Is Gnome or KDE lighter weight???

[otherside]

I have an older laptop...PIII 650 with 192Mb...Is Gnome or KDE a better choice? KDE seems more bloated to me but I love the artwork/icons/controls etc... I have already looked at XFCE4 and Fluxbox but I don't like either one of those too much.

Nate

[Firetech]

I thionk that Gnome is more lightweight in terms of memory usage, but I'm not sure. For me, KDE is the only choice, because of some annoying performance problems with gnome/gtk, the nvidia driver and X.org. So it all depends on your hardware... But for your computer, I would test Gnome first, even if I prefer KDE. You can also try IceWM, which is much more lightweight than anyone of those two.

[tom_]

If you are looking for a lightweight window manager the xfce has a lot going for it

[23meg]

right, xfce is very similar to gnome (can use gnome themes, etc), and is even more lightweight than gnome, which is lighter than kde.

let me add a question: i often switch to xfce for heavy duty tasks, but just can't get used to xfce's rox-filer and would prefer to use nautilus instead. how much of an extra resource load would it bring to the xfce environment? in other (rough) terms, how much of gnome is nautilus?

[tread]

Nautilus is quite a hog. I tried starting it in openbox once, and I lost almost all the benefits w.r.t. memory that I was getting from using openbox. In gnome-session, the applications that seem to be loaded at least for regular use, as I understand, are primarily the panel, nautilus and metacity .. am I correct?

[Ptero-4]

Nautilus is quite a hog. I tried starting it in openbox once, and I lost almost all the benefits w.r.t. memory that I was getting from using openbox. In gnome-session, the applications that seem to be loaded at least for regular use, as I understand, are primarily the panel, nautilus and metacity .. am I correct?
Yep, you're right. Gnome-panel, nautilus and metacity are most of gnome.

[Arthemys]

Wow, I remember way back in the day... (Years before Caldera was bought by SCO) that GNOME was more bloated and ran worse than KDE. Standard install of GNOME at the time wouldn't even start probably on any of my boxes.

[JonahRowley]

I wouldn't use either KDE or Gnome. Both take too much memory for such a machine, and the same goes for CPU. There are a lot of lightweight wm's out there, my favorite is Fluxbox.

Avoid intensive GTK apps. I'm sorry, GTK just doesn't cut it, even on faster machines. This includes Firefox, on a machine like that I'd use (sadly, not Free software) Opera, which has much faster rendering times. To save on RAM, do as much through single programs as possible, like using web mail instead of a ramhog email client.

[sprucio]

How much memory are we talking about? I'm running Kubuntu and it's taking up 212MB (out of 512) of ram and most of it disk cache.

As for GNOME vs. KDE, I think GNOME's nautilus was pretty memory intensive if I recall. This is why I always used KDE at first but my desktop workstation runs GNOME as where my laptop runs KDE.

To truly save power and CPU, fluxbox or XFCE is probably the better choice but from what I've seen (or thought), I always though GNOME was the power hogger.

[liljencrantz]

How much memory are we talking about? I'm running Kubuntu and it's taking up 212MB (out of 512) of ram and most of it disk cache.

As for GNOME vs. KDE, I think GNOME's nautilus was pretty memory intensive if I recall. This is why I always used KDE at first but my desktop workstation runs GNOME as where my laptop runs KDE.

To truly save power and CPU, fluxbox or XFCE is probably the better choice but from what I've seen (or thought), I always though GNOME was the power hogger.
Memory usage of Gnome and KDE depend on what theme you are using and applications you are running. You can slim down either one by choosing a non-textured simple theme and remove the worst performing applications. Use programs like top and xrestop to find out which programs are the worst offenders.

[angkor]

Avoid intensive GTK apps. I'm sorry, GTK just doesn't cut it,

Ever tried the Dillo web browser? It's GTK based and renders extremely fast...too bad firefox looks so much better :)

[bored2k]

Default Re: Is Gnome or KDE lighter weight???

In 7 minutes kubuntu-desktop will download. Then I will know.. I'm so excited. I know im almost going to vomit staring at kde in my noir box, but hey, gotta try it ;).

[benplaut]

Default Re: Is Gnome or KDE lighter weight???

In 7 minutes kubuntu-desktop will download. Then I will know.. I'm so excited. I know im almost going to vomit staring at kde in my noir box, but hey, gotta try it ;).

come one... it's not so bad \\:D/

[bored2k]

come one... it's not so bad \\:D/
Okay from my current experience it's faster. I am also not puking :-o. I will give KDE a try for at least one day! [my previous kde tryouts last about...10minutes].

[23meg]

I wouldn't use either KDE or Gnome. Both take too much memory for such a machine, and the same goes for CPU. There are a lot of lightweight wm's out there, my favorite is Fluxbox.


here's a "best of both worlds" strategy: use Gnome/KDE for daily computing; enjoy their eye candy and cool features. for resource intensive tasks, log out and switch to XFCE/IceWM/Fluxbox, and enjoy the performance boost. this is what i do; i use Gnome for the "everyday" tasks, and XFCE for the "serious" ones. what a great thing it is to have choices, and not have to give up "this" to have "that". the beauties of open source..


Avoid intensive GTK apps. I'm sorry, GTK just doesn't cut it, even on faster machines. This includes Firefox, on a machine like that I'd use (sadly, not Free software) Opera, which has much faster rendering times. To save on RAM, do as much through single programs as possible, like using web mail instead of a ramhog email client.

i think this is beyond a window manager issue; firefox is slow and opera is fast in every os and wm i've tried them with, including windows and mac os. opera caches just about everything in ram, this is one reason it's very fast.

[bored2k]

i think this is beyond a window manager issue; firefox is slow and opera is fast in every os and wm i've tried them with, including windows and mac os. opera caches just about everything in ram, this is one reason it's very fast.

Only thing i miss from firefox are its plugins.. that adblock/chromedit is a jewel trick. Do you know anything similar for opera8?

[23meg]

not really equivalent things. nothing for chromedit definitely, but there are some third party ad blockers for opera that should be linked at my.opera.com.

i've been an opera user since version 2, and the two things that made me switch to firefox a few weeks ago are opera's dependence on QT and firefox's extensions. Scrapbook is so unbelievably good; there's a proprietary equivalent called NetSnippets, which is very good as well, but doesn't integrate well with opera. the extensions are so good that i've decided to forfeit the speed and intuition and have the features instead, which is something i don't often do.

[bored2k]

not really equivalent things. nothing for chromedit definitely, but there are some third party ad blockers for opera that should be linked at my.opera.com.

i've been an opera user since version 2, and the two things that made me switch to firefox a few weeks ago are opera's dependence on QT and firefox's extensions. Scrapbook is so unbelievably good; there's a proprietary equivalent called NetSnippets, which is very good as well, but doesn't integrate well with opera. the extensions are so good that i've decided to forfeit the speed and intuition and have the features instead, which is something i don't often do.
I see.. I guess I'll just start looking for plugins for konqueror and opera [im giving kde a try]. Thanks for the info

**boy do I feel n00bish on KDE.. I just spent 5 minutes looking for the option to change video resolution**

[23meg]

I see.. I guess I'll just start looking for plugins for konqueror and opera [im giving kde a try]. Thanks for the info


i'm sure opera will be a nicer boy under KDE. it's very nasty with the qt libs under Gnome.

[Chrysaor]

Firefox 1.0.2 (or 1.0.3 in backports) that came with Ubuntu was very slow for me (did all kinds of setting tricks and turned down ipv6 etc, it was render engine slowness).
I removed it and installed a 1.0+ nightly, its blazing fast now. Using Fastback feature from the latest nightlies atm, and im really impressed with it. Of course if you want stability, you shouldn't do that, but i think the performance boost is well worth it.

[jodef]

Gnome or KDE i guess it would depend on your hardware. My machine KDE always runs much smoother than Gnome but I have heard many say otherwise.
the extensions are so good that i've decided to forfeit the speed and intuition and have the features instead, which is something i don't often do. That's my feeling there are too many nice functional extensions for FF. Gmail notifier, bloglines toolkit, scrapbook, foxylicious to name but a few are indispensable. But I have noticed that it is a bit resource hungry but that's an acceptable trade off for me.

[moopere]

right, xfce is very similar to gnome (can use gnome themes, etc), and is even more lightweight than gnome, which is lighter than kde.

let me add a question: i often switch to xfce for heavy duty tasks, but just can't get used to xfce's rox-filer and would prefer to use nautilus instead. how much of an extra resource load would it bring to the xfce environment? in other (rough) terms, how much of gnome is nautilus?
xfce 4.xx whilst definately a lot lighter (and faster which is not always the same thing) seems to suffer the same sort of ponderous problems that gnome does....slowness (or...slower then it could be syndrome). Don't beleive me? Have a look at xfce 3.x (still available from debian sarge I think) its lightning fast in comparison. I wonder why this is? gtk???

Anyway, gnome is the fattest slowest dog on the block right now as far as I can tell from a standard ubuntu-desktop install versus a standard kubuntu-desktop install. Appears to take more disk, more ram and a lot more patience waiting whilst things happen. I'm testing on K6-2-300 slow drives 64MB RAM right through to P4 3G-HT fast drives and 1GB ram (25 different machines in total).

From a personal perspective, speed/size/slowness aside, ubuntu gnome is mighty pleasing to my eye..sigh...its my impression that gnome is just a little behind kde in terms of overall integration and functionality. Reminds me a little of where KDE was in version 3.1x or early 3.2x. Could well be that some major streamlining is just around the corner (as happened for KDE in the 3.3/3.4 release).

Cheers,
Craig

[syms]

kde is more lighter than gnome.:KS kde is more easy to use than gnome:KS
but gnome is more stable than kde:( two for kde, one for gnome, kde wins!
and yes xfce is more lighter than gnome but it is not so easy to use

[happysmileman]

kde is more lighter than gnome.:KS kde is more easy to use than gnome:KS
but gnome is more stable than kde:( two for kde, one for gnome, kde wins!
and yes xfce is more lighter than gnome but it is not so easy to use

I think KDE is lighter and more stable (I've never had KDE crash on 3 distros in a year and a half, GNOME crashed twice in about 6 months, so GNOME less stable for me, but that's irrelevant because they're both incredibly stable to the point it doesn't matter)

I find that GNOME is easier to use but KDE is more customisable, so that all depends.

Also you just revived a two year dead thread. :P

[mivo]

Way to resurrect a two and half years old thread. ;)

But anyway, I've been running Gnome for a couple months then switched to KDE on my main desktop. KDE uses a little more memory, but doesn't run "slower" or is less responsive. I have to say, though, that Ubuntu with Gnome was more stable for me than Kubuntu with KDE. It was actually fairly unstable for me (Kubuntu 7.04, I haven't tried 7.10). However, I currently run vanilla KDE 3.5.8 on Arch, and it is rock-stable, responsive and really fast.

All in all, though, there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between Gnome and KDE in terms of usage of system resources these days, though Gnome has a bit of an edge. Still, I think when choosing between the two, there are other factors that weigh heavier.

[Asraniel]

there is a website with benchmarks and kde is faster and uses less ram. but i can't find it right now

[mivo]

Well, benchmarks aside, using similar applications (mail, browser, torrent client, movie player, terminal, IRC client) in both desktop environments on the same machine, showed that KDE uses a little more RAM. This isn't a scientific comparison, but it's an impression gained by using both environments (and what KSysGuard and System Monitor said). However, the difference of under 10% really wasn't significant to make it a deciding factor.

[happysmileman]

Well, benchmarks aside, using similar applications (mail, browser, torrent client, movie player, terminal, IRC client) in both desktop environments on the same machine, showed that KDE uses a little more RAM.

I find that if you use KDE programs then KDE will use less RAM, All the programs I use are KDE programs except Opera (Which uses QT anyway so you could possibly count it) and overall they use less RAM because they share most of the same libraries. However if you use much GTK apps in KDE it probably would use more RAM since it has to load those libraries as well.

[GeneralZod]

May as well add this link (like I usually do :)) so that we actually have some hard numbers to play with:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2015680&postcount=1235

[syms]

if you still dont believe that kde uses less ram than gnome read here:
http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/desktop_benchmark.html
there is kde vs gnome vs xfce and vs windowmaker. u can see that in all operations gnome is memory pig, gnome is like microsoft, now i understand why linus torvlads have criticism on gnome. in gnome 2.12 there is splash screen option but in gnome 2.18 there isnt. so why the they removing good thinks? and kde is more easy to use than gnome believe me, when u want to look mp3 song album, years and others in kde, u need just point your mouse over song icon and it shows to u all info, but in gnome u need right click, go to properties, blahblahblah. this is small example but very usable. and i saw kde 4, i can say WOW!

[mivo]

It's not actually a matter of belief to me, but one of reading the numbers on my computer. ;) On my system, with the applications *I* use in Gnome vs. the applications *I* use in KDE, the KDE setup uses about 5-8% more RAM than Gnome. That is, of course, an insignificant difference (seeing how I have 3 GB RAM and I see rarely more than 1 GB being used). I should probably mention that this is on a 64-bit system, so that may explain the difference (64-bit applications generally use a little more memory).

So anyway, Gnome and KDE are pretty much the same. :) As I said before, use of resources should not be the deciding factor in one's choice of the DE.

[K.Mandla]

Boy, you folks sure dredged up an old thread to beat on. Next we'll be searching for threads debating the benefits of the 386 over the 286. :roll:

[eye208]

Number of packages using the Qt library (KDE):


apt-cache rdepends libqt3-mt | wc -l

Number of packages using the Gnome toolkit:


apt-cache rdepends libgtk2.0-0 | wc -l

Number of packages using PyQt:


apt-cache rdepends python-qt3 | wc -l

Number of packages using PyGtk:


apt-cache rdepends python-gtk2 | wc -l

Bottom line: It doesn't really matter which desktop you prefer, most of the time you will be using Gnome anyway because your applications depend on it. The Unix branch of the wxWidgets cross platform toolkit uses Gnome too. Mono (.NET framework for Linux) uses Gnome. SWT (Java/Eclipse) uses Gnome.

For some reason or another, Gnome seems to be more popular among developers. That doesn't necessarily mean it's better, but it means you can hardly avoid touching it, even if you run KDE.

[loell]

Number of packages using the Qt library (KDE):


apt-cache rdepends libqt3-mt | wc -l

Number of packages using the Gnome toolkit:


apt-cache rdepends libgtk2.0-0 | wc -l

Number of packages using PyQt:


apt-cache rdepends python-qt3 | wc -l

Number of packages using PyGtk:


apt-cache rdepends python-gtk2 | wc -l

Bottom line: It doesn't really matter which desktop you prefer, most of the time you will be using Gnome anyway because your applications depend on it. The Unix branch of the wxWidgets cross platform toolkit uses Gnome too. Mono (.NET framework for Linux) uses Gnome. SWT (Java/Eclipse) uses Gnome.

For some reason or another, Gnome seems to be more popular among developers. That doesn't necessarily mean it's better, but it means you can hardly avoid touching it, even if you run KDE.

Gnome!? or do you mean Gtk?

[rsambuca]

Shouldn't this be moved to the "Recurring Discussions" Section?

[eye208]

Gnome!? or do you mean Gtk?
I mean the Gnome look & feel shared by Gtk applications.

[loell]

I'm not sure if gnome have a look and feel on its own but gtk had one, as the toolkit is the one providing the widget and controls.

I also visited the wxwidgets website , just to make sure I did not miss anything. I don't see anything that could relate wxwidgets to gnome... again, maybe you mean Gtk.




wxWidgets lets developers create applications for Win32, Mac OS X, GTK+, X11, Motif, WinCE, and more using one codebase. It can be used from languages such as C++, Python, Perl, and C#/.NET. Unlike other cross-platform toolkits, wxWidgets applications look and feel native. This is because wxWidgets uses the platform's own native controls rather than emulating them. It's also extensive, free, open-source, and mature.

[eye208]

Of course there is more to a Gnome application than just Gtk, but in the real world, applications that use Gtk are much more likely to use other Gnome components as well (instead of their KDE counterparts). For example, a multimedia application that uses Gtk is more likely to depend on GStreamer than a KDE application is.

I have yet to find an application that depends on a mixture of Gnome and KDE core components to be installed. Gtk and Qt dependencies are just the most obvious indicators of Gnome and KDE applications respectively.

If we return to the original question of which desktop environment is more lightweight, it is very important to look at available applications. If you rely on a number of Gnome applications to which there is no KDE-based replacement, then Gnome is more lightweight for you than KDE. If most of your work can be done using only K-apps, then KDE is the better choice. However, in most cases people won't choose applications because of a widget toolkit but because of a set of features they require.

[loell]

Of course there is more to a Gnome application than just Gtk, but in the real world, applications that use Gtk are much more likely to use other Gnome components as well (instead of their KDE counterparts). For example, a multimedia application that uses Gtk is more likely to depend on GStreamer than a KDE application is.


huh? who told you that? Gtk exist long before Gstreamer did , its even 0.10.x yet, a lot of apps had been written base on Gtk which does not uses gnome related libraries

Gtk is not Gnome , while Gnome is Gtk + core libs + core tools.

your argument was, that a lot of desktop application depends on gnome that even using KDE, one could not avoid it . this is not true.

[eye208]

your argument was, that a lot of desktop application depends on gnome
No. My argument was that

more desktop applications depend on Gtk and
Gtk applications are more likely to depend on other Gnome components as well, while Qt applications typically depend on other KDE components.

That's why you are more likely to find Gnome components in a KDE install than vice versa. For example, the entire ubuntu-desktop metapackage comes without any KDE dependencies at all, but on the other hand several Gnome components are part of kubuntu-desktop by default, adding redundancy. KDE may be lightweight in theory, but in the real world you just can't live without at least some parts of Gnome installed as well, because so many applications depend on them and there are no KDE substitutes to replace them. In the real world, Konqueror will cause more headache than Firefox. In the real world, Krita can't replace GIMP and CinePaint. KOffice can't replace OpenOffice.org. KWin can't replace Compiz. Adept can't replace Synaptic. In the real world, KDE is only trying to catch up with Gnome. More than ten years after its inception, KDE is still miles away from being a self-contained desktop environment. Gnome, on the other hand, can do just fine without KDE entirely.

[rsambuca]

For example, the entire ubuntu-desktop metapackage comes without any KDE dependencies at all, but on the other hand several Gnome components are part of kubuntu-desktop by default, adding redundancy.

I don't know, but may this have something to do with the fact that Ubuntu is definitely 'gnome-centric', for lack of a better word? What about a distro that focuses on KDE first?

[loell]

No. My argument was that
[LIST]
more desktop applications depend on Gtk and
Gtk applications are more likely to depend on other Gnome components as well, while Qt applications typically depend on other KDE components.


this is a misconception, there a lot more of Gtk and Qt apps that is cross platform and even native linux apps that absolutely does not depend Gnome and KDE libraries respectively.

[aysiu]

That's why you are more likely to find Gnome components in a KDE install than vice versa. For example, the entire ubuntu-desktop metapackage comes without any KDE dependencies at all, but on the other hand several Gnome components are part of kubuntu-desktop by default, adding redundancy. Can you specify what Gnome components you think are part of kubuntu-desktop? I don't see any here (http://packages.ubuntu.com/gutsy/metapackages/kubuntu-desktop).

[eye208]

Can you specify what Gnome components you think are part of kubuntu-desktop?
Gtk.

[samjh]

Gtk.

For kubuntu-desktop, neither gtk nor libgtk are listed as dependencies.

[eye208]

For kubuntu-desktop, neither gtk nor libgtk are listed as dependencies.
Does the term "dependency tree" ring a bell?

[samjh]

Does the term "dependency tree" ring a bell?
Indeed it does. I stand corrected.

It doesn't necessarily support your assertion though:

Bottom line: It doesn't really matter which desktop you prefer, most of the time you will be using Gnome anyway because your applications depend on it.
If you rephrased it to "...you will be using GTK anyway...", then I would agree with you.

However, GTK =/= Gnome. Neither does Gnome =/= GTK. Although GTK is a component of Gnome, using GTK alone does not qualify as using Gnome. That would be like saying you drive a Ford because your Daewoo uses a Ford engine.

The number of FOSS projects using Gnome (as its target environment) is only around 20% more than KDE, and the reason for it is probably because most commercial Linux distributions support the GTK component of Gnome more than the QT component of KDE.

An aside: In the proprietary world, it's a different story (QT is far more popular than GTK by a factor of 4 to 1, at least in my country). But that would be irrelevant to this particular thread.

[happysmileman]

For example, the entire ubuntu-desktop metapackage comes without any KDE dependencies at all, but on the other hand several Gnome components are part of kubuntu-desktop by default, adding redundancy.

Yes, on a gnome-centric distro. But I don't have any GNOME libraries on my Gentoo, and I could probably have gotten away without using GTK as well if I wanted to care that much, but it's irrelevant to me.

[eye208]

Although GTK is a component of Gnome, using GTK alone does not qualify as using Gnome. That would be like saying you drive a Ford because your Daewoo uses a Ford engine.
I love car analogies.

Let's say we have two cars, one with a Ford engine, the other with a Daewoo engine.

Which one of them is more likely to have a Ford chassis or a Ford body as well? Which one of them is more likely to be a Ford?

I am talking about correlations here. The more Gtk apps you install on your system, the more likely you will be installing other Gnome components as well. Who would expect a package such as OpenOffice.org to depend on GStreamer? Who would expect WINE to depend on ESD libraries? The high number of partially Gnome-dependent apps defeats the lightweightedness of KDE because you will end up running 100% of KDE and maybe 80% of Gnome.

If you can do entirely without Gnome apps, fine. I'm not even talking about you. I am talking about those people who want to use OpenOffice.org, Firefox, GIMP, Inkscape, Avidemux etc. because there are no K-apps to fully replace them. These people have two widget sets loaded into memory almost all the time. That's not lightweight, it's bloat.

[Xbehave]

for most daily use you CAN use kde alternatives
koffice, konqueror, kirba, kmail etc

AND if your running openoffice and wine the fact you have 2 sets of widgets is going to bother you about as much as adding a floor to the empire state building.
If your runing firefox on default settings then the extra widget set is going to do squat compaired to the cached tabs in ram

if you want the features of KDE in gnome (transparent menus, etc) your going to have to load alot of stuff ontop of gnome to do it, that is bloat.

ubuntu is a gnome distro
kubuntu is a gnome distro with kde so kubuntu may be heavier but kde isnt

[loell]

boy oh boy , someones knowledge is messed up.


Gtk is not Gnome!!

and

Qt is not KDE!!!



for those who know this for a technical fact feel free to sing in chorus with me. ;)

[samjh]

I love car analogies.

Let's say we have two cars, one with a Ford engine, the other with a Daewoo engine.

Which one of them is more likely to have a Ford chassis or a Ford body as well? Which one of them is more likely to be a Ford?You've got it the wrong way around.

A Daewoo with a Ford engine is not a Ford, it's a Daewoo. A Ford with a Ford engine is a Ford.

If a Daweoo happens to have a Ford engine, no-one will think: "oh that is likely to be a Ford", because that is blatantly false.


I am talking about correlations here. The more Gtk apps you install on your system, the more likely you will be installing other Gnome components as well. Who would expect a package such as OpenOffice.org to depend on GStreamer? Who would expect WINE to depend on ESD libraries? The high number of partially Gnome-dependent apps defeats the lightweightedness of KDE because you will end up running 100% of KDE and maybe 80% of Gnome.On Ubuntu's implementation of KDE, perhaps. But not KDE itself.


If you can do entirely without Gnome apps, fine. I'm not even talking about you. I am talking about those people who want to use OpenOffice.org, Firefox, GIMP, Inkscape, Avidemux etc. because there are no K-apps to fully replace them. These people have two widget sets loaded into memory almost all the time. That's not lightweight, it's bloat.
OpenOffice = KOffice

Firefox = Konquerer

GIMP = Krita/Pixel/digiKam (admittedly not all of them as functional as GIMP)

Inkscape = Karbon14

Avidemux = Kdenlive

Although I see your point about having both QT and GTK widgets, there are a lot of people who use QT or KDE applications within Gnome as well (for Amarok and K3B for example), so the "bloat" is of real significance to anything, especially since both Gnome and KDE desktops often have Tk, NCurses, wxWidgets ,and other widget sets installed.

[eye208]

OpenOffice = KOffice

Firefox = Konquerer

GIMP = Krita/Pixel/digiKam (admittedly not all of them as functional as GIMP)

Inkscape = Karbon14

Avidemux = Kdenlive
I must admit I am a little bit biased towards Gnome since KDE and its applications never really worked for me. I had been a KDE user since it became the default desktop of SuSE Linux in 1998, but I finally gave up on it last year. Sorry, but Konqueror is not a Firefox replacement. Not even by a long shot. It still crashes when browsing certain websites with JavaScript enabled. I remember I found it quite funny when Konqueror failed to display http://www.microsoft.com/ without crashing, but after a while these things get annoying and lose their entertainment value.

I decided to switch after I realized that most of the applications I was using on a daily basis depended on one or several Gnome components and no KDE components at all. Maybe I would have managed to stick with KDE if I had been able to challenge reality the way loell does, but I failed miserably.

A look at the cold hard numbers is telling me that developers seem to prefer Gnome, at least on Linux. And I know that I prefer the applications produced by those developers.


if you want the features of KDE in gnome (transparent menus, etc)
... then I run Compiz. Which, by the way, reminds me of my attempt to replace KWin with Compiz in Kubuntu Edgy. What a mess. I can see that Kubuntu still does not come with Compiz by default, so I guess things haven't really changed that much. Well, at least you seem to have some transparent menus now. That's the kind of thing I was talking about when I said KDE is always trying to catch up.

[mivo]

Sorry, but Konqueror is not a Firefox replacement. Not even by a long shot.

The comparable Gnome browser is Epiphany, not Firefox, and it is having similar trouble with some sites as Konqueror does. Most KDE users use Firefox as well, though it does integrate more nicely in Gnome.

I went back to Gnome solely because of Evolution's exceptional IMAP support (Kmail has issues with IMAP) and Deluge. KTorrent just never really worked as well for me, I even get much worse download rates with files that have many seeders, even with identical settings. I really do prefer Konqueror or Dolphin as a file manager over Nautilus, which is rather limited in some ways (I do like its SSH support).

[Xbehave]

... then I run Compiz. Which, by the way, reminds me of my attempt to replace KWin with Compiz in Kubuntu Edgy. What a mess. I can see that Kubuntu still does not come with Compiz by default, so I guess things haven't really changed that much. Well, at least you seem to have some transparent menus now. That's the kind of thing I was talking about when I said KDE is always trying to catch up.

That's not lightweight, it's bloat.
btw compiz works fine in kde as will kde4

[mivo]

True. When I used KDE, I used it together with Compiz-Fusion. Worked just as flawless and smooth as with Gnome. Really no difference at all. This wasn't Kubuntu, though, but a vanilla KDE installation on Arch. (Other computer.) So if there are issues, they would be caused by Kubuntu's modified KDE, not by KDE itself (but I don't know if there issues, I have not tried Kubuntu 7.10).

[eye208]

True. When I used KDE, I used it together with Compiz-Fusion. Worked just as flawless and smooth as with Gnome. Really no difference at all.
When I used KDE, there was no Compiz Fusion, just Compiz and a fork called "Beryl". And Compiz was designed as a Metacity replacement. Its "gnome-window-decorator" was later renamed to "gtk-window-decorator" despite the fact that it was still configured via GConf, another Gnome component. When I replaced KWin with Compiz, some keyboard shortcuts wouldn't work anymore. Window iconification and workspaces wouldn't work properly either, because the whole thing was made for Gnome, not KDE.

There was a lot of talk in KDE forums about these issues. People were even thinking about ways to make a compositing version of KWin.

OK, so Compiz Fusion works fine with KDE now. Why is it included (and enabled by default) in Ubuntu, but not in Kubuntu? Too many Gnome dependencies?

[syms]

boy oh boy

gnome is builded on gtk2 (now). gtk2 is builded in C language

kde is builded on qt. qt is builded on C++ language

qt language is more difficult than gtk2

[syms]

and yes, my english really sucks

[happysmileman]

boy oh boy

gnome is builded on gtk2 (now). gtk2 is builded in C language

kde is builded on qt. qt is builded on C++ language

qt language is more difficult than gtk2

Erm... Most people find C++ easier to use, especially with GUIs because of classes, which are an important feature in almost all modern languages, such as Python, Java, Ruby etc...

[ComplexNumber]

Erm... Most people find C++ easier to use, especially with GUIs because of classes, which are an important feature in almost all modern languages, such as Python, Java, Ruby etc...

C++ is easier when dealing with a GUI for the reasons that you mention. but other than that, C is easier to write in. the OO part of C++ is awful and problematic.

[eye208]

C is easier to write in.
Not at all.

Example: Concatenating two character strings and printing them in C:

#include <malloc.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
char *str1 = "This is ";
char *str2 = "an example.";
char *str3;

str3 = (char*)malloc(strlen(str1) + strlen(str2) + 1);
strcpy(str3, str1);
strcat(str3, str2);
printf("%s\n", str3);
free(str3);
}

The same program in C++:

#include <string>
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main()
{
string str1 = "This is ";
string str2 = "an example.";
string str3;

str3 = str1 + str2;
cout << str3 << endl;
}

5 lines vs. 2 lines for the same operation. C++ wins. And it's much more readable too.

In C you have to deal with memory management all the time. Minor mistakes can break your code in ways which may not be immediately obvious. For example, in the malloc call of the first example, if you forget to add 1 for the string delimiter, you'll cause a buffer overflow. If you forget to call free, you'll cause a memory leak. The program will work anyway, most of the time. Buffer overflows and memory leaks are ubiquitous in C programming.

In C++ you have container classes for everything. Why deal with char array bounds checking when the string class can do it for you? Why deal with malloc/free when there are constructors and destructors? The whole point of object orientation in programming is to build components which can be treated like black boxes once they have been proven to work. If you consider this "awful and problematic", you have never maintained a major software development project.

C++ may not be the best OOP language out there, but it's miles ahead of non-OOP languages for sure.

[louieb]

There has to be a reason you don't see many Live CDs using Gnome. Both Knoppix and Slax use KDE - wonder if memory usage is the reason?

[rsambuca]

There has to be a reason you don't see many Live CDs using Gnome. Both Knoppix and Slax use KDE - wonder if memory usage is the reason?

Huh? There are numerous liveCD's based on Gnome.

[louieb]

Huh? There are numerous liveCD's based on Gnome.
Like? Don't get me wrong I'm a Gnome and Fluxbox user.

[mdsmedia]

Like?ummmm...Ubuntu :)

The Ubuntu LiveCD was probably the main reason I installed Ubuntu. Knoppix wouldn't work, one other I can't remember wouldn't work (Xandros I think, from memory).

I put the Ubuntu LiveCD in and played for a few hours. I commented to a friend on IRC (XChat) how fast it was. Maybe I was just comparing it to the sluggishness of XP at the time in my 6 month old Notebook.

I installed Ubuntu BECAUSE of the perceived snappiness I found in the LiveCD.

That WAS 2 years ago, but it WAS Gnome too.

[rsambuca]

How about Ubuntu, Sabayon (DVD), Mandriva, Gnoppix, Fedora, Debian...

[p_quarles]

How about Ubuntu, Sabayon (DVD), Mandriva, Gnoppix, Fedora, Debian...
Sabayon and Mandriva are both KDE (by default). The other ones, though, you're right about.

[rsambuca]

Sabayon and Mandriva are both KDE (by default). The other ones, though, you're right about.

But they have Gnome liveCD's. And there are many others.

[louieb]

Was just playing around on the Distrowatch search page.
Searching for active live CD based distributions
Gnome - 54, KDE - 86, Fluxbox - 61 and a bit of a surprise:confused: to me JWM - 3 but those 3 are DSL, Puppy and Vector.
Distrowatch list 176 active Live CD base distros. Several have more that one WM.

[esaym]

The thing I like about kde is you can just install the base files and not all the apps: aptitude install kde-core

That will give you a very small system and very fast.

[aditya_kumar]

Now it's time for LXDE, the very name is Light-weight X11 Desktop Environment (btw - Lubuntu comes with it).

Why Lubuntu rocks?
Answer: 1) Lighter, lightning faster, efficient, safe, resource-light, well-supported & free Linux.
2)Cherry-picking Apps & Daemons (instead of dumping): Lubuntu uses the same Synaptic Package Manager, which accesses all the same software repositories as Ubuntu. So you could start out by installing Lubuntu as a small, efficient operating system, then cherry-pick critical Ubuntu apps you require from the shared repositories. You'll get the quick system you want without the overhead of the applications and daemons you don't need.

Thanks
Aditya Kumar

[WinterMadness]

gnome is lighter, but not by much, which says a lot