Wanted Biased Opinions Gnome Vs. KDE or another

[comfixit]

I have been using Gnome in Ubuntu for a while. Works well enough for me, but is the grass greener on the other side?

Don't want any sort of if it works for you or try them out and see what you like advice. I just want you to give me your opinion on why one is preferred by you over others.

I was a fan initially of a Fluxbuntu installation seemed speedy but then certain things that seemed easy to do in Gnome were seemingly more difficult (or perhaps just different) then with Gnome. Even my older comps I still keep around seem to run the latest default implementation of Ubuntu well.

Gnome seems speedy enough for me on my current laptop I am running it on so I am not sure responsiveness is going to be a selling point for me with this particular setup.

Looking forward to hearing all of your opinions.

[MikeTheC]

Gnome is fundamentally very similar to Classic Mac OS, which is what I cut my teeth on. Therefore, since its similarity to Classic Mac OS makes it inherently similar to Mac OS X as well, I find it to be a very comfortable environment for me.

I don't care for (but I will use if I have to) XFCE because of the concept behind how it's organized and executed. I have no problems with it being built to be resource-conservative and run on lower-end systems more efficiently. I just don't care for it's user interface. Also, I want access to a 3D-enhanced desktop, and it's obviously not the DE for that (by design).

I cannot stand KDE because it has always tried to be this complex mess. Later versions have concentrated on being more and more flashy and Windows Aero-like in design aesthetics, which I absolutely detest. Frankly, I'd rather run the real Aero interface as it's less buggy and quirky.

I've run other DEs in the past (Enlightenment amongst them) just to see what they were like, but I'm someone who wants a bit more refinement than what deliberately lightweight, or even super-optimized DEs offer. It's not a slam necessarily, it's just that's not what I'm looking for.

So, you wanted an opinion, and now you've got one. Aren't you thrilled... :)

[halovivek]

Gnome scores more than KDE. KDE is build idea based on windows (i hope so) most of my friends use to tell. But Gnome is different and it is really stable.

[adamlau]

I choose Xfce because it is lightweight enough without sacrificing ease of administration and maintenance. I only want to spend so much time building and managing an environment these days. KDE/GNOME makes we want to revisit my optimized XP installs in which the UI actually feels faster than Ubuntu Minimal + Xfce 4.4.3 (from source with optimizations) on the same hardware. I am more of a speed demon than an eyecandy user and I want a fast environment on my fast SSD + dual, quad core boxes. Besides, my setups are to the point where I cannot feel the difference between Openbox and Xfwm, but can between KDE/GNOME versus Xfce. My weekender is a stripped down Mustang Cobra with 535 RWHP SAE, no back seats, no A/C, spare removed, and modded righteously. A fast car made faster, just like my boxes.

[RomanIvanov]

I use Xubuntu, it quicker then Gnome and KDE. And I use some programs from Gnome and KDE in Xubuntu without any limitations - just install them from repository as other applications.

[blazemore]

I very much like Gnome.
KDE was the first I used, and I didn't like Gnome at the time, but now I do.

KDE 4 is a disaster. It's ugly, broken and none of the icons work.
I wouldn't even call it alpha.

[Naegling23]

I use both, gnome on my laptop, and kde on my desktop.

First off, kde 4.0, and 4.1 are not comparable, they are not complete. KDE 4.2 is ready though, and can be a full time desktop environment.

Gnome gets bonus points because its ubuntu integration is better, its slimmer, and feels more lightweight. KDE is shinier, with more eye candy ( though compiz on gnome helps). KDE also offers more configuration options, and is more tweakable out of the box. A lot of people consider gnome more osx like, and kde more windows like, since I came from windows, I did start with kde, and felt more at home, but you will be able to configure either desktop environment to look however you want, so that point is not very valid. Gnome tends to have a utilitarian flat look to it, while kde has a glossy shiny look it, and thats the best way I can put it.

One other area is applications. You can install gnome apps on kde, and vice versa, but native kde apps look weird on gnome, so a lot of users prefer to stick to the applications written for their environment. In my opinion, I prefer the kde applications (amarok, digikam) to the gnome ones (rythmbox, fspot...although to be fair, on gnome I run sunbird, and picassa).

My advice....use both!

[cb951303]

I advise you to not to listen to people bashing KDE 4. Best way is to try for your self. For me, KDE 4.2 is quite stable. And let me add that I was a gnome user for 7 years.

[CraigPaleo]

Contrary to the experience of most, KDE 4.2 is faster on my machine. The DE loads faster, apps launch faster, and desktop effects run faster and more smoothly. However, I love Gnome's simplicity and intuitive layout.

[stopie]

I assume with enough effort and messing around, one can make all three of these (gnome, xfce, kde) do the exact same thing in the exact same amount of time - to me, gnome does it with the lest amount of tweaking and said tweaking is inherantly easier.

[blazemore]

Well, there's just something that doesn't seem right about KDE. everything seems to be so... big and clunky. Like those dark themes you see spammed all over Gnome-look and think "Who would use them?" (think Kore suite)

[jimbo99]

Been using Linux as my main desktop for the past 3 years. Pretty impressive all things considered. The OS is top notch.

Being a computer technician with over 20 years of experience I thought that Linux would be nice to learn. I found that in Linux I worked a lot with configuring the desktop (tuning it to my preference and adding features) and at that time it was KDE (prior to verison 4, don't really remember exactly the release number). I was pleased that I could configure it so much but I found that things just weren't well organized and I couldn't re-find things easily. I used Linux for a while and then stopped. The only choices I considered back then were SuSE and Red Hat. They were the most notable at that time.

I stopped using Linux for about a year, maybe 2. I went back to XP. I wasn't pleased with the zealots that were flying wildly calling everyone morons and telling them that they needed to compile everything by hand or they didn't deserve to use Linux. They were very childish.

About the time that Ubuntu came out I gave it a try, then abandoned it due to lots of bugs. A year later I went back to Ubuntu. It had gotten a lot of press and the fact that we had a celebrity behind it made me think that there was a chance for Linux afterall. Those zealots got to me and I was incredibly disappointed in Linux for allowing them such a loud voice without much counter.

They were like: if you can't build it from scratch you don't deserve it. My response was that if you believed that (it should happen that way for the OS) then you must believe it should happen that way for everything in life, such as your car, your TV, your fridge, everything. If you can't build your own TV or your own car or your own fridge you don't deserve them. The fact is that people are far too busy to deal with details such as that. I ended my Linux use at the time with that.

When I returned it was to Ubuntu because it was designed for the human being. I was impressed and happy about these guys focusing on good and solid thing about people instead of the techy things that no one really cared about.

Of course Ubuntu came with gnome and I had been pretty unhappy with it for quite a while. There were tons of defects that were actually show stoppers that people just let go by, such as copying large groups of files over a network or even from drive to drive. You could fail on the copy and loose files if you didn't check before you deleted the source files. This was a serious error and it went on for a long time without correction.

Nonetheless I gave gnome a try even though it was slow, extremely slow. It also hid functions that were important.

I used it as my main desktop up until yesterday. Yesterday I installed the latest KDE 4.2. I am very impressed.

I had installed KDE 4 some time ago and I revisited it many times over the past few months. It was never quite right.

The main flaw was in the developers idea that the desktop isn't the desktop, instead the desktop is this little window on the screen. I considered that a total joke and as long as it was designed that way I would never use KDE.

With KDE 4.2 they put the option to allow you to use a traditional desktop metaphor. That was the clincher for me. As long as that was available I was willing to give it a chance again. Since then I have been pretty pleased.

I did spend some time working with KDE 4.2 and found that it is a bit slow. If you have transparency on and resize a window it is extremely choppy. The creation of a window can reflect video memory contents and then be redrawn cleanly--they need to fix that as it is annoying and unprofessional. Even small windows such as a pop up menu has the same effect.

I also noticed that when I began to alter some of the settings on how the compositing manager worked in KDE 4.2 such as the speed, etc. I found that the system became slower and seemingly a tad unstable. When I switched back to the defaults things began to work well again. When shutting down once it took an extremely long period of time with a blank screen with the mouse cursor showing. I ultimately had to alt+ctrl+backspace just to get out of it.

I found also that the date/time format options appeared to be missing. I dislike having my digital clock in the 24hr format. I searched for the way to change it and was hoping, in the back of my mind, that I wouldn't have to edit any text files. Happily I didn't have to. Someone in one of the forums pointed me to "regional and languages" in the settings manager. That allowed me to set the clock format as I liked it.

I also had problems with getting the number of desktops working and I found that the 3d cube is really a cheap implementation of that found in compiz.

In gnome I was able to mount my shares and volumes as icons on the desktop. I still haven't found how to do that yet with KDE 4.2.

I haven't found where to get screen savers as they didn't install any. I am looking for a way to change the window decorations, though I'm happy with the themes. I haven't seen a way to actually to have icons of movies show as a preview in the folder. Folders don't seem to save their place or configuration. When I open a folder it comes up in one place and one place only and that isn't where it was when I closed that same folder. I noticed the icons that I had on my desktop are a bit distorted.

I did a big review of Amarok a month or so ago and I was utterly displeased with it. It was actually shameful. Not sure if they are updating it, but if you are planning on KDE because you like Amarok think again. Those guys need to go back to the drawing board too.

This is just the start, but it looks good and is very shiny. There are many flaws left but the design is coming through. If I find a consistent series of ways that it crashes I will cease using it again.

I also found that with compiz loading (say via sessions (sessions in gnome, startup in KDE)) that the menus and screens would redraw weirdly. In gnome to get compiz to load you load it as an entry in sessions with --replace appended to the end. This causes havoc with KDE 4.2. I also found that the sessions option in KDE conflicts with the sessions in gnome. So, if you were loading pidgin with gnome's sessions, then exit with it still loaded, the next time you start the KDE desktop it will attempt to load 2 copies of it.

I haven't found out how to replace, nor found a good replacement icon theme for KDE 4.2.

I love how you can adjust the main panel (the one with the KDE menu on it, though I'd love to get rid of the KDE icon which represents it). I love the copy/move dialog box of KDE 4.2. Very nicely done. I might be missing something but it looks sharp.

All in all I'd say it is pretty slow but pretty, it has the ability to use the traditional desktop metaphor and it is becoming quite feature complete. Given another few updates, if the folks at KDE don't get any wild hairs up their asses, this could be a vista aero killer.