In the beginning.....

[adam.tropics]

In the beginning (of Ubuntu) where did the decision to primarily go with Gnome come from? Don't misunderstand me, I like Gnome, i am just curious why so many other distros seem to have gone the other way. Or perhaps that's the point.....?

[borisattva]

my best guess is the stereotypical opinion that Gnome is simple and thus more suitable to lure new users aboard.

it lured me because it looks much cleaner than KDE on most of the distros i tried prior. ironically on those distros i preffered KDE over Gnome :-k

[aPello]

I prefer gnome over kde as it just looks cleaner.

[aysiu]

Ubuntu tends to go for simplicity.
Gnome is simple.
KDE is not.

You can argue KDE's complexity is one of its strengths, but it is nonetheless not simple. Ubuntu tried as hard as possible (with Kubuntu) to make KDE simple, and I think they did a fairly good job.

[borisattva]

i didnt find KDE complex when i was giving it a shot.

i liked it because all its functions are seemingly in youre view so when youre learning and like learning through 'press a button see what happens.'

but once the clikcing frenzy wears off in the end i just wanted a desktop wioth its functionality netaly tucked away out of constant view and available when you need something and go for it.

also the default 'single click icon - load app' made me associate KDE with mac which i was not fond of.

[aysiu]

i didnt find KDE complex when i was giving it a shot.

i liked it because all its functions are seemingly in youre view so when youre learning and like learning through 'press a button see what happens.' I didn't say confusing--I said complex. KDE is complex in terms of its functionality and the large number of configuration options presented to the user.

A lot of users, like yourself, consider this large number of configuration options a plus.

[borisattva]

I didn't say confusing--I said complex. KDE is complex in terms of its functionality and the large number of configuration options presented to the user.

A lot of users, like yourself, consider this large number of configuration options a plus.
hmm from yourself quoting me you can see that i didnt say confusing either. :)
in terms of functionality i believe they are about the same if one knows where to look, hack.
in this respect you can say thet KDE is EASIER because to tweak something you can just move a mouse and press a button, as oposed to go into the source code and recompile.

though its true i apprecite quick and easy means of adjusting configuration. i just believe all those options can be neatly sorted and stored out of the view for access, where KDE over compensates by making everything too close for access, cluttering it.

[adam.tropics]

My opinion of Gnome has changed a fair bit since my first look at Linux. That was in '99, RedHat, when KDE seemed far more competent. I would say that imho Gnome seems more complete to me, and whilst KDE has a larger configuration set, I don't think Gnome really misses it. Interestingly, although I believe they have backed down now, I seem to remember reading that until recently RedHat amongst others were planning on ditching Gnome altogether..(or was it KDE!!) either way it would be a shame and I don't think in the spirit of Linu at all. Anyway thanks for your opinions. Much appreciated.

[briancurtin]

RedHat amongst others were planning on ditching Gnome altogether..(or was it KDE!!) either way it would be a shame and I don't think in the spirit of Linu at all.
Novell is standardizing on GNOME for SLES and Novell Linux Desktop, but they are still providing KDE. most of their interface will be on GNOME, so they are pushing that now.

i dont remember what Red Hat is up to on that front though

[adam.tropics]

Off topic on my part briancurtin but a question,


there is a user named 'braincurtin' trolling as me. ignore him, i am not him.

can the forum staff not deal with this on your behalf, it must irritate the hell out of you!

[matthew]

Gnome is also free (as in liberty as well as in price) software. KDE uses the qt libraries that are free (as in beer, but with strings attached in the liberty sense) only in one sense--they have a connection to Trolltech and some people are a bit uneasy about using KDE for that reason...if Trolltech decided tomorrow to make the qt libraries unavailable except for a cost there would be problems.

Anyway, that's a really basic explanation coming from a person with only a basic understanding. I would imagine some further Googling would add to it.

EDIT: Thanks for the link (see two posts down...)

[GeneralZod]

Gnome is also free (as in liberty as well as in price) software. KDE uses the qt libraries that are free (as in beer, but with strings attached in the liberty sense) only in one sense--they have a connection to Trolltech and some people are a bit uneasy about using KDE for that reason...if Trolltech decided tomorrow to make the qt libraries unavailable except for a cost there would be problems.

Anyway, that's a really basic explanation coming from a person with only a basic understanding. I would imagine some further Googling would add to it.

KDE and TrollTech have an agreement - something along the lines of if ever TrollTech decide to restrict future versions, then all previously released versions automatically become BSD-licenced, or something like that. Can anyone remember the exact details?

Edit: VVV

Thanks, borisattva! :)

[borisattva]

Can anyone remember the exact details?

http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/00000004.html

[poofyhairguy]

In the beginning (of Ubuntu) where did the decision to primarily go with Gnome come from? Don't misunderstand me, I like Gnome, i am just curious why so many other distros seem to have gone the other way. Or perhaps that's the point.....?

I think partially because it was easier to gain power within Gnome (off the bat Ubuntu could make large changes in the direction of Gnome) combined with its use as a good business desktop (it IS a good simple business/school desktop).