KDE vs. Gnome

[murderslastcrow]

They're both good, fast, and stable. Gnome might have a bit wider availability of applets since it's used a little bit more (who can be sure, but this seems to be the case with more visitors to gnome-look than kde-look.

However, I tried KDE 4.3 and liked it. I don't think it's bad, just not my taste. I encourage you to do a test install or do a LiveCD (slower than installed, but still gives you a good preview).

What you have to ask yourself is what you want out of your DE? At this point KDE 4 has sped up to the point that it's about as fast as Gnome 2, and some people have reported its memory usage to be a bit lower than Gnome 2. Not sure what to believe, but all in all, if it runs well on your computer it doesn't really matter.

However, you can get the same functionality in KDE in Gnome, and vice versa, it's just a bit of a pain at times, so many people just stick to the DE that comes with their favorite stuff out of the box. Just try it, no one can say what it right for you. In fact, you might like e17 better than the alternatives.

[snowpine]

Typically stupid Arch user response, and totally inappropriate as Arch is a distribution not a desktop environment and Gnome and KDE can both be used on Arch.

A little thought before posting is always a good idea rather than just the usual unnecessary, unwarranted & unjustified Arch plugging.

Don't knock it until you've tried it... I switched from Gnome to Arch and it's awesome! I missed the spinning desktop cube a little at first, but it is neat doing everything in the command line for a change. I can't figure out how to watch Youtube though...?

[Sand & Mercury]

This again? Srsly?

[SuperSonic4]

Don't knock it until you've tried it... I switched from Gnome to Arch and it's awesome! I missed the spinning desktop cube a little at first, but it is neat doing everything in the command line for a change. I can't figure out how to watch Youtube though...?

Perhaps you need flash

sudo pacman -Sy flashplugin

(works on x86_64 too)

Gnome to Arch is not a progression but instead a change in the base OS if you will.

I think Arch does a much better version of KDE than kubuntu does (both in [extra] and the kdemod repos) - it's not kubuntu's fault, it's the poor brother of ubuntu whereas (at least for kdemod) it's a primary OS developed by the Chakra people.

I've not used gnome so can't really say but KDE 4.4 is looking amazing

[snowpine]

Perhaps you need flash

sudo pacman -Sy flashplugin

(works on x86_64 too)

Gnome to Arch is not a progression but instead a change in the base OS if you will.

I think Arch does a much better version of KDE than kubuntu does (both in [extra] and the kdemod repos) - it's not kubuntu's fault, it's the poor brother of ubuntu whereas (at least for kdemod) it's a primary OS developed by the Chakra people.

I've not used gnome so can't really say but KDE 4.4 is looking amazing

When I type sudo pacman -Sy flashplugin it says "sudo: pacman: command not found". What do you mean Arch "is a change in the base OS"? I uninstalled Gnome, now when I log in, it says "snowpine@ubuntu:~$" and all my wobbly windows are gone, and I write my papers in nano instead of openoffice... that is Arch, right???

[NoaHall]

When I type sudo pacman -Sy flashplugin it says "sudo: pacman: command not found". What do you mean Arch "is a change in the base OS"? I uninstalled Gnome, now when I log in, it says "snowpine@ubuntu:~$" and all my wobbly windows are gone, and I write my papers in nano instead of openoffice... that is Arch, right???

I hope you aren't serious.

[snowpine]

I hope you aren't serious.

But if that's not Arch, then why does everyone on these forums like it so much??? I mean what's the big deal?

[NoaHall]

But if that's not Arch, then why does everyone on these forums like it so much??? I mean what's the big deal?

ArGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. YoU'RE SCARING ME!

[SuperSonic4]

When I type sudo pacman -Sy flashplugin it says "sudo: pacman: command not found". What do you mean Arch "is a change in the base OS"? I uninstalled Gnome, now when I log in, it says "snowpine@ubuntu:~$" and all my wobbly windows are gone, and I write my papers in nano instead of openoffice... that is Arch, right???

No, that's a CLI install. Your hostname implies you're still on ubuntu. That's what I meant by the base OS. Arch is not a DE like GNOME or KDE but an OS like Ubuntu or Fedora.

A further sign appears to be that pacman is not being found. Given that pacman is Arch's package manager it would be very unusual for it not to be installed.

But if that's not Arch, then why does everyone on these forums like it so much??? I mean what's the big deal?

That's an entirely different topic

[snowpine]

No, that's a CLI install. Your hostname implies you're still on ubuntu. That's what I meant by the base OS. Arch is not a DE like GNOME or KDE but an OS like Ubuntu or Fedora.

A further sign appears to be that pacman is not being found. Given that pacman is Arch's package manager it would be very unusual for it not to be installed.

That's an entirely different topic

My mistake then! In that case, I vote KDE, because the Koala is my favorite animal! (I like LXDE too, but it is not stable yet because Lucid lynX is still in alpha.)