Have you switched Desktops?

[Ubunted]

We've all been through the standard "GNOME vs KDE" wars before. Comments regarding the three major desktops and Mark Shuttleworth's own use of Kubuntu got me thinking - how many of you have switched desktops since you started using Ubuntu?

I've been GNOME since day one. I've tried KDE (too cluttered, too many "kprograms") and XFCE but always come back to the GNOME desktop.

[aysiu]

I went from KDE to Gnome to KDE to Gnome to KDE to Gnome to KDE to Gnome, then to XFCE to Gnome to XFCE to KDE to Gnome to KDE to Gnome to KDE to Gnome... and eventually to IceWM and right now I'm using Gnome with IceWM (instead of Metacity).

[po0f]

Coming from Gentoo/KDE, I have used GNOME since I have started using Ubuntu. I have a feeling when KDE4 does come out, I will be going back to KDE (and Gentoo).

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I've looked at Xubuntu and I liked its speed, and I've played with Kubuntu, but I'm sticking with vanilla Ubuntu for now; it won me over with its nice artwork out of the box.

I really do love what they're doing with Kubuntu lately, with the nice first-run "How do you want Kubuntu to behave?" screen and a much more attractive default theme than before, but I like Ubuntu for its distinct default look.
Unfortunately, Kubuntu continues to use basic KDE artwork like the big K... and I just can't be happy running software that all starts with the letter K! (It is a ridiculous motif carried way too far).
Also, Kubuntu has a strange habit of hanging. People with better computers probably don't have the problem, but on my slower computer I swear it's all running on the same thread! If the settings program starts loading something (and taking its sweet time about it), my efforts to do anything with the desktop will fail.
Additionally (sorry about all these negatives), its system for placing panels on the desktop drives me mad! I wanted two panels; one with a task bar / desktop switcher, one with an application launcher and status bar. I have the default panel, but whenever I go to Panel Options to move my other plain Panel which I've just added, it just moves the default one! This happens a lot... there seems to be unnecessary differences between panels here? The Universal Sidebar also cannot be configured like a normal panel, even though it is added in the same way as a panel. I wanted it to not always be on top, but I could not find the option. Oh, well...
Anyway, those negatives aside, there are many positives, such as the amount of customization that I am able to do and the speed it is capable of. I can see why people like it, and I'll be sure to keep an eye on it because Kubuntu is really shaping up nicely.

Xubuntu is also quite nice. Not great to look at (though still some well done artwork! Way better than I can do...) but it gets the job done and it is fast. I really like the floating panels.

[kuja]

KDE sold me on day one. I've never looked back.

[TheWizzard]

i switched from gnome to ubuntu when i was using fedora. the official support for kde in the ubuntu project was one of the reasons i went from fedora to ubuntu.
reasons for switching from gnome to kde:
- i like easy configuration
- kde configuration files are in plain text rather than xml
- i find kde more visually attractive
- i prefer kde applications like amarok over their gnome equivalents

but i must say - contrary to linus - that two popular desktop environments are a benefit to the linux users. this stimulates both projects to move ahead as fast as they can.

[Dual Cortex]

Gnome to KDE and back to gnome.

[Sluipvoet]

I mostly use XFCE. But occasionally I switch to GNOME or Fluxbox.

[lowracer]

I tried KDE for awhile. The K-naming convention for everything is trite. I'm coming off a 17-year Mac addiction so I like to see a menubar at the top of my screen. Yeah I know I can move the panels wherever I like. I just like the way it is initially set up in Ubuntu, except I like blue instead of the earth tones so I change that.

So I went back to GNOME but I am somewhat confused. The KDE programs are still around, and I still use them. (I didn't de-install kubuntu-desktop after switching.) For example AmaroK, I think that's a KDE program but it runs fine under GNOME. And digiKam, pretty sure that's associated with KDE in some way but I run it under GNOME just fine.

So I guess I'm confused for the moment as to how I can just pick and choose the desktop I want, but still get to run the programs from the other desktop. No big deal because it all works, just some confusion as to what's going on there.

[mips]

I switched to Kubuntu during breezy/dapper beta. Wont go back to Gnome.

[KoRnholio]

So I went back to GNOME but I am somewhat confused. The KDE programs are still around, and I still use them. (I didn't de-install kubuntu-desktop after switching.) For example AmaroK, I think that's a KDE program but it runs fine under GNOME. And digiKam, pretty sure that's associated with KDE in some way but I run it under GNOME just fine.

So I guess I'm confused for the moment as to how I can just pick and choose the desktop I want, but still get to run the programs from the other desktop. No big deal because it all works, just some confusion as to what's going on there.

Its not that you can't use them, its just that Qt (KDE equivalent of GTK+) running in Gnome is somewhat less stable. For instance, over time, you'll notice amaroK crashing more often than Gnome equivalents. Also, your metacity keybindings (for example, next/prev/play) won't work quite as smoothly (for me amaroK doesn't recognize them at all under Gnome).

Another issue people have is just the looks themselves. KDE apps will 'stick out like a sore thumb' to some people, when compared with the Gnome apps on a Gnome desktop.

The difference is small, but it is there.

[der_joachim]

I really like KDE and have done so for many years. Although I admit that Gnome looks more shiny (and KDE's default style is utterly hideous), the UI itself is so much more mature IMHO. I like the philosophy of exhaustive configurability. :)

I occasionally try XFCE or Gnome, and I do like XFCE. I like KDE better though.

[earobinson]

gnome -> xfce (love things slim clean and simple)

at school I use kde.

[s_h_a_d_o_w_s]

Gnome -> KDE -> GNOME -> both -> Then just gnome :-)

[lowracer]

Its not that you can't use them, its just that Qt (KDE equivalent of GTK+) running in Gnome is somewhat less stable. For instance, over time, you'll notice amaroK crashing more often than Gnome equivalents. Also, your metacity keybindings (for example, next/prev/play) won't work quite as smoothly (for me amaroK doesn't recognize them at all under Gnome).
The difference is small, but it is there.

OK so maybe what I'll do is list what apps I run and decide based on that which desktop to use. Right now AmaroK and digiKam are must-haves. So I'll give KDE another shot.

[GeneralZod]

I'm coming off a 17-year Mac addiction so I like to see a menubar at the top of my screen.


So I'll give KDE another shot.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but, since you're giving KDE another shot, note that KDE supports Mac OS X style menu bars:

http://etotheipiplusone.com/kde-macosx-menu-bars.png

where the current application's menu bar is placed at the top of the screen. Sadly, though, this only works for KDE apps :(

[mips]

OK so maybe what I'll do is list what apps I run and decide based on that which desktop to use. Right now AmaroK and digiKam are must-haves. So I'll give KDE another shot.

That's one of the reasons i moved over, I like a lot of kde apps & thought I might as well use kde if i like the apps that much but it was not the only reason.

[transactionlogfiller]

I find KDE too cluttered. I started using gnome (good, but not perfect), tried fluxbox (to much the other way) and eventually settled on XFCE (just right).

Now I'm back using gnome because I can't make XFCE work with my dual monitor setup (they are different sizes and resolutions, and gnome seems to handle that better). If anyone can point me at a good howto for XFCE with 2 monitors I'd be very grateful :)

[Velotix]

Been using Ubuntu for less than two weeks. Started with XFCE, moved to KDE, moved to GNOME, and have tried FluxBox. I'm still settling, but I'm guessing I'll end up keeping them all and using them as necessary. I have a 400GB hard-drive so it's not like I'm short on space. :p

[cmorgan47]

6.10 ubuntu-desktop on the server
6.06 xubuntu-desktop on the laptop...it's old.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I have tried the three majors of KDE, Gnome and XFCE.
I mostly use gnome these days but I keep XFCE as a backup.
Now I will be honest, I like XFCE but there are some things in it that are kinda ick, I think its promising though.

[chaosgeisterchen]

It started with SuSE and KDE 3.4.3. I had a short period of using GNOME but I shifted back just after two or three days. From then on I only tried out GNOME and others just for fun and never again went away from KDE. I am very satisfied with the usability it provides me - although GTK-looks are much nicer nowadays.

[lyceum]

I will probablly switch to Fluxbuntu once it is done. Gotta love the Flux Box!!!

[Gargamella]

First I tried Kde and I liked it more than Gnome,after using gnome for a while now it is my favourite ;D
Xfce is the one i never tried

[Castigate]

Hi, I just started using Ubuntu with Gnome. If I want to use Kde do I have to install Kubuntu. I downloaded the kde package using Synaptic Package Manager. Is that good enough or is there any advantages installing Kubuntu? Thanks.

[ComplexNumber]

i used kde for many years, but it hasn't really gone anywhere since the early years. gnome, on the other hand, has come on leaps and bounds and is now going in the right drection. although i'm using kde(in PcLinuxOS) as a temporary measure until FC6 is supplied on the cover of Linux Format 88, i am having lots of problems with it. no change there. soon it will be back to the good ol' stability andf good looks of gnome.

[linuxwizard]

Only been using linux since April started out with Xandros (KDE) I was curious about Gnome so installed Ubuntu 6.06 tried it and it was different than expected. I like KDE better so I installed the Kubuntu desktop very happy with it.

[kuja]

Hi, I just started using Ubuntu with Gnome. If I want to use Kde do I have to install Kubuntu. I downloaded the kde package using Synaptic Package Manager. Is that good enough or is there any advantages installing Kubuntu? Thanks.
Well, it's a different set of packages (the kde package has a lot more in it), kind of a take your pick type of deal. You'll want to install kde-guidance. Some other packages you might consider are the kubuntu-settings, kubuntu-artwork-usplash, kubuntu-docs, kubuntu-konqueror-shortcuts, and possibly others (artwork related, etc)

[oswaldkelso]

Tried Gnome, tried Kde, tried Xfce and others. Still use Gnome on Ubuntu and Debian parttime, all ppc. On Debian use Fluxbox and Rox-filer and 3ddesk but no kde apps at all. (fantastic). Ubuntu I use Gnome but switching to Fluxbox-Rox.

On pc (very lowend 128mb 500mhz) Zenwalk default, xfce. Other pc (256mb 300mhz) Zenwalk fluxbox-Rox.

As a mainline Expos'e user and someone that will never be a command line junkie or a power user, I always felt "heldback by the linux desktop" speed of use wise. For me Fluxbox and Rox -filer and 3ddesk are as near to that Expos'e experiance as I've got with linux. So much so that I'm now nearer 60/40 Linux user though I do use osx when I get stuck or need an app that is lacking in linux!! i.e.Video!!.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Castigate: You needn't install Kubuntu to run KDE apps in Gnome.
The dependencies should sort themselves out :)

It's quite wonderful, really.

I run Amarok and KDevelop in Gnome routinely (without Kubuntu installed), and it works perfectly.
Although, running software that's meant for a different desktop manager really makes you want the real thing.

I believe that using KDE config tools, you can change the settings for KDE programs even when they're running within Gnome. (For example, I recall having the active application's menu appearing at the top as with Mac OS when running KDE software in Gnome).

Of course, if you want Kubuntu, yes, you need the kubuntu-desktop package but it should do the rest completely automatically. (Just log in and tell it to use KDE instead of Gnome).
I believe there is a kde-core package which gives you a more simple KDE desktop to work with.

[Castigate]

Thanks! I added kubuntu-desktop and the rest of the packages recommended. Alot of links in the menus to go through now](*,) This will probablly be a stupid question but is there special programs needed to do maintnance on linux systems? Do you need programs like scandisk, disk defrag, disk cleanup, anti spyware, antivirus, firewall? Don't castigate me to much for that question but I had to ask:-#

[yabbadabbadont]

You really should have included an option for "other". As my avatar shows, I use Fluxbox.

[viper]

From KDE to Gnome, never looked back.

[LLRNR]

Hi, I started with Gnome (default Ubuntu 6.06) and then switched to KDE... and I have some particular reasons for this, too:

- I enjoy the flexibility and customisability that KDE provides;
- also, I like having multiple (k-)choice alternatives to accomplish a single task; :lol: I see the k-stuff is not too appreciated, still I like it, I find it, again, a very flexible thing;
- well this issue is somehow ... awkward; I don't understand it myself: I like KDE most of all because... well... in MY case I find it to be more fast and also more _stable_ than Gnome. This is strange indeed, my PC is an old one (1 GHz CPU, 384 MB RAM, 64 MB nVidia graphics card), but I've experienced many occasional lock-ups in Gnome and this didn't happen in KDE. It's strange, though.

I still keep Gnome just in case and someday I'll also give XFCE a shot, and other WMs too, but for now I'm very happy with Kubuntu.

[drFUNK]

GNOME --> KDE --> GNOME --> KDE




and back to GNOME. Then back to KDE when version 4 comes out.

[mushroom]

Back and forth like others, but KDE's integration, features, options, great apps, global menubar and built-in compositor gave me a permanent desktop environment. Not a bit of gtk on my system (well...that I know of, anyway). I can't wait for KDE4.

[tubasoldier]

I've always been a KDE user. I thought it was easier to configure. It sure had a lot more options which is what I wanted. However, with that said, I have to say that Kubuntu is perhaps the worst implementation of KDE I have seen in a distribution since Mandrake 9. I would never use Kubuntu again. I use Gnome and Ubuntu on my laptop and I have a KDE system on my desktop. Installing Ubuntu with kde-base is much more stable than Kubuntu-desktop. As for applications, I personally think most KDE apps are easier to use because I have more control over what they do and how they do it.

[3rdalbum]

On my iMac, I switched from Gnome to XFCE, then back to Gnome, then to Enlightenment E16. When I bought my PC, I used Gnome then tried out KDE for a few days. Now I'm back on Gnome perminantly.

[Senak^2]

I usually use KDE but switch to Gnome and Xfce every now and then. It's just fun that way.

[jnev]

when I first started using linux (not ubuntu) I used kde. then I started using ubuntu and switched to gnome. later I reinstalled kubuntu so I had kde. now I'm back with gnome in edgy.

I like most kde apps better than their gnome alternatives, and I like that it has more features. gnome I think looks better and is easier to use and seems to be more "finished". currently I use kde apps on gnome, best compromise imo.

[Aranel]

I started my Linux experience using Mandriva (I'd heard it was the most user-friendly), which defaulted to KDE. After I'd used that for a couple months, I switched - or at least tried to switch - to SuSE, which gives me a choice. I picked KDE because I was somewhat familiar with it. SuSE didn't support my wireless card, however, and I was still too newbish to work NdisWrapper manually (Mandriva had had an automatic GUI for it), so I looked into it and found that Ubuntu Dapper had support virtually out-of-the-box for my card. However, I couldn't get that to install, even using the alternate CD and other last-resort installation methods, so I finally switched to the Debian stable branch (which of course uses GNOME).

From Debian, I compiled a custom vanilla kernel (an undertaking no newb should have to experience!) because 2.6.17+ kernels supported my card, through much trial-and-error and with aid from countless online guides. I finally got it working, but I was virtually stuck with Debian for awhile. Then Ubuntu Edgy came out, and it installed without an issue. Since then, I've used those SuSE CDs I'd burned on a second computer (using KDE, again) and tried out Fedora 6 (using GNOME) on a third.

My point in recounting all that is basically to say that in the few months I've used Linux, I've grown comfortable with both GNOME and KDE but have not had a lot of experience with other DE's/WM's. I'd have to say I prefer KDE in the long run, simply because of its very high-quality suite of applications and sleek look, but I still use GNOME about 65% of the time for various reasons. I'll probably make a permanent switch to KDE when version 4 comes out, but I've basically been jumping around between it and GNOME from the outset.

[Toontwnca]

gnome.
never tried anything else.

[Henry Rayker]

Gnome since day one, but I've been fooling around with Enlightenment, Fluxbox and XFCE lately...trying to find something a litte lighter on my laptop...but I'm having some trouble settling down with one.

[fuscia]

i've tried tons of different DE/wms. on my old desktop, i settled on openbox. it was the only one that was acceptably fast enough, especially using things like dillo and sylpheed-claws. since i got my laptop, after a brief fling with kde, i've found myself very happy with gnome.

[Koori23]

I used KDE back in the days of Mandrake 9.1.. What sold me was that the whole menubar could go transparent. Stupid reason, but it's a reason. Now, I use GNOME always. I like the themes better, they are much easier to install and Firefox integrates better with Gnome. This is all my personal opinion.. I'm not that proficent with modifying desktops, I just install the themes others make.

I do like Konqueror as a browser, it's very fast but I couldn't get any plugins to work except for flash.. Mplayer didn't work.

[sailingboarder]

my first experience with linux was running redhat off an old desktop, maybe 5 or 6 years ago, while i was still a windows usr on my regular laptop
a couple months ago, i switched from windows to fedora, and about a could wks ago i finally made the switch to ubuntu
all three times i used gnome, and liked it
i'm trying kubuntu for the first time just now, so i'm typing this from the live cd
its nice, and i like the blue...i also like the popup dialogs when u hold ur cursor over an item in the panel
however, the menu reminds me way to much of the enemy(windows) which i was so happy to get away from
so, right now i'm gonna stick with gnome, since i haven't had too many problems with it, but i may try kubuntu again in the future

[JayTee]

We've all been through the standard "GNOME vs KDE" wars before. Comments regarding the three major desktops and Mark Shuttleworth's own use of Kubuntu got me thinking - how many of you have switched desktops since you started using Ubuntu?

I've been GNOME since day one. I've tried KDE (too cluttered, too many "kprograms") and XFCE but always come back to the GNOME desktop.

Must be something about Gnome that appeals to Firefly fans. I've used Gnome on Dapper since I started using Linux. Tried Kubuntu, not bad but just not to my tastes, good interface tho and tons of good apps there. I use XFCE with Xubuntu on my tired old memory starved laptop otherwise I'd use Gnome there too. :mrgreen:

[Luggy]

I've tried KDE but I'm going to stick with Gnome.

I love Qt but I'm not fond of KDE. I prefer Gnome and it's applications because they tend to be simple and I really dig that. KDE usually has more options and is regarded as being better but I find them too messy and bogged down to like them very much.

[mo79]

GNOME. As I dual boot with XP, KDE just reminds of the other OS, I like GNOME's Mac-ish look.

A thought: Why not have on a future installer (if poss), all 3 desktops? The installer could present you with what desktop you might like, e.g.

Classic = GNOME
Contemporary = KDE
Minimalist = XFCE
Bare = IceWM

[daniel2501]

I guess I've actually always used only KDE starting with Mandrake. I've played with many other DEs.

[doobit]

I have used KDE and Gnome, but I really like XFce and have learned to customize it and make it look very nice on this old box.

[urukrama]

I first used Gnome, then tried XFCE, then back to Gnome, then tried KDE, then went back to Gnome, then tried xfce again, and KDE, but still went back to Gnome. In between I tried IceWM (did not like it) and Enlightenment (couldn't figure out how it worked, and lost interest). I always return to Gnome.

But I just tried fluxbox a few days ago. I still have to try and configure it to my liking, but I think I might keep it and switch between Gnome and Fluxbox. It doesn't have everything I like in Gnome, but it is pretty neat. It's the first other desktop environment that I like on first looks, after Gnome.

[angrykeyboarder]

As long as I've been using Linux I've never had any less than GNOME & KDE installed.

I don't see why one has to be loyal to one or the other. There are things I dislike and like about both.

I've also got xubuntu-desktop and Fluxbox installed (although I don't care for Fluxbox much. I just installed it because I can).

[yatt]

I switched to kde, but switched back to GNOME as I had realized that iwas configuring KDEto be like GNOME.

[shining]

I switched to kde, but switched back to GNOME as I had realized that I was configuring KDE to be like GNOME.

So you didn't succeed? Or only partly?

[arvster]

I was a KDE user for a long time. Started with Mandrake with KDE, then moved around several distros and all of them had KDE as primary DE (Slackware, Gentoo, Vector Linux, SUSE, etc.).

I had tried Gnome several times, but I never really liked it at that time. After trying Ubuntu somehow I stayed with it.
After using it for longer period of time, there now are things I like about the way Gnome works and KDE isn't that attractive anymore.

I am not a loyal convert though, as when KDE 4 comes out I will take a look at it and see if there is any improvement. If there is, I will move without any second thoughts. If not, well then I will use the best one that suits me the best (which is Gnome right now).

I also had a look at some lighter alternatives( Enlightenment e17, XFCE), but I've never felt comfortable with these.

[stucky]

I tried KDE for awhile. The K-naming convention for everything is trite.

I understand this and concur but then I remind myself that I upgraded to Edgy Eft from Dapper Drake and it puts everything in perspective. I feel like I'm back in junior high with the naming conventions. But hey, the OS kicks *** so I can't complain too much.



KDE for me.

[Tux Aubrey]

I use Gnome for most purposes but have recently retrieved an old Celeron 167 I passed onto my son about three years ago. I tried running Xubuntu but it was still very slow. It was almost doorstop/garden statue material until I installed "Fluxbuntu". I love the flux desktop and if I can ever get all the settings worked out, I may even switch to fluxbox on my other machines. It is so slick and fast I may even be prepared to say bye bye Beryl!

[BWF89]

I don't use Ubuntu (I use Freespire which uses KDE), but if I did I would use Kubuntu. I like that it's more customizable than Gnome. The plastik theme annoys me but that can be easily changed.

[fuscia]

i've used everything and pretty much always come back to openbox on my old desktop (which i don't really use anymore) and gnome on my laptop.

[jclmusic]

i used kde before on another distro and didn't like it, so with ubuntu, i started off with gnome. i then switched to enlightenment 16, and finally settled on XFCE.

[56phil]

I downloaded the Kubuntu desktop so I could use KDE apps. But I still use Gnome most of time.

[Circus-Killer]

i like kde, but as another poster said, its too cluttered. im happy with gnome.

[zcal]

I went back and forth between Ubuntu and Kubuntu (a wee bit of Xubuntu también) when I first started using the distro(s). Kubuntu was always too problematic for me. I found KDE too chaotic and bloated and a pain in the **** to bend to my willings. Gnome just simply worked much better and was easier on the eyes. And I generally like GTK programs better, and I like to run them in their more comfy habitat. :)

[AndyCooll]

I've always used GNOME. I'm happy using it and never really feel the need to swap and change or keep trying others.

Maybe it was because I started out with Fedora Core. I've tried KDE, I really have, however I just cannot seem to get used to it. Funnily enough, even though I prefer the GNOME desktop, I prefer the KDE layout in apps such as Amarok, K3B, KTorrent and Gwenview over their GNOME equivalents.

:cool:

[zetetic]

I use Gnome since day one, but I've been fooling around with KDE on another drive.

On first impressions KDE seems chaotic, pearhaps even a little bit bloated. I look forward to see if KDE 4 will be less chaotic and faster/minimalistic.

But, at least to a newbie like me, it seems there are some kde applications that are much better than their gnome counterparts.

I'm running 3 KDE applications on my GNOME desktop right now. One of them is kopete, that IMHO is far better than gaim.

zetetic

[euchrid]

I'm using GNOME, KDE and Xface - to see which I like best; but there are some programs I want that only work in one environment, and the differences between the systems are often minute.

This is probably a stupid question, as I have no idea what it would involve, but wouldn't it be easiest for newcomers to Linux to have one 'uber' system that would run them all, allowing flicking between them at the touch of a button, or, better still, allowing the environment to switch as needed when a program requires it. Logging in and out of sessions is not so handy.

Still, love them all - all better than Windows or Macs, for me.

[eMuNiX]

My first real adventure into linux was with SuSE 9.0 and got hooked on KDE from the start. I have Kubuntu installed on my desktop and wifes' laptop, but on my desktop I also have XFCE, Enlightenment and Gnome installed and often switch between them. My KDE desktop is configured to look like Gnome and my XP desktop to look like a MAC so the top bar is the most natural for me to work with. :mrgreen:

[ATAQ]

Kde to Gnome to Xfce. Features and eye candy are nice, but all you want is something simple to browse files and launch programs without taking up loads of resources. Thats why I love Xfce, after that Gnome.

[zcal]

This is probably a stupid question, as I have no idea what it would involve, but wouldn't it be easiest for newcomers to Linux to have one 'uber' system that would run them all, allowing flicking between them at the touch of a button, or, better still, allowing the environment to switch as needed when a program requires it. Logging in and out of sessions is not so handy.

I think it'd be harder. Switching OS's is uncomfortable enough at first without having to deal with switching between 5 different desktop environments. Besides, do you think newbies really want to fuss with 5 installation disks? I didn't, which is why I nixed Fedora. ;)

[euchrid]

Switching OS's is uncomfortable enough at first without having to deal with switching between 5 different desktop environments. Besides, do you think newbies really want to fuss with 5 installation disks? I didn't, which is why I nixed Fedora. ;)

I was thinking more along the lines of having one system that would be able to run all the others - not for users to have to switch between them all, and certainly not to use 5 installation disks; that would be virtually the same as it is now.

Rather, a system that allows all (or the main) desktop environments to be used without any kind of switching; the system would detect when a program required a particular environment, and would allow 'mini' versions of the desktop environments to run side by side. It could also work like the current ability to switch between workspaces, simply flicking from one to the other.

It seems more confusing to present the user with 3/4/5/however many options to install, and then leaving them to install and uninstall all of them to see which they prefer. Even a simple 'show disk,' similar to the live CD, that would allow users to practice in the different environments would work; then a use can be confident which (or which combination) they would prefer.

The point being, that users coming from other operating systems or non-technical backgrounds are put off by things like this; when you think of Windows, there is only the 'Windows' operating system - a 'Mac' is a 'Mac'; with Linux, there are at least ten main and popular variants to choose from, and then subsets and variations of each of these, and then different desktop environments as well. Clearing up one aspect of the confusion for new users would certainly help. Ubuntu seems to be doing a very good job of clearing up the rest of it.

[zcal]

I was thinking more along the lines of having one system that would be able to run all the others - not for users to have to switch between them all, and certainly not to use 5 installation disks; that would be virtually the same as it is now.

Rather, a system that allows all (or the main) desktop environments to be used without any kind of switching; the system would detect when a program required a particular environment, and would allow 'mini' versions of the desktop environments to run side by side. It could also work like the current ability to switch between workspaces, simply flicking from one to the other.

It seems more confusing to present the user with 3/4/5/however many options to install, and then leaving them to install and uninstall all of them to see which they prefer. Even a simple 'show disk,' similar to the live CD, that would allow users to practice in the different environments would work; then a use can be confident which (or which combination) they would prefer.

The point being, that users coming from other operating systems or non-technical backgrounds are put off by things like this; when you think of Windows, there is only the 'Windows' operating system - a 'Mac' is a 'Mac'; with Linux, there are at least ten main and popular variants to choose from, and then subsets and variations of each of these, and then different desktop environments as well. Clearing up one aspect of the confusion for new users would certainly help. Ubuntu seems to be doing a very good job of clearing up the rest of it.

If you wanted a system able to run every desktop environment right off the bat then you would have to spread the installation over multiple CDs, unless you wanted the user to have to do a lot of downloading after the primary install. All the same, the user would still have to choose their base environment.

You can already run software built for KDE in Gnome and vice-versa, you just need the dependencies. I think it would confuse new users more to tell them that when they run program X, it will be opened in desktop environment Y rather than Z, which is the one you're currently using. It makes more sense just to be able to run program X inside of Z while Y's dependencies are accessed in the background to make the program work.

In the question of presenting users with multiple options for desktop environments, isn't choice what using Linux is all about? Never making the choice is something you do with Windows and Mac OS. I wish Microsoft would sell a stripped-down, lightweight environment for Windows Vista for less than the resource-sucking beast that it is, but they don't. Part of introducing new users to Linux, and part of what should be its appeal, is the fact that they can use desktop environment Y rather than Z if they want to, for whatever reason and at no monetary cost. They can even install both on one computer. Streamlining the experience the way you're talking about sounds like it would detract from what Linux/GNU is all about.

[daynah]

I'll get on my friend's kubuntus and I'll like... flip out. I can't find anything. It's pretty funny. I look similar when I'm on a mac. Conceptually, I know there is only one button, but still I attempt to right click. I also try to right click with a stylus on a pda I've had for a year.

Sometimes you just can figure things out. Little penguins like me don't fly in the KDE sky, and I'm very, very happy in the sea. :)

[Brunellus]

from KDE 3.2 (on SUSE 9.1) to GNOME 2.8 (on Ubuntu Warty). Stops at fluxbox, XFCE, and openbox, but I keep coming back to GNOME.

KDE is a fine DE, though. Just not what I want. But a great piece of work.

[bastiegast]

From GNOME (not very long time) to KDE (quite long, like 3/4 year) to GNOME (since I use ubuntu) I use linux for about 1 and 1/3 year. Probably I will try KDE again when KDE 4 goes gold :D

[xpod]

Started out with Gnome on this pc and kde on another.The other now has 2 hd`s and has all three desktops between the 2 disks....Xfce being the best for it though.

This pc has Gnome running on both the Dapper drive and the Edgy one....It`s what i started out with so what im a little more familiar with.

It did go through an identity crisis too for a while with all being tried in various ways but still it ended up with just Gnome alone

There all great in their own ways and the price is just fantastic:mrgreen:

[d3v1ant_0n3]

Started on GNOME, switched to Kubuntu, then mepis, then back to Kubuntu, then installed GNOME. Had to reinstall, so just installed Ubuntu. Then installed KDE again. Mostly use GNOME, I've been playing with IceWM recently too trying to sort out lag in ePSXe- dang that DM is fast!