PDA

View Full Version : GNOME versus KDE



Tsboncompte
March 10th, 2006, 03:05 AM
Hello to all

I am a happy Ubuntu GDE user curious about KDE... Ubuntu, actually, hasn't thrown me any problems, but I am Curious.

What differences are there between Ubuntu and Kubuntu? I understand them to be equally as good yet different... to what kind of user is directed KDE? what advantages does it have compared to GDE? I hope to have iniciated a small forum, 'coz I'm sure I'm not the only one curious about this, and there is a lot of wisdom in here.

Tsboncompte
March 10th, 2006, 03:06 AM
Hello to all

I am a happy Ubuntu GDE user curious about KDE... Ubuntu, actually, hasn't thrown me any problems, but I am Curious.

What differences are there between Ubuntu and Kubuntu? I understand them to be equally as good yet different... to what kind of user is directed KDE? what advantages does it have compared to GDE? I hope to have iniciated a small forum, 'coz I'm sure I'm not the only one curious about this, and there is a lot of wisdom in here.

Adrian
March 10th, 2006, 03:12 AM
Hello to all

I am a happy Ubuntu GDE user curious about KDE... Ubuntu, actually, hasn't thrown me any problems, but I am Curious.

What differences are there between Ubuntu and Kubuntu? I understand them to be equally as good yet different... to what kind of user is directed KDE? what advantages does it have compared to GDE? I hope to have iniciated a small forum, 'coz I'm sure I'm not the only one curious about this, and there is a lot of wisdom in here.

It's all a matter of preference, really. You should try them both, for instance by downloading the live CD's.

Here are some screenshots:
http://opensourceversus.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=447&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Keep in mind that this is the default look. Both can be customized to look like the other one.

You will probably find this document by aysiu interesting:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/kdevsgnome.php

m.musashi
March 10th, 2006, 03:12 AM
I was curious too and installed the kubuntu-desktop
sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop I've been playing around and there doesn't seem to be much difference except in the way it looks. At least that is all I can notice. Perhaps there is some behind the scenes stuff and maybe one or the other is better at something but to be honest I think they are two sides of the same coin.

Good questions though. Perhaps someone who knows more can explain the pros and cons.

aysiu
March 10th, 2006, 03:14 AM
My experience:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/kdevsgnome

rfruth
March 10th, 2006, 03:15 AM
I tried them both (KDE & GDE) and ended up liking Gnome, but try them both cause thats the only way to find out

super
March 10th, 2006, 03:19 AM
i like gnome better. my reasons have no technically solid foundations, i just happen to like gnome better.

it's kinda like asking which color is better, green or blue. there is simply no real answer. merely opinions.

rfruth
March 10th, 2006, 03:20 AM
I tried them both (KDE & GDE) and ended up liking Gnome, but try them both cause thats the only way to find out ...

Adrian
March 10th, 2006, 03:24 AM
Also, these rather old threads might be of interest to you:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=55334
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=50733

ComplexNumber
March 10th, 2006, 05:14 AM
i prefer gnome, although not in every way because KDE has some advantages. it just so happens that i like gnome, as a whole, more....and there are more advantages of gnome than mean more to me than the advantages of KDE.
-KDE applications and whatnot are more integrated than gnome. this, for some peculiar reason, is seen as an advantage of KDE, when in reality it isn't (not compared with the disadvantages anyway). it means that KDE is a lot more difficult to pinpoint errors and to debug. it also increases the chances of the desktop being somewhat unreliable. it also means that 1 application can bring down others. it also means that KDE has a habit of taking over the whole desktop. it does have some advantages, but they don't mean anything to me. one of the overrated 'advantages' is konqueror being used as a swiss army knife type application that can open any application such as tarballs without firing up a seperate application. this is quite pointless in my eyes because kparts is read-only, so its not possible to write to the files being examined or make changes to them. the user then has to fire up the appropriate application..which leaves me wondering: why did the KDE developers bother with this functionality in the first place? :confused:
-gnome is more granular and is divided up into small pieces whereas KDE is a few large chunks. i much prefer the gnome architecture in this respect because its easier for me to 'visualise'.
-KDE is a massive resource hog compared to gnome. despite that, gnome is only marginally faster, although, strictly speaking, it should be significantly more so when considering the huge difference in RAm usage between gnome and KDE.
-gnome tends to have lots of small and dedicated applications (although gnome, too, has bloated monsters such as evolution. i don't like evolution all that much. i prefer KDE's kontact which is perhaps the only KDE app that i do prefer. strangely enough, kontact is more like a typical gnome app whereas evolution is more like a typical KDE app) whereas KDE tends to have more bloated monster applications such as amarok and k3b.
-kde was started in 1996 (?). gnome was started by migual de icaza a year later (approximately) because many people were worried about QT licence.
-the applications and interface on kde tends to be somewhat cluttered whereas gnome has opted for the clean and simple look. kde focuses more on configurability, not so much in the actual applications, but more in the desktop tools. gnome opts for functioanality and simplicity. these days, i find KDE configurability to be like an unecessary pastime because i've since realised that the only reason why i spent ages configuring KDE was because the option was there for me to do so. i actually thought at that time that it was an advantage, but i don't anymore.
-the default language of KDE is C++ whereas the default language of gnome is C. language bindings are easily to make for gnome whereas they are blindingly difficult for KDE (thats why there are only partial bindings for QT). C++ is a much better language than C for GUI applications, although gtkmm(C++ bindings for gtk) is always about 99% up to date with gtk.
-the architecture of gnome is more up to date than that of kde. dbus > dcop, gstreamer > arts, cairo > ?(kde doesn't have an equivelent yet until authur appears in QT4 and KDE 4), libsvg > ?(kde doesn't have an equivelent yet), etc. the only area that i can see where KDE has the advantage of sorts is in kparts. still can't see any advantage of kio slaves over gnome-vfs, although some of the KDE people seem to. it just seems to be another overhyped KDE technology.
-gnome uses gtk for its toolkit. KDE uses QT. whereas gtk is just a toolkit, QT is a whole framework which includes database functionality etc. personally speaking, i find QT to be inherently hideous whereas i find gtk to be one of the most attractive and pleasent toolkits to use.
-kde starts 99.9% of their applications with the letter 'k' whereas some of the gnome applications begin with the letter g. i think gnome applications have names that have more character whereas, in many instances, the KDE useage of k just makes me cringe with embarrassment.
-gtk is under the lgpl licence whereas qt is under 2 licences (gpl and qpl). you can write a gtk application and sell it. in qt, if you choose to sell an aplication, you have decide BEFORE you write the application so that you can buy the commercial qt licence (about 5000 USB per developer). if you intend to make it freeware, you can write it with the gpl licence and you don't have to pay trolltech(writer of qt).
-traditionally, KDE is said to be european (based in germany) perhaps because it tends to be based in germany and trolltech are norwegian. traditionally, gnome is said to be american. having said that, i have no idea why. virtually everyone i know who uses linux in the UK seems to prefer gnome.


i can't think of any more major differences, but thats about all i can think of at the moment. at the end of the day, kde and gnome are just 2 different 'flavours'. some people like one more than the other. some people see the advantages of gnome as being big advantages wheres others may see those advantages as being very minor in their eyes. its all quite subjective at the end of the day.

gabhla
March 10th, 2006, 05:43 AM
That's a tuff question...one I haven't completely answered myself. Tried them both, liked them both...prefer Gnome, but just barely. I think it's sort of like the religion you were raised...I started my Linux adventure with Gnome (and Ubuntu), guess I'm just inclined to prefer it, as it feels more comfortable (to me).

I prefer some applications in KDE to it's counter in Gnome, such as the newreader. And, I really like kontact, the email client, although I started using Thunderbird, so that's that's not an issue. Also like the eye-candy in KDE, which is fluff, I know, but I enjoy it, especially the bouncing icons. Don't know for sure, but I suspect KDE is far more "cutting edge" then Gnome.

Honestly, it don't matter. Try them both and pick one.
I

landotter
March 10th, 2006, 06:03 AM
It's very simple really, just install kubuntu-desktop and switch between the two and see for yourself.

I used KDE for a number of years and liked it just fine, now I use Gnome as I like it a bit more austere. Who knows, I might switch back in a couple years.

Main reason to use one or the other is like trying on jeans. It's the little things. Gnome might make you look pear shaped, or KDE might make your *** look too flat, when you want it to look ample and fly. Perhaps the Gnome stonewashing has the knees faded at the wrong place, but the pocket stitching on the KDE hiphuggers is iresistable--bingo, you've found your home.

I'm an opt-out kinda guy, and I use mainly GTK based apps, so everything seems to fit well with Gnome as a container. My Gnome, if it were pants, would be blue Carharrt painters pants. Natural waist, tight in the butt, but with a 40s almost Hollywood drapey leg.

See, it's simple.

:D

aysiu
March 10th, 2006, 06:22 AM
I used KDE for a number of years and liked it just fine, now I use Gnome as I like it a bit more austere. Who knows, I might switch back in a couple years. Couple years? That's dedication for you. I switch every few days!

Sef
March 10th, 2006, 06:25 AM
I have used both and prefer gnome because it is a more minimalist desktop. I could make KDE more minimalistic, but gnome alreasy is.

issueperson
March 10th, 2006, 06:34 AM
i prefer gnome. it just seems faster and a bit more professional i guess. i feel better running a terminal in gnome 'cause i feel like it was designed to be used that way, and KDE seems more point-and-click, big flashy icons, etc.

daWabbit
March 10th, 2006, 06:35 AM
I used to hate Gnome. I'd use KDE or, on machines that couldn't pull that much display weight, IceWM.

I'm a computer journalist and "had" to install Ubuntu to review it. I've been using Linux since Red Hat 5.2, but I'm not exactly a Linux ace, by anyone's measure. With Warty, I found Gnome to have fixed all the things I didn't like about it and kept all the things I did like.

As had been said earlier, KDE takes one heck of a lot of horsepower to run well. Gnome takes a LOT less, especially in the memory department. As many of our computers are fairly old, that appeals to my wife and I. On the newer boxes, it is faster than KDE and allows a lot more of the cpu and memory to do real work, as opposed to displaying stuff for me. Even so, Gnome has enough eye-candy to satisfy and never so much of it that it gets in the way of my work.

My wife has KDE on her laptop, but that's the only KDE installation we have left. Without conscious decision, we slowly ended up using Gnome everywhere.

Jack

landotter
March 10th, 2006, 06:44 AM
I have used both and prefer gnome because it is a more minimalist desktop. I could make KDE more minimalistic, but gnome already is.
I totally understand. I used KDE with Suse and Mandrake from 2000-3, and KDE was quite nice under both distros, and I'd always cut it way down visually. Then I went to Fedora I and II and it used Gnome as the default and I really liked it pretty much out of the box, though I remove one panel and only use one at the top.

screenie
http://static.flickr.com/47/110358687_f95fdb6191_o.jpg

Vytas
March 10th, 2006, 08:55 AM
I also use only Gnome, cause it looks professional and aesthetical, is less bloated (at least visually), but has enough features. However, K desktop isnt that bad too, as it was stated above, it's mostly the matter of taste. Also, one can easily use K- programs on gnome and vice-cersa.

akiro.yamamoto
March 10th, 2006, 09:02 AM
Gnome...... ;)
I started out with Mandrake 9.2 ?!? with KDE (Yeah Baby) and I switched distros evry now and then..... (days , weeks ).....
My last install was Slackware 10, now that was a fast distro
however I found myself using Gnome more and more...until
well the only app I would consider using from KDE is k3b.
Gnome is minimalistic, NOT 2000/XP copy/based (more like
OS X) discrete apps and seamless intergration. That "Write to disk" is soooo cooool :)
Gnome does have a few rough points like the registry. Personaly I can't stand having to use a registry editor. I can't
understand having to edit a registry setting to enable the
location bar in Nautilus, Reeaaalllly Nooww!?!?! WTF!??
But one good thing about Linux is choice ;)
Try them both and you decide... each has good and bad points
You have to decide which one you can put up with ;)

dermotti
March 10th, 2006, 09:33 AM
I get tossed up between the two, heres my pros and cons


KDE - Pros
Its faster on modern machines imho
Its much faster via VNC or FreeNX
Its easier to use out the box, especially for nubs

KDE - Cons
I hate the default scheme, and i get frustrated getting it look the way i want it.
Its too cluttered.
It breaks easily after "updates" or 3 months of use, very annoying. Especially since i spent a week getting it to look perfect.

Gnome Pros
Its simple and sleek.
Its rock solid, rarely breaks.
Easier to customize the look since there is less to it.

Gnome Cons
No default "edit as root, open root browser".
Mime's types arent as good as KDE
Slow over VNC or Free NX

Aine
March 10th, 2006, 09:38 AM
I've found KDE to be more confusing than Gnome. Gnome to me just lacks the "eye candy" of KDE, but isn't worth spending over ten minutes to find a simple application.

cjazz
March 10th, 2006, 01:06 PM
Add me to the "just barely" contingent -- that is, I prefer Gnome, at least for now, but just barely. Why? I prefer the minimalist, utilitarian feel. But I've continued to play with KDE, and I could see using that regularly as well.

I have both Gnome and KDE installed, with separate users -- one that defaults to Gnome and another that defaults to KDE (plus a third that defaults to XFCE).

Incidentally, I come from a different perspective on the desktop environment question than the others described here. In the past, I used neither. I was a big fan of WindowMaker -- I liked the NextStep feel. Then one day, WindowMaker broke -- I was using Debian unstable at the time. While a fix was in the works, I ventured back into Gnome and found I liked it again. Strange how those decisions seem to work -- almost at an emotional level, somewhere beneath the surface of consciousness.

I'd also like to add that I appreciate the tone of this thread -- people simply weighing in without rancor. I can't tell you how different this is from the religious flame wars I've seen on this subject on other boards.

wout.wepsait.com
March 10th, 2006, 01:36 PM
I always use gnome. I feel that gnome does a great job of getting out of the way. It just lets me do what I want to do. KDE is a great desktop environment but it always seems to give me more option then I could ever use.
Example:

nautilus-cd-burn vs K3B.
K3B is a really great cd burning application which give's you every possible cd burning option you'd ever want and than some. It's really really great and enables you to do anything you want or need with a cd recorder.

Nautilus-cd-burner just gives me the bare essentials to burning a cd. It enables me to copy a cd by right clicking on it, create an audio cd from mp3 and create data compilations and burn iso files. It doesn't enable me to create a custom build bootable cd, but I never use that.

To me thats what the main difference is. Most gnome vs kde applications have similar differences.

I don't know about KDE but gnome really feels like all application are in a way designed by the same person.

GeneralZod
March 10th, 2006, 02:27 PM
I won't say anything with regards to speed or memory usage or stability, as based on my experience the user community is so completely split on these issues that it all seems to be completely subjective :)

Why I prefer KDE:

- Superb consistency and integration between KDE apps - a KDE-apps-only desktop is very pleasant to work with. If only Konqueror didn't suck so much as a web-browser so I could ditch Firefox :(

- kio_slaves, which are not only broad and utterly awesome (ssh://, bluetooth://, svn://, tar:// - the list goes on and on!) but also utilised by practically all KDE apps.

- Crunchy, very nicely designed C++ core. The APIs are wonderful and contain massive amounts of useful functionality, helping to prevent re-invention of the wheel.

- I like the file dialogues much, much more than GNOME/ Gtk's ones. The "Open Width Application" dialog is also very useful, but I'm not sure if GNOME also has this - Firefox appears not to.

- Konqueror is, hands-down, my favourite file manager.

- Subjective one, but the whole KDE thing feels far less politicised than GNOME - it all seems more like a bunch of crazy Europeans getting drunk and just having fun coding :D

- Another purely subjective one, but the mindset across KDE developers seems to me to be much more open to change and improvement, and will make big changes at the drop of a hat.

- Configurability - I am massively fussy about how my computer looks and behaves - I mean, it's really a big deal for me - and KDE has never let me down. The degree to which you can configure some things is utterly insane.

- Many best of breed apps - K3B, Konqueror, amaroK, Kile, etc. At the current rate, in terms of functionality at least, I'm betting that we can add Krita and Kopete to the list over the next 6 months, too, and maybe Koffice over the next 2-3 years. Plus, of course, the two secret KDE apps that I have planned ;)

Things I don't like about KDE:

- I've always heard claims of clutter, and used to be fairly puzzled by them. Having seen GNOME, though, I can now see what people are talking about. KDE is in dire need of nip-tucks everywhere - all current configuration options should still be present, but better-organised and tucked away somewhere where they won't overwhelm people.

- Handling file associations for apps is utterly, utterly horrible.

- The lead KDE devs seem to think that the future of Konqueror is as a world-class web browser which, based on its current incarnation, I disagree with - it's better as a "swiss army knife" type app. I'd go as far as to say that a separate khtml web browser should be created, separate from Konqueror.

I recently tried the Kororaa XGL LiveCD which is GNOME-based, and fell in love a little with the clean-ness - hopefully KDE 4 will follow this path (as seems to be the case) and get some decent defaults (about 80% of peoples KDE complaints can simply be configured away, but really, they shouldn't be that way in the first place) but keep the massive configurablilty, hidden under an "Expert" mode, if need be.

AndyCooll
March 10th, 2006, 02:28 PM
I'm yet another one that likes KDE but prefers Gnome. I suppose it was because my introduction to Linux was using Fedora.

I've tried KDE, quite like it, and keeping dipping into it. I currently have a copy of SUSE using KDE installed on one of my pc's. However every time I start using KDE something seems to happen that has me scrambling back to the security of my reliable Gnome desktop. At the moment for instance on my SUSE install I keep losing the programs menu on the taskbar and eventually the taskbar itself resulting in a reboot.
And I find when I want to do a simple edit of a file either vi or gedit are fine but kate is notoriously fickle, sometimes it opens, sometimes it doesn't.

Having said that there are a range of KDE programs which IMHO are better than the Gnome equivalent. K3b, Apollon and Kooka immediately come to mind. I also like Konqueror (though I'd like it even more if it's web browser had a "quick links" launch (the equivalent of FF's "Bookmarks Toolbar folder" rather than just all the bookmarks option).

So in the end I usually end up using Gnome and adding the KDE apps I like.

:cool:

Adrian
March 10th, 2006, 03:22 PM
- kio_slaves, which are not only broad and utterly awesome (ssh://, bluetooth://, svn://, tar:// - the list goes on and on!) but also utilised by practically all KDE apps.


This is indeed wonderful! The KDE applications treat remote files (sftp:// or smb:// for instance) just like any other file. In any file dialog, you can just type sftp://blahblah to load a remote file. Working from home has never been easier!

Edit: any file dialog = any file dialog belonging to a KDE program



- Handling file associations for apps is utterly, utterly horrible.

However, it lets me associate m3u files with a MP3 player (like XMMS). GNOME doesn't let me do that if the m3u file is plain text. Really annoying, since most m3u's are... plain text files.
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=79894
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/totem/+bug/23272

Parkotron
March 10th, 2006, 09:57 PM
I'm a big fan of the breakfast cereal analogy.

Gnome is like corn flakes or bran or Sheddies. It's straightforward, good for you, and gets the job done. KDE is like Froot Loops or Lucky Charms. It's colourful, fun, comes with bell and whistles, and can spoil you if you're not careful.

Basically KDE tends to focus on being fun and configurable, while Gnome strives to be stable and simple. Gnome is also known to aim especially for the business crowd.

Personally I prefer KDE, but either is a legitimate option.

ComplexNumber
March 11th, 2006, 03:54 AM
Gnome is like corn flakes or bran or Sheddies. It's straightforward, good for you, and gets the job done. KDE is like Froot Loops or Lucky Charms. It's colourful, fun, comes with bell and whistles, and can spoil you if you're not careful.
:mrgreen:


i thought i was having a massive feeling of deja vu when i read this thread, because i seem to remember posting in a thread with exactly the same name yesterday. anyway, here it is:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=142147

m.musashi
March 11th, 2006, 05:11 AM
In my short tenure on this forum I've seen this discussion quite a bit. In the end, neither is perfect and you end up using the one you like. I kind of like both at the moment which just means I haven't decided. I don't have enough experience with either.

For what it's worth, the great Linus Torvalds made his opinion known. I didn't spend any great amount of time searching but this (http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6060826007.html) article kind of sums it up and gives a few useful links.

nrwilk
March 11th, 2006, 05:23 AM
this (http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6060826007.html) article kind of sums it up
Nice, thanks for that linky.

As for the question at hand, the people who have answered so far are right on the mark. It's completely a matter of opinion.

I do agree that Gnome makes me feel restricted, though. KDE seems to make it easier for the user to take FULL control over the desktop and the entire system. Now we're getting into my opinion though.

Jucato
March 11th, 2006, 05:52 AM
I'm also a KDE user. The only encounter I've ever had with GNOME is through Ubuntu's LiveCD (Breezy, not Dapper). The first thing that turned me off was when I right-clicked the desktop and realized that there's no option there to change your resolution (you have to go through a few menus). Like nrwilk, I feel restricted with GNOME. For some eye-candy enthusiasts, some GNOME defaults also don't do well (window manager and composite manager to be precise, gdesklets compared to superkaramba, etc). However, GNOME does has its advantages. KDE tends to be more "fun" looking (everything is shiny), while GNOME is more "serious". I've read somewhere that this is why some business prefer to use GNOME.

But it all boils down to personal preference. Sometimes, you end up preferring the first thing you used. Sometimes... As for me, I'm growing fond of KDE. But there's something about GNOME that keeps on nagging me to try it out (might do a separate install of Ubuntu tomorrow). I really can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's because it's a purely GNU piece of work (although historically speaking, GNU used KDE before it made GNOME), because GTK is the same toolkit used by GIMP, maybe because there's no company/business funding/backing up GTK's development (unlike Qt being developed separately by Trolltech), or I don't know. still confused as hell.

Maybe one day they'll be able to come up with a desktop environment that will have (almost) the same functions/features as KDE and uses GTK and can run Superkarmaba. Then I'll be happy. :D

nrwilk
March 11th, 2006, 06:18 AM
maybe because there's no company/business funding/backing up GTK's development (unlike Qt being developed separately by Trolltech)

That's a good point that I hadn't yet thought of. Though GTK seems to be doing pretty well despite this fact.

I had used gnome back in my Red Hat days. I think this was Red Hat version 6.* (would have been about 6 years ago), and at the time Gnome had seemed more refined with more features. It seems that KDE has improved vastly. When I first installed ubuntu, it immediatly felt odd, and a switch to Kubuntu fixed the feeling immediately.

Basu
March 12th, 2006, 03:13 PM
I'm a KDE man myself. I think the main reason is that KDE to me looks more 'glossy' and 'polished' overall. And of course the way the separate apps come together under one look and feel is great too. I do use GNOME occassionally, but always find myself drifting back to KDE. And Koffice is much faster on load than OOo. But I do wish that they would make it easier to install themes and stuff. THe whole compile thing can get a bit irritating at times. BTW, does anyone know how to make the center the page in Kword and OO writer?

fontis
March 12th, 2006, 03:53 PM
When I first switched to Linux I tried KDE since it reminded me so much of Windows. But I kept on trying different gui's and I found gnome to be exactly what I wanted. It's plain, simple but yet so advanced at the same time :)

GeneralZod
March 12th, 2006, 04:24 PM
But I do wish that they would make it easier to install themes and stuff. THe whole compile thing can get a bit irritating at times.

"Pure" themes (like SnoothGray (http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=33944) for example) are really easy to install, although there seem to be some Kubuntu-specific quirks that make it harder than it should be :rolleyes:

"Themes" that require compilation are generally more than mere themes and involve deeper changes than re-skinning stuff like e.g. new Window Decorations (like crystal (http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=13969) and crystal-gl (http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=18983), for example). The only problem is that the latter seem to outnumber the former by quite a bit! :)

ComplexNumber
March 15th, 2006, 08:52 PM
another perspective on this matter can be obtained from here (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13974&page=4)


Gnome (Novell/Ximian)
GNOME (http://www.gnome.org/) is a great desktop environment. Corporate users feel right at home. In many ways it is a bit like Mac OS X. The main goal of its development seems to be a simple but yet powerful interface. Gone are the toolbars with numerous buttons, the endless options and configuration dialogs which most times can confuse the users rather than help them. Consistency, simplicity and uniformity best characterize the Gnome desktop. Some Gnome technologies are even used outside the Gnome community. Nokia for example uses gnome-vfs (http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/gnome-vfs/) (a virtual unification of different filesystems implemented in userspace) in their latest gadget 770 (http://www.nokia.com/770).
Unfortunately, Gnome historically has targeted the corporate world. This is also reflected in its applications. Evolution, gnumeric, nautilus and friends are all great applications but bring nothing new to the table. Furthermore a great deal of Gnome technology is developed for administrators (who manage many Gnome Computers with lots of users) reminding us again that corporate users are first in line. Examples are sabayon (http://www.gnome.org/projects/sabayon/) and the notorious gconf (http://www.gnome.org/projects/gconf/). Applications like beagle (http://beaglewiki.org/Main_Page) or F-spot (http://f-spot.org/Main_Page) cannot really disguise the fact that GNOME was and will (at least in the near future) always be offered by Sun/Novell/Redhat to their respective corporate users.
GNOME suffers from the flaws of the desktop metaphor. This is true even for experienced Unix users. A lot of them use GNOME because of the simplicity and great technology behind it, and at the same time are amazed when they discover that their desktop quickly accumulates icons from "temporary" tasks. Maybe Gnome needs a "clean up desktop icons" wizard too.
The "live" desktop in Gnome comes in the form of gdesklets (http://www.gdesklets.org/). The technology is powered by python and XML. The idea seems interesting but in the end most gdesklets are the usual suspects. That is, mem/sys/cpu/net load graphs, xmms frontends and weather forecasts. Great looks no doubt, but the functionality was already there before.
So where does Gnome stand today? In an interesting move by Novell several videos (http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/) showing an XGL-powered GNOME have surfaced on the net. These videos look really amazing. It's GNOME like never seen before. Transparent windows? Liquid style windows? Live video thumbnails? Cube desktop switching a la 3ddesktop (http://desk3d.sourceforge.net/)? It is all there. Several Unix zealots saw the videos and instantly declared that Vista is no-where near this and that the Unix desktop will never be the ugly cousin of modern desktop environments. Unfortunately they don't see the big picture. Even though these screen effects are cool, they add nothing to usability. They only thing that really deserves so many headlines is the expose/clean-up-windows effect which will certainly come handy when the desktop is cluttered with many windows. Another interesting feature is also the graying-out effect for frozen applications. This gives a visual clue to the user that something is wrong with an application. But really everything else is pure eye candy. Novell has really surprised us not with the videos themselves but rather with the direction they are going with them.
Meanwhile there are numerous other technologies around, that crave for developers and will help users when they will become mature. We mean the howl (http://www.porchdogsoft.com/products/howl/)/zeroconf (http://www.zeroconf.org/)/avahi (http://avahi.org/) implementations or even the dbus (http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/dbus)/hal (http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software_2fhal) combo. The future Gnome desktop powered by them will certainly be better than the current one and not just look better. Sadly these technologies are not in the headlines. This is because they are considered infrastructure (=boring) work and 3D stuff is always more eye-catching.
Soon after the release of XGL, redhat/fedora proposed their solution for a fancier desktop along with the obligatory video samples (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RenderingProject/aiglx). Nvidia published their own whitepaper (http://developer.nvidia.com/object/xdevconf_2006_presentations.html) (PDF (http://download.nvidia.com/developer/presentations/2006/xdevconf/compositing-with-current-framework.pdf)) too giving their ideas on the situation. Most people started comparing the technologies or asking why XGL development took place behind closed doors, when the real question is what enhancements do they offer to the desktop experience.
To sum up, it is sad to see that interested parties are just focusing on the visual effects of the technologies. The single most important purpose of the graphic system is to improve the human-computer interaction and not to look cool. It is easy to create great-looking interfaces that cannot be used by humans, but rather difficult to create usable interfaces that also look good too.







KDE (Germany :-)
KDE (http://www.kde.org/) is the other big Unix Desktop environment. It used to be more mature than Gnome but as both have progressed this is no longer the case. Under the hood KDE is powered by a smart component/parts system called kparts (http://phil.freehackers.org/kde/kpart-techno/kpart-techno.html). Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org/) is not just a web browser/file manager combo. It is the central hub for the KDE idea of integration. KDE code is clean/object oriented and easily extensible. Writing KDE applications is a positive experience like no other. A great framework is presented to the programmer who can quickly use well-tested code to build his/her own ideas.
The visual part of KDE which is presented to the user is no match for the technologies that power it. The interface closely follows the desktop metaphor and several times it has been accused of being windows-like. KDE tries to offer its users every possible option that can be changed. The control panel, the overloaded toolbars, the kicker and the icon-cluttered desktop show clearly that KDE follows the tried-and-true user interface of the dominant Operating System in the desktop market.
The latest interesting headlines for KDE are the announcements of the solid (http://solid.kde.org/) and plasma (http://plasma.kde.org/) projects. There are no published implementations just a simple description in their respective sites. Solid is described as "a system allowing to seamlessly use devices and networks available for your computer". Plasma is an effort to create a "live" desktop for KDE. Although superkaramba (http://netdragon.sourceforge.net/ssuperkaramba.html) exists for some time now, plasma seems to have greater aspirations for the KDE desktop. Plasma is part of the Appeal (http://appeal.kde.org/wiki/Appeal) initiative which at the moment just states their goals. In the same site one can also find the Oxygen Icon theme (http://www.oxygen-icons.org/) which advertises itself as "not being just another icon-theme"!.
Knowing how KDE will transform in the future is difficult. Its developers seem to have reached the state where needed functionality is there, and higher level concepts are examined. KDE is clearly a mature desktop that has solid foundations but lacks the final polish that will give it a distinct identity.
As a side note the KDE developers seems to also spend time re-inventing the wheel. Gimp is already there yet Krita (http://www.koffice.org/krita/) is heavily developed these days. OpenOffice is alive and kicking, yet Koffice (http://www.koffice.org/) reminds us that KDE needs everything to be done the KDE way.

pizzach
March 15th, 2006, 10:54 PM
I'm a gnome person. Don't really like Windows, and only use it when fixing someone elses computer or when I have to on a school computer.

Which leads me to liking GNOME. I get the feeling that gnome is waiting for me to use it instead of trying to do things for me. I hate any kind of bubble popups. Also, the kde menu has way way to many random apps that happen to all start with the letter k...kde just feels very windowsie no matter how much you configure it.

I usually make my gnome deskop look real pretty with a different theme, and I keep the plain old icons. I run with no desktop, no buttons on my windows, and only one gnome panel. I don't usually use task bars for windows as I find they are only useful if you have a fettish for maximizing windows. I do not let nautilus open cds automatically for me. I only allow the burn dialog to pop up automatically.

Gnome just fits the best for me. I'm more likely to move to the new/old enlightened desktop than use kde.

Adrian
March 15th, 2006, 11:24 PM
another perspective on this matter can be obtained from here (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13974&page=4)


The author is completely wrong about reinventing the wheel. Check out the comments to that article to find out why.

Anyway, if you are looking for the truth, there is only one site to trust...

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/GNOME
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/KDE

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

cjazz
March 16th, 2006, 12:04 AM
... there is only one site to trust...

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/GNOME
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/KDE

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.


Well, I'm cured. Back to WindowMaker.

That stuff is hilarious.

ArizonaKid
March 16th, 2006, 05:37 AM
Before using Linux, I was primarily a Mac user who used Windows when needed. My initial reaction to both desktops was a preference for KDE; this was primarily because it appeared to look much more polished. However, I quickly came to dislike KDE once I tried Gnome.

To me KDE is very hard to get around, and the simplest of changes appear to be more tucked away then Gnome. Also, because I became an Ubuntu user, the support all over the forums for Gnome is greater than KDE. I find the answers to basic and complex questions about Gnome in a matter of minutes. Basic KDE solutions require more digging around these forums.

Finally, in using Gnome, I found that Gnome simply got out of my way much the same as OS X. With a couple of good themes and decent background, my Gnome system was looking almost as good as OS X.

chemaja
March 20th, 2006, 12:50 PM
I'd like [Konqueror] even more if it's web browser had a "quick links" launch (the equivalent of FF's "Bookmarks Toolbar folder" rather than just all the bookmarks option).

In Konqueror, click the "Settings" menu, then "Toolbars", then "Bookmark Toolbar (Konqueror)". A Konqueror toolbar appears, displaying the bookmarks you'd normally see in your "Bookmarks" menu.

This was tested in Dapper's KDE 3.5.1, but I'm pretty sure it works for the 3.4 series.

Wait, come to think of it, the above feature may (ie. I'm not sure) be disabled because of the `kubuntu-default-settings' package. Since I don't have (and don't currently want) that package, I can't easily test this out. Can anyone verify?

Madhatter14641
March 24th, 2006, 09:36 AM
I'm a KDE kinda guy. I started on Gnome, moved to KDE, then moved back to Gnome, then moved back to KDE. While I like Gnome, I kept running into little breaks that made life difficult. For instance, one day I was attempting to rearrange the main menu for Gnome in the SMEG editor. The editor showed that my menu was configured as I wanted it to be, but for some reason it didn't change the menu. Strange, I thought- maybe I just clicked cancel? I went back into SMEG and found that my changes were still saved. I changed something else and found that some of my menu changes were applied to the menu but not all of them. (](*,)) It was a very bizzare incident and I wasn't able to beat the editor at its game.

Additionally, I really dig many of the KDE apps. I love amaroK. I also found that rosegarden (which relies heavily on the arts sound server) did better on KDE. Maybe I was just configuring it wrong in Gnome, but I fought with that blasted program in Gnome for days. It seems to come down to little things here and there. I think I have to agree with the common concensus though that it's just a preference in flavor between the two.

Blunts
March 24th, 2006, 09:57 AM
In my " opinion " Gnome is the better.. more straight forward and less bulk desktop, but I do recommend KDE for new users as it resembles Windoze a little more and they seem at least comfortable with it. Its all in choice. One is not better than the other.

aysiu
March 24th, 2006, 03:43 PM
In my " opinion " Gnome is the better.. more straight forward and less bulk desktop, but I do recommend KDE for new users as it resembles Windoze a little more and they seem at least comfortable with it. Its all in choice. One is not better than the other. If you're talking about KDE defaults, I think you'd be better off recommending Gnome, as the single-click-to-open feature might confuse those ex-Windows users.

If you're not talking about defaults, then you can recommend whatever you want, because they all can be themed to be like XP. Toolbars can be rearranged.

Gnome can be just as "Windows-like" (whatever that means) as KDE.

patrixl
March 24th, 2006, 04:10 PM
If you're talking about KDE defaults, I think you'd be better off recommending Gnome, as the single-click-to-open feature might confuse those ex-Windows users.

If you're not talking about defaults, then you can recommend whatever you want, because they all can be themed to be like XP. Toolbars can be rearranged.

Gnome can be just as "Windows-like" (whatever that means) as KDE.

yeah... The funny thing though is that the single-click feature was inspired by Windows.. IE 4.x to be precise, and the active desktop aka "your desktop is a webpage" metaphor that never caught on ;)

It's funny how some of the MS promises are fulfilled by KDE, such as accessing any filesystem in the world as if it was on your own computer (KIO-slaves) etc lol

Back on topic though, it is in the end a matter of preference. I'm a big KDE fan, but I've been using gnome for about a week and I quite like it too. I just can't make up my mind haha

jakemikey
March 24th, 2006, 04:18 PM
I prefer GNOME for the same reasons most others have pointed out. GNOME is simple and streamlined. Features are easy to find and are intuitive. Getting the look and feel that I want takes less effort than it does with KDE. I also find the "GNOME-centric" apps to be more impressive (such as Beagle and Banshee, etc.) than KDE counterparts.

I used to prefer KDE, but eventually grew tired of its enormous and numerous menus and the fact that EVERYTHING has to have an icon next to it (I know it can be turned off...). If you want to change something, you have many candidates for where to look, but you're lucky if you can find it all, and if you find it once, you'll probably forget where it was and never find it again. To some, KDE's extensive customizability is what they like, but it's just too much of a headache for me. Somehow they managed to make a desktop even more convoluted and confusing than WIndows itself.

Plus, I find KDE's dogged devotion to the "crystal" look to be very "5 years ago" - as a Mac OS X user I'm getting a little tired of the glassy-aqua look (funny that Windows is just now jumping on that bandwagon when it's already passe). I think GNOME moving in the direction of the Tango project look is the future.

NetMatrix
March 24th, 2006, 04:42 PM
I myself like KDE, however in reguards to ubuntu I've been using Gnome. The KDE seems to have some issues. For instance try to open the network setup in the GUI and the window goes down past the bottom of the screen no matter what res. your monitor is set at. You have to use the shortcut keys to get to the administrator button. Also some of the control functions are not there.

I am also one of these that enjoys the nearly unlimited options to customize the system. I can make my desktop all my own.

Gnome however seems to work a little better in this distro (breezy).

njf
March 24th, 2006, 05:25 PM
I myself like KDE, however in reguards to ubuntu I've been using Gnome. The KDE seems to have some issues. For instance try to open the network setup in the GUI and the window goes down past the bottom of the screen no matter what res. your monitor is set at. You have to use the shortcut keys to get to the administrator button. Also some of the control functions are not there.
It is a issue of systemsettings. IMO, the new layout is a great idea, but until the bug is fixed, I'll recommend people to use KControl instead.

corneliusline
March 27th, 2006, 04:00 PM
I've hated Gnome. I don't like the interface so\much not even now, but it offers more functionality and stability (my opinion). I like very much "Amarok" from KDE wich is the best MP3 player ever (on any platform). Can somebody tell me where do I find one better than amarok, for Gnome?

Gordonbp531
March 27th, 2006, 05:06 PM
Hello to all

I am a happy Ubuntu GDE user curious about KDE... Ubuntu, actually, hasn't thrown me any problems, but I am Curious.

What differences are there between Ubuntu and Kubuntu? I understand them to be equally as good yet different... to what kind of user is directed KDE? what advantages does it have compared to GDE? I hope to have iniciated a small forum, 'coz I'm sure I'm not the only one curious about this, and there is a lot of wisdom in here.

the main problem I've found with the Ubuntu version of Gnome is that Evolution is SO deeply embedded that it is very difficult and irritating to change to another email client. Yes you can change the email client in Preferred apps, but you still can't send a file by right-clicking on it, to any other client other than Evolution........

qyot27
March 27th, 2006, 07:45 PM
My initial experience with Linux came by KDE, since I tested out Knoppix and Slax LiveCDs. I was simultaneously confused by it (what with all the options), somewhat comfortable because of how much it did resemble Windows, and also somewhat annoyed by that aspect as well. The problem, however, is that neither Knoppix or Slax LiveCDs recognized my video card - or just didn't want to play nicely with it, so I was forced to try them out on my parents' and grandparents' computers rather than my own.

When I tried Ubuntu, I was pleased to find that it didn't choke on my video card (which was the default card in this old 2001 eMachines), and I liked the fact that GNOME is laid out differently than either Windows or KDE; it helped me to start not thinking like I'd use the system like I would Windows. I also like the resemblance it has to OS X without the annoyances that I'd find when I'd use my mom's iBook (like the menu bar changing into the individual program's menu - I hate that a lot). Since I barely use Apples anyway, it wasn't like the similarity I found to Windows in KDE. Heck, I'd probably have a little bit of a hard time getting used to the OS X interface since I'm accustomed to GNOME. About the only thing I wish I could do in GNOME is to use the Browser Bookmarks Menu (http://www.gnomefiles.org/app.php?soft_id=745), but I still can't get it to work. Probably has something to do with GTK+ 2.6.x, but I can't be sure.

I also just like the minimalistic look and feel. Even so, I do have a bunch of themes, icon sets, GDM themes, etc. installed just so I have my options. I normally just stick with Glider, but if I had to pick a fancier theme, I'd probably go with AoiKame (http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=34550). I do have KDE installed, but despite the fact I followed one of the guides, I still lost all my menu items when I tried making it only display it's own and vice versa with GNOME. Thus, I rarely log into it. I do need to get around to fixing that, though I suspect that means reinstalling it.

mitjab
March 30th, 2006, 09:04 AM
is it possible to use multi session in gnome? That if anyone alse who is conected with freenx still can use clock applet, themes, icons,...,...

felix.rommel
April 11th, 2006, 09:45 AM
-KDE is a massive resource hog compared to gnome. despite that, gnome is only marginally faster, although, strictly speaking, it should be significantly more so when considering the huge difference in RAm usage between gnome and KDE.

I don't think that this is true any more. The last time I compared Kubuntu Dapper with Ubuntu Dapper Flight x, Gnome ate lots more RAM than KDE.

jtibau
May 11th, 2006, 08:56 AM
One thing that I really didn't like from the KDE menus is that they put EVERY gui programm that exists on your computer. I guess that this might also be considered good since you see more stuff to choose from.
But, what didn't really work for me was that since I was already used to some gnome gui front-ends (like the one for networking), I tried using those, instead of the KDE ones, they didn't work. My computer crashed and I had to restart X a couple of times.
Then I decided that since my gnome apps wouldn't work flawlesly on KDE, I should learn to use the KDE ones, why not. Except I missed a couple of features, or just couldn't find info as easily. For example, I couldn't find the download size in adept. Where as in synaptic it is clearly shown before you finally decide to start installing/upgrading something. I have a slow connection so this really threw me off.
Back to the too-many-stuff-in-the-menus issue, I couldn't stand to see so many icons for apps that crashed my system. Or less rashly, stuff that I wouldn't use.
Gnome let's you open the kde apps of course, but it hides kde apps from it's Administration/Preference Menus.
The other problem I found is that KDE apps are sometimes a bit more bloated. Also some of them are too complicated to configure, since they have so many details and menus. I liked Kopete more over Gaim since it had lots of good looks and eye candy. But I couldn't configure the sound setup the way I liked it. Also I couldn't find a login/logout button. There is a login/logout option of course, but it is placed about two layers deep in a menu.
I've also fallen in love with some gnome apps, namely: abiword, gnumeric and Gaim. OpenOffice is great, but it runs slow on some systems. Abiword and Gnumeric are fully functional, and are way faster. I haven't tried KOffice so I cannot compare.
I think I will try KDE again soon (maybe with Dapper released), but I would have to reinstall so as to not have the incovenience about having tons of stuff on the menus.
I like eye candy, and KDE does have many more features in that aspect.

rcarring
May 11th, 2006, 04:52 PM
I used to like KDE, it came with SUSE 9.0, but back then I was a Windows user seeking a desktop that looked very much like Windows' desktop.

I tried Ubuntu, this comes with Gnome. I havent seen a need yet to install KDE.

I also run PCBSD, this comes with KDE.

Both systems run on emulated VMs throu VMWare. KDE is much slower. I choose Gnome.

rvergara
May 12th, 2006, 01:10 AM
is it possible to use multi session in gnome? That if anyone alse who is conected with freenx still can use clock applet, themes, icons,...,...

Yes, it is possible. Every user would have their own desktop with all goodies. However this is not a freenx feature but Linux multiuser capability.

Now, if your question relates to 2 people using the same user in Ubuntu to connect at the same time via freenx, Yes it is also possible and you will see desktop, , applets and everything, however, for one instance applications you will onle be able to open it in one of the sessions (e.g evolution, firefox unless you create a second profile, etc)

Regards

Ramiro

turbojugend_gr
May 12th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Well it is as simple as that...
why isn't there a Gubuntu... ---note that ubuntu is the number 1 distro (distrowatch).

The rapid expanding of the ubuntu project, comes with Gnome leading the way.

PS 1: I wouldn't encourage anyone to KDE, as it encourages windows users claims " LINUX is a complicated copy of windows, since I can copy windows for free, why should I choose Linux?". Just try a different (better) approach to desktop computing...

PS 2: Note that Gnome keeps getting better ratings than KDE from nearly all magazines - sites.

PS 3: As for they lie saying Qt is completely for free listen to that story coming from Michael Meeks, leading developer of the OO.org: "The German Post Office have a nice commercial plug-in for OO.org, which types a 2D code coming from the German Post Office Server, this code releases your letter once and for all from post tolls. It's a very good tool indeed. They will have to pay Trolltech in order to plug it into our our platform (OO) cause it's under GPL. I don't like this approach, I can't see a reason for us to put someone (Trolltech) into this monopoly - key holder position, thus limiting ours and other peoples choices."

Geoneil
May 13th, 2006, 07:50 AM
This may be more down to familiarity than anything else, but I prefer KDE to GNOME and I'm getting rather fond of XFCE while I play about in xubuntu-desktop (try owt for a laugh) I haven't really taken to GNOME that much and even when not in KDE, I tend to go for the more familiar (and better IMVHO) KDE apps, although having said that, I do prefer GAIM to Kopete, again, this could be down to familiarity, I know GAIM from my time in Windows (why run four or five chat clients when one will do?)

At the moment I just use Kubuntu for regular PC usage and haven't really found any bother running GNOME apps in KDE (or KDE apps in GNOME or XFCE, although this might be because I have KDE installed and use kwin rather then Metacity as a window manager, unless of course it switches to Metacity when I choose a different DE at logon)

Geoneil
May 13th, 2006, 07:59 AM
PS 3: As for they lie saying Qt is completely for free listen to that story coming from Michael Meeks, leading developer of the OO.org: "The German Post Office have a nice commercial plug-in for OO.org, which types a 2D code coming from the German Post Office Server, this code releases your letter once and for all from post tolls. It's a very good tool indeed. They will have to pay Trolltech in order to plug it into our our platform (OO) cause it's under GPL. I don't like this approach, I can't see a reason for us to put someone (Trolltech) into this monopoly - key holder position, thus limiting ours and other peoples choices."

Many thanks for this, and also for it being pinned.

According to the KDE developers (http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/myth/10), the reason why the German Post Office have to pay Trolltech to use Qt is because it's a commercial plugin, I think for open source apps, Qt comes out under the GPL itself.

http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/

bullgr
May 13th, 2006, 08:39 AM
I was a KDE fan for long time... but after i try ubuntu (and not kubuntu) i see what some stuff (like disk manager, update manager) are more easy to use for a newbie in linux.
I don't know if the ease of use is because ubuntu or gnome, i din't try gnome in other distro, but i don't realy care because i am happy with ubuntu and gnome:D

turbojugend_gr
May 13th, 2006, 11:57 PM
According to the KDE developers, the reason why the German Post Office have to pay Trolltech to use Qt is because it's a commercial plugin, I think for open source apps, Qt comes out under the GPL itself

That's what my point is about, Trolltech uses it's toolkit to earn money when commercial plugins or anything similar comes to use. If it was under GPL it should be for commercial users also. You can't claim it's GPL only for some people or some cases. Having 2 licenses it is just Hilarious not to say SAD! Can you imagine LINUS asking for money when a company used the Kernel?????? That's laughable...

PS: Use true GPL or not at all, Linux users are not that stupid, though KDE using might turn them to...

aaarg
May 14th, 2006, 12:46 AM
Main reason to use one or the other is like trying on jeans. It's the little things. Gnome might make you look pear shaped, or KDE might make your *** look too flat, when you want it to look ample and fly. Perhaps the Gnome stonewashing has the knees faded at the wrong place, but the pocket stitching on the KDE hiphuggers is iresistable--bingo, you've found your home.

:D

only in a *nix forum will you ever compare desktop environments to wearing blue jeans.....gotta love it :)

silentb
May 16th, 2006, 07:03 PM
On my computer KDE runs noticeably faster than GNOME. On my brother's computer it's just the reverse. Heh.

solstice
May 16th, 2006, 07:27 PM
I use gnome. My reasoning was my first trial was with Kubuntu and my computer was very unstable. I wasn't sure why and never was able to fix it. Later, I tried Ubuntu just to see the differences, I was pleasently surprised to see my computer running rock solid without any issues or unstability. I'm guessing I was having video issues with kubuntu, but I'm happy with gnome.

Azriphale
May 23rd, 2006, 04:03 PM
currently (and i'm talking since 2 days ago sort of currently) I am using KDE (Kubuntu Dapper), and very much enjoying it. Until then, through Hoary and Breezy, I was using GNOME. And very much enjoying it.

When I first started in Linux (can't remember exactly when), I started with a version of Mandrake, in the days of GNOME 1.x, and couldn't stand it for very long. So I put KDE 2.x on the machine, and loved it. I was using KDE for a few versions of Mandrake, then SUSE, until I reached Ubuntu Hoary.

I like the simplicity of GNOME. Generally, it works as it should without any extra clutter and junk. Simple is nice. Its as configurable as it needs to be.

KDE has too much clutter. I still use it and enjoy it. I dont know about all this "KDE uses so much more RAM than GNOME" stuff, but as far as I can see on my machine, its not true. Both use around 250MB/2GB with no swap space usage. Both are very snappy. Both run really well.

Currently, however, I use KDE partially because of Qt. I just picked up Qt, and i love it. I looked at GTK and GTK-- (C++ bindings, which I view as messy) and just couldn't get into it. I looked at Qt, and in within hours (waiting for Qt4 to compile) i am programming it. I, personally, think that Qt is amazing.

catfive
May 23rd, 2006, 04:53 PM
KDE has a little better eye candy by default in my opinion, but the kapplication knames kget kreally kfrickin' kannoying!!!

Castar
June 28th, 2006, 04:35 PM
KDE has a little better eye candy by default in my opinion, but the kapplication knames kget kreally kfrickin' kannoying!!!

That's the Kewl factor ;)

I'm a geek, I know :rolleyes: :cool:

Al3xanR0
June 28th, 2006, 06:51 PM
Hello to all

I am a happy Ubuntu GDE user curious about KDE... Ubuntu, actually, hasn't thrown me any problems, but I am Curious.

What differences are there between Ubuntu and Kubuntu? I understand them to be equally as good yet different... to what kind of user is directed KDE? what advantages does it have compared to GDE? I hope to have iniciated a small forum, 'coz I'm sure I'm not the only one curious about this, and there is a lot of wisdom in here.

Honestly the best advise is to take the objective approach; try them both then fomulate your own opinion. For instance, I am partial to KDE thus more inclined to say KDE is better -but that is nothing more than a matter of opinion, I would not take my word for it mor anyone elses.

mexlinux
September 26th, 2007, 06:48 AM
I'm posting my experiences here:
http://www.bbnuke.com/kdevsgnome

GSF1200S
September 26th, 2007, 08:06 AM
I have been a KDE hound as of recent. That said, little things have annoyed me- its never been anything BIG, just a collection of stupid stuff.. I think I like the design and ideals of KDE, but its licensing, large size, and sometimes unstable behavior prevents me from being totally pleased.

Gnome when I used it seemed faster, seemed to use about the same RAM, and seemed to be more stable. However, I didnt like ANY of the programs as much as KDE. I mean cmon.. Kontact, Amarok, Knotes, Konqueror/Dolphin, Kopete!? These are really nice programs. But then, gnome has that nice license, and such. Gnome is easier, but Nautilus SUCKS, and I feel they go too far in restricting options.

Between the two, im really really at a push. I came to Linux for the speed and stability that Gnome offers, but im addicted to all the options and awesome programs found in KDE.

Thus enters what has been on my mind ALOT lately: XFCE. Im really seriously thinking about giving Zenwalk or KateOS a shot. XFCE is lighter than both, faster than both, can use eithers applications, is gtk/c like gnome, is just as stable as Gnome, yet offers more options than Gnome. Theres a few rough edges, but XFCE is FAST growing into a full power desktop that rivals both the top dogs...

mexlinux
September 26th, 2007, 04:38 PM
What licence issue? that has been solved years ago!, they are both GPL!

LaRoza
September 26th, 2007, 04:50 PM
Hasn't this road been traveled many times?

I use Fluxbox, it is better than GNOME or KDE, for what I do.

garak
October 14th, 2011, 09:10 AM
Gnome!