome front are thinking about going into GTK+ 3 soon. That doesn't really mean anything as far as REAL functionality in KDE or Gnome, but it's a part of it. And I think a lot of people forget that there are so many differences and similarities that they are quick to judge. I remember the reason I first started using Gnome was because Kubuntu couldn't identify my printer properly during Warty (or was it badger?...i don't remember).

Some people just don't give a crap about the technical stuff or usability stuff, as long as it works for them, looks a certain way or functions in the way that tickles their fancy. Some people bike to work and some people drive cars. Some people drink caffeine, others don't...blah...blah...blah.

Basically, what I'm saying is that sometimes, I wish that people have to take some sort of aptitude test before posting in a KDE vs. Gnome thread.

[Foster Grant]

KDE vs. Gnome fights always remind me of those Flash conspiracy videos that are out there on the net: "Gnome is faster....actually KDE is faster".

Bah. This is nothing. You want to start a war? Flamefests, cracking into the other side's web servers, that sort of thing? Then I have the issue for you. I have something far greater than anything you have seen before, something that only the bravest of moderators dare tread ...

Vi or emacs?

I predict the implosion of the Recurring Discussions forum within 8 hours. :twisted:


The number of the beast is vi vi vi.

[cardinals_fan]

Vi or emacs?
Vi

[Jadephyre]

Gnome, simply because it was the first GUI i ever used since i tried my first Linux OS ever, which was Fedora Core 2 on my previous PC.
I tried KDE once, but i didn't like it at all, can't even remember why anymore.
I will try KDE again when it reaches 4.1 as it already looks promising (Tech-wise, the default style looks awful at the moment, sorry !).

[cardinals_fan]

Gnome, simply because it was the first GUI i ever used since i tried my first Linux OS ever, which was Fedora Core 2 on my previous PC.
I tried KDE once, but i didn't like it at all, can't even remember why anymore.
I will try KDE again when it reaches 4.1 as it already looks promising (Tech-wise, the default style looks awful at the moment, sorry !).
Why not try Openbox?

[Chilli Bob]

Vi or emacs?



Nano FTW!

:p

[fela]

Vi

I use geany for programming. If i have a full blown GUI, why not make use of it with a gui programming IDE?

[cardinals_fan]

I use geany for programming. If i have a full blown GUI, why not make use of it with a gui programming IDE?
Geany's awesome, but for quick editing Vi is the best.

[fela]

Geany's awesome, but for quick editing Vi is the best.

I use GNU nano for quick editing, as i find Vi extremely hard to use (and certainly not quick ;))

[cardinals_fan]

I use GNU nano for quick editing, as i find Vi extremely hard to use (and certainly not quick ;))
I smite you and start a flamewar! ;)

Just start up a terminal and enter 'vimtutor'. You will learn the way of the force...

[Foster Grant]

I smite you and start a flamewar! ;)

Just start up a terminal and enter 'vimtutor'. You will learn the way of the force...

Bah! The editor of the beast, I tell you!

Emacs is the way to sanity!

And then there's ed ...

[cardinals_fan]

And then there's ed ...
Don't even go there...

[Foster Grant]

Don't even go there...

$ ed
why not
?
you don't like ed
?


:lol:

[odiseo77]

I use Gnome, and find it to be the DE that better suits my needs and likes. I simply find it cleaner and more comfortable than KDE. There's something about KDE that makes me itch when I use it for more than one hour (I'm not sure what, though). However, I must admit KDE has great apps -like amarok, k3b, dolphin, yakuake-, and lots of useful functions (for example, when you right click on some file and you're given with the options to either move it inside your home directory, or copy it there; little details like that).

[Jackp90]

KDE all the way! Well actually i kind feel indifferent about the two of them . . . I just like KDE cause of the fact that you can search for an application in the k menu much faster than that of the Ubuntu application menu due to the fact that Kubuntu's KDE 4 menu has a search bar at the top and so does openSUSE's 10.3 KDE install . . . and there isn't that mac feel to it

[pbpersson]

KDE

When I first started with Linux years ago they said use KDE because you will not feel like a stranger in a strange land.

Back in those days I tried Gnome and it looked strange

I have since used it more but KDE is still the default for me - more configuration options.

[fela]

I smite you and start a flamewar! ;)

Just start up a terminal and enter 'vimtutor'. You will learn the way of the force...

vimtutor didn't do anything apart from start vim...very helpful on how i use the damn thing. :mad:

i like nano.

[cardinals_fan]

vimtutor didn't do anything apart from start vim...very helpful on how i use the damn thing. :mad:

i like nano.
I seem to remember that the default Vim package in Ubuntu is screwed up... perhaps it's in vim-full (http://packages.ubuntu.com/gutsy/vim-full)? IGNORE AND READ BELOW

[LaRoza]

sudo aptitude install vim


That is all you need. vim-full gets you gvim as well.

[Lolicon]

KDE. I look at the file manager and see how dumbed down it is, and I hate it for those reasons. KDE3 gives you all these options that you would never really need or use, but nice to have if you want to use them. If GNOME wasn't so dumbed down, I would probably like it, but the file manager makes my blood boil.

[LaRoza]

KDE. I look at the file manager and see how dumbed down it is, and I hate it for those reasons. KDE3 gives you all these options that you would never really need or use, but nice to have if you want to use them. If GNOME wasn't so dumbed down, I would probably like it, but the file manager makes my blood boil.

Dolphin or Konqueror in KDE?

I use Thunar and mc in wmii. (No GNOME or KDE)

[haggus]

KDE I like the default packages that come with i.t Gnome is ok I have used both but always go back to KDE because I'm used to it.

[Lolicon]

Dolphin or Konqueror in KDE?

I use Thunar and mc in wmii. (No GNOME or KDE)

I prefer dolphin, although I can't say either is very good either. It has support for more things, but still lacks tabs, and mouse gestures. I have no idea why it likes the crumbbar view either, I like to see the paths (my old config you could just click a blank spot to see the path). My previous configuration from windows I'm trying to clone, but I haven't found anything for matching it (http://i25.tinypic.com/sesrib.png) yet.

[LaRoza]

I prefer dolphin, although I can't say either is very good either. It has support for more things, but still lacks tabs, and mouse gestures. I have no idea why it likes the crumbbar view either, I like to see the paths (my old config you could just click a blank spot to see the path). My previous configuration from windows I'm trying to clone, but I haven't found anything for matching it (http://i25.tinypic.com/sesrib.png) yet.

Thunar has mouse gestures I think.

[Chilli Bob]

I've been usung Kubuntu on my second PC for three weeks now, just to give KDE a real try, but there is no way I'll change from Gnome permanently. Gnome is better looking, faster, easier to customise (yes, that's what I said), and above all NO FREEKING KONQUEROR!!!!

[will1911a1]

I much prefer Gnome over KDE. I can't think of a single thing I like better in KDE, actually...

That said, I actually use fluxbox. ;)

[fela]

Oki i installed vim-full and started vimtutor.....i have already grown to love vim. So many features:)

Now i just need to try emacs...

[LaRoza]

Now i just need to try emacs...

Never. Emacs is evil.

[brunolabs]

GNOME!

I hate KDE. I can't get any work done with it. I find it to be very confusing. And I don't like the looks of it.

[cardinals_fan]

Oki i installed vim-full and started vimtutor.....i have already grown to love vim. So many features:)
I told you :razz:

Now i just need to try emacs...
Don't do it!

[fela]

sudo aptitude install vim


That is all you need. vim-full gets you gvim as well.

like whats the point of vim with a gui...?! If i have a gui at my finger tips, i use gedit (or geany for programming) usually, although i have been getting into vim for everyday stuff now as it's so fast.

[fela]

Never. Emacs is evil.

I don't say anything's evil until i've used it. If i'd never seen or heard of windows, and someone told me about it i'd be like, hey, i'd like to see that! but obviously i have seen windows, and know that it is evil. I will try emacs and give you my verdict ;)

[cardinals_fan]

like whats the point of vim with a gui...?! If i have a gui at my finger tips, i use gedit (or geany for programming) usually, although i have been getting into vim for everyday stuff now as it's so fast.
Gvim lets you have it both ways. Vim commands and a GUI (which I only use for copy/paste, which are a bit difficult through the key commands).

[LaRoza]

I don't say anything's evil until i've used it. If i'd never seen or heard of windows, and someone told me about it i'd be like, but obviously i have seen windows, and know that it is evil. I will try emacs and give you my verdict ;)

<exaggeration>
I never tried cyanide. I don't need to to know it is harmful. Don't use Emacs.
</exaggeration>

[NightwishFan]

:popcorn:

[fela]

Gvim lets you have it both ways. Vim commands and a GUI (which I only use for copy/paste, which are a bit difficult through the key commands).

well i tend to find vim commands much faster than a gui...surprise surprise.

[fela]

<exaggeration>
I never tried cyanide. I don't need to to know it is harmful. Don't use Emacs.
</exaggeration>

:lolflag:

[fela]

Don't do it!

I tried emacs...well, it seems you two are right after all about your opinion...EMACS IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i am officially part of this flame war...:D now we just need some people that think vim is evil...hard to find no doubt.;)

[cardinals_fan]

well i tend to find vim commands much faster than a gui...surprise surprise.
No disagreement here.

[articpenguin]

Gnome is a pain to get metadata about a file. In konqueror all i have to do is just hold the mouse over the file and metadata pops up.:KS

[Foster Grant]

I tried emacs...well, it seems you two are right after all about your opinion...EMACS IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i am officially part of this flame war...:D now we just need some people that think vim is evil...hard to find no doubt.;)

Vi is evil. How do I know this? Because three vi's add up to the number of the beast.

(Of course, this means that users of Ubuntu Satanic Edition exclusively use vi. :lol: )

Getting back to topic, I went through the whole Kubuntu install process in Synaptic this morning. I want to run it for a week to see if the current version of KDE (3.5.8 ) is more likable than the ones I've used in the past. So far ... the icons annoy me (but can be changed) and there's way too much stuff on the system menus. The default install needs to default to "more organized." EDIT: Or possibly to "less stuff."

[unityofsaints]

I prefer Gnome as a desktop environment but I sure hope GTK+ catches up with QT4 soon :(

[Ptero-4]

FUD, try to post evedence this totaly FUD

My sarcasm detector is slightly tingling. Anyway, this was my first good laugh of the day. :)

ROTFLMAOOL :lolflag:

(More truth to it than we likely all would believe I bet) But that was great. :lolflag:

Actually, it was my college IT proffesor (who knows a lot about computers, and linux/BSD) who said in middle of the class that stuff. I haven't researched it because I suspect it's true since M$ is known for using this kind of dirty tricks against OSS.

Also, got a laugh reading the text editor flamefest.

[blithen]

Personally I like XFCE but, I use the Gnome background libraries.

[piousp]

KDE 100%. I do like some stuff from gtk/gnome, but i prefer any kde app over the gnome counterpart.

[subzero316]

gnome!!.but i gotta try the new kde4.0 heard it rox

[Foster Grant]

gnome!!.but i gotta try the new kde4.0 heard it rox

Actually, it bugs. Wait till 4.1 — maybe even 4.2.

(Oh ... update time. My one-week experiment with KDE 3.5.x ended after 2 days. Turns out I like the GTK+ toolkit much more than the Qt toolkit, and there are things about KDE that just make no sense to me. About the only things I'd like to see ported over to GTK+ are the fuzzy-clock display, Amarok and Krita.)

[fela]

WARING: If anyone tells you to do sudo rm -rf ANYTHING do NOT do it.

just a point about the tip in your signature: if someone tells you to sudo rm -rf something, it may be required, and not be malicious code. The -r and -f options do a have a purpose.

[fela]

gnome!!.but i gotta try the new kde4.0 heard it rox

really? i used KDE4 for about 3 days, and my mind was made up as soon as i saw it. I could try it again once 4.1 comes out though.

[cardinals_fan]

just a point about the tip in your signature: if someone tells you to sudo rm -rf something, it may be required, and not be malicious code. The -r and -f options do a have a purpose.
I use rm frequently and it is a useful tool, but the -f option is extremely rarely needed. It overrides all confirmation prompts.

[C!oud]

GNOME lover here :). Have tried KDE and XFCE but i just didn't feel comfortable using it plus i love the look of GNOME way better

[fela]

I use rm frequently and it is a useful tool, but the -f option is extremely rarely needed. It overrides all confirmation prompts.

Really? i use the -f option quite frequently if, say, I am deleting the contents of the source code directory of an app that i've just compiled and don't need the source of anymore. It is because there are always files in them that unless you provide the -f option, it asks whether to continue. (i am not quite sure why)

[cardinals_fan]

Really? i use the -f option quite frequently if, say, I am deleting the contents of the source code directory of an app that i've just compiled and don't need the source of anymore. It is because there are always files in them that unless you provide the -f option, it asks whether to continue. (i am not quite sure why)
I mostly use it for removing single text/source files I've been working on - and, of course, /tmp/.X0-lock ;)