Desktop Environment / Window Manager Preference/Comparison Thread

[az]

"which requires payment for their hard work."

I beleive that it is important for enterprises to make money. In fact, I beleive that you can make lots of money from open source software - just not by selling it. Pardon me if I am reading anything into your comment.

"If they use Qt then they have probably a comercial lisence from Toll Tech, thus they don't have to give away their source."

That is true. But the skype binaries can (and do) use the GPL qt libraries. Is this prohibited or not?

This is what I mean by having it both ways.

Again, this demonstrates the differences between Gtk and libqt.
Qt is a commercial product which currently has a free licence. Gtk is a Gnu product which has always been free. Of the two, I think that GTK has a better chance of remaining free.

[Ironi]

That is true. But the skype binaries can (and do) use the GPL qt libraries. Is this prohibited or not?

Good question, since Opera Inc. does the same thing; it offers a shared version of its browser that links dynamically with Qt.

This is what I mean by having it both ways.

Fortunately, this very issue is addressed on TrollTech's site.

Again, this demonstrates the differences between Gtk and libqt.
Qt is a commercial product which currently has a free licence. Gtk is a Gnu product which has always been free. Of the two, I think that GTK has a better chance of remaining free.

TrollTech gave some assurances to the KDE project regarding what would happen in certain circumstances. AFAIK, that pretty much eliminated any worries about Qt becoming "less" free... at least for open source use. More info: The KDE Free Qt Foundation.

[az]

"Fortunately, this very issue is addressed on TrollTech's site."


Great link. Thanks! Quote:

Why is Qt Open Source Edition not distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)?
The LGPL is designed to "permit developers of non-free programs to use free libraries" (quote from the LGPL). In other words, if Qt Open Source Edition were LGPL'd, companies would not have to purchase our commercial editions in order to make commercial/proprietary software, they could just use the Open Source Edition, free of charge. That would mean Trolltech would not get the revenue necessary for improving and extending Qt. Note also that the Free Software Foundation discourages the use of the LGPL"

If this does not conclusively tell you that they are screwed up when it comes to freee and opened source software, I do not know what will. The LGPL is discouraged because it does not protect your freedom. Trolltech's solution is even worse!



"TrollTech gave some assurances to the KDE project regarding what would happen in certain circumstances. AFAIK, that pretty much eliminated any worries about Qt becoming "less" free... at least for open source use. More info: The KDE Free Qt Foundation."

Useless. A bsd licence is useless.

[matgorb]

I see a lot about it, and with no arguments really, so could those who have a real opinion please post here the pros and cons they have of both these desktops.
I will start:
KDE, the first I used, when GNOME was just some kind of project, is now, and actually was now that I remeber, too WinXP like for me, I hated the new them in Win, I hate equally the default KDE look, I don't mind its existence, I just think it is better to have a simplier, slickier look as default, I don't like the Windows border, and the whole desktop just look too crowdy for me. The configuration tools are great though, but maybe a little too great.

Gnome, well this is what the desktop should have been, free software from top to bottom. I like Gnome because it is simple, and yes I think it is on the Mac side, but at leats I'm not lost when I come from Mac OSX (so it might be true, kde is win and gnome/mac). I like nautilus, well the old one, I tried the spatial but it does not just work for me, I tried it for two month, but I'm now back to a simple tree browsing experience. I want one thing in nautilus , the ability to slide a folder in the tree mac os style to have a shortcut in the tree, it is so practical.

For other function coming from KDE i don't really know, because i have not use it enought to realise, but as is Gnome just does the job for me, simply and effectively, so please, what about you, and what do you miss in Gnome?

[daniels]

It really is very much a personal preference thing -- just like colours, backgrounds, desktop layouts, terminal layouts, editors, whatever. You'll get people saying what they like, but what they might like in a desktop, you may hate.

Possibly this is why all the debates seem to get so heated; people don't take well to assertions on subjective matters that run counter to their own thinking.

[scoon]

Hey there,

Good luck with this one. People tend to be either strongly pro KDE or strongly pro GNOME.

To answer you question, I have been using linux since red hat 5.2 I started using gnome back then (v1.4) and just didn't ever stop using it for very long. I have tried kde and it has TONS of eyecandy. It was nice, but very distracting to me. There really isn't anything that GNOME does that I don't like, even spatial. For me, GNOME just fits the way I work.


scoon

[r00]

here's just a few things i noticed :

kde : _more geared toward windows converts 'cuz of it's overall look and feel..
_overly bloated, if you ask me.. and kinda slow..
_it does have a decent web browser (but not as good as firefox)

gnome : _simple and clean.. BeOS fans would like it, methinks.. i know i did
_it's really friggin fast.. but it could be that i'm using ubuntu
_honestly, i never tried the web browser for gnome since ubuntu came
wif firefox..

i'm no expert, but i think it really is dependant on the users prefs and where they came from.. as for me, i used to be a huge BeOS fan (and still am).. so gnome does it for me

[eldrich_rebello]

I personally find Gnome a lot easier to use as you're not bombarded with 15 applications to accomplish one task.kde is nice to start(( cause it looks nice!)with but then move on to gnome.gnome to ME seems a lot slicker and responsive than KDE.i also don't like being reminded of windows all the time ,especially with KDE mimicking the look n feel.kde has more applications on it's menu which seems nice when you're out to kill time,but when you got a job to do,Gnome wins for me.

[hard_i]

I agree with everyone who has answered so far
I like Gnome , because i like clean - minimalistic stuff , and KDE is just too colorful and bloated for my taste.
or like daniels sayd

It really is very much a personal preference thing

[ralph_ubuntu]

To judge from some of the responses so far your experiment has failed once again and the flamewar/fud-slinging has already started.
Some points I'd like to respond to:

1. Kde is similar to Windows
This one always amazes me as my kde has never been similar to windows so I'm starting to wonder, what am I doing wrong? On top of it, nobody so far explained to me why he considers it to be more similar to windows than for example gnome and the only thing I've read so far in this thread is that both the WinXP and kde default themes are ugly (btw. kde3.4 defaults to plastik now). While I agree that hardly establishes that KDE is similar to Windows.

2. KDE is bloated
Another one of my favorites. Please define bloat and how kde is bloated. Mine isn't. Closely related to this seems to be the often heard FUD that there are 15 programs for any given task. Again, I really don't know what you are talking about, please give examples.

3. KDE is slow
No, it isn't. On the contrary, it's more responsive than gnome/gtk in my experience and it has been getting more responsive with every new release lately, so please, stop the fud.

4. KDE is somehow not free software
This hasn't been explicitly stated yet, but citing gnome being free software from top to bottom as one of its advantages somehow seems to imply that this is not the case with KDE. Please, state specifically where KDE is not build on free software from top to bottom. Thanks.