Desktop Environment / Window Manager Preference/Comparison Thread

[Erunno]

thats correct. advanced users will be more than capable of using the command line and/or gconf-editor

That's the attitude I encounter repeatedly and that I dislike immensly. Advanced user probably CAN use command line and gconf-editor but the question remains whether they should be forced to do so just because they need additional functionality. They're also users who probably enjoy nice self-explanatory GUI options too. Advanced users and novice users needs are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.

[ComplexNumber]

That's the attitude I encounter repeatedly and that I dislike immensly. Advanced user probably CAN use command line and gconf-editor but the question remains whether they should be forced to do so just because they need additional functionality. They're also users who probably enjoy nice self-explanatory GUI options too. Advanced users and novice users needs are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.
i guess it depends upon how well the GUI is designed. given the option of a command line and sifting through the mess of KDE, i would take the former any day.

[an.echte.trilingue]

i guess it depends upon how well the GUI is designed. given the option of a command line and sifting through the mess of KDE, i would take the former any day.

Do you really think that it is that bad? I hardly ever have to do anything outside of the kcontrol center, and the layout meshes pretty well with the way I think. Of course, I am speaking of the rather vanilla Debian version of KDE, which has a different layout.

On a slightly different tangent, does anybody know why Kubuntu is so slow? On Debian, it is snappy, much quicker than gnome, lighter on many resources for certain operations, it seems, but in Kubuntu it takes forever to do anything and it is just slow. What gives?

Take care
-mat

[ComplexNumber]

Do you really think that it is that bad? I hardly ever have to do anything outside of the kcontrol center
well, an advanced user became an advanced user somehow....and i don't think he or she became one by staying in the kde control centre all the time. it simply does not provide anywhere near enough to satisfy advanced users, neither in scope nor in detail. even in windows, an advanced user would have to get down and dirty sometime by editing the registry, using the DOS prompt, or editing some ini file. the use of the command line would be second nature to any advanced user, and a GUI often has the effect of simply getting in the way. for an advanced user, either the GUI provides everything that can be done on the command line, or there may as well not be a GUI at all.

[deanlinkous]

okay, well most of us "advanced users" prefer not to start X automatically so maybe that should be the default since we should cater to advanced users first and let eh new users attain skills or be lost.

advanced users - have skills, nothing is wrong with asking them to use them to make software work the way they want it.
new user - no skills or limited skills, something is wrong asking them to do something they are not capable of - figure out how to turn-off that advanced feature that is so confusing to them.

Mouse-wheel to roll-up a windows is a GREAT advanced setting. Can you imagine if granny was scrolling thru a webpage and passed across the title bar and the window rolled up?

Heck, auto-rollup windows are great IMO. But I doubt that is going to be understandable to new users.

tabbed windows are excellent but granny would break a hip if it occured when she was trying to reposition something.

Much as in life - cater to the lowest common denominator with plenty of pictures. Those with advanced skills want to impress people with those skills anyway - so give them opportunity to show-off. :D

[sicofante]

I don't know of such websites, but I have read several books on the subject. Don Norman's book, The Design of Everyday Things is a decent introduction (here are 3 chapters from it: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~konwinsk/ui.html) (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/%7Ekonwinsk/ui.html%29). You could also try The Inmates are Running the Asylum by Alan Cooper. Note that most research in this field are done by psychologists and not computer scientists. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject (I'm a programmer myself), but so far, every article I have read goes against my programmer's intuition, and against KDE's style.
This explains why I tend to coincide with you IYY :)

My other readings in user interaction design include Alan Cooper's "About Face", Donald Norman's "Things that make us smart" and a more practical "GUI Bloppers, Don'ts and Do's for Software Developers and Web Designers" by Jeff Johnson.

I also recommend visiting and reading Jakob Nielsen's website (http://www.useit.com/) and/or subscribing to its Alertbox (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/subscribe.html) newsletter. It's devoted to web design mainly, but most of its concepts and topics apply equally to desktop design.

[Erunno]

I feel like I'm spending too much time in one of the greatest flame wars ever to grace open soure development which is ususally more fun just to enjoy passively (like female mud wrestling). It's probably futile anyway as far more eloquent people with a far deeper insight into the respective desktop environments haven't been able to convince the opposite side of their position. ;-)

Anyway, there seems to be two fronts where the fighting takes place and which in my opinion should be treated seperately to a certain degree:

1. Features (how many should there be in the first place and how should they be implemented on the UI)

2. Configuration options (to what degree shoueld those features be configurable via the UI).

[eremini]

Deffinetely KDE. I liked what Linus said "If you design software for idiots, only idiots are going to use it"

[ComplexNumber]

Deffinetely KDE. I liked what Linus said "If you design software for idiots, only idiots are going to use it"
linus torvalds reasoning is faulty to say the least. one of the primary aims of most software is to make tasks easy for the user - does that mean that everyone who uses software is an idiot?
linus torvalds comments are based on ill-feeling rather than logic.

[mips]

Deffinetely KDE. I liked what Linus said "If you design software for idiots, only idiots are going to use it"

I heard that as well but never paid much attention to it. When Breezy came out I thought I would try kde/kubuntu and have never looked back.

[qazwsx]

Do you really take eerything so seriously. Just look at Linus quotes:
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/linus_torvalds/
Lots of funny quotes. So I think that even his gnome opinions contains at least little bit of humour.
Sure it is easy to say that as kde user :-k
And yes gnome is missing some features like better toolbar customizing.

[sicofante]

It's probably futile anyway as far more eloquent people with a far deeper insight into the respective desktop environments haven't been able to convince the opposite side of their position.
I don't think that's the idea anyway. I would like to convince both end users and people deciding the default DE in Ubuntu, but I wouldn't even try to win KDE fans, let alone their developers.

I don't quite get why distros are expected to use both DEs or even any other window manager. DE's multiplicity is by itself setting back many people from approaching Linux (I've heard many times that song "when they agree on one thing, I'll take a look..."). I think choosing a distro should also mean choosing a desktop environment. While volunteering shouldn't be stopped by any means (that's what freedom means, right?), financial efforts should focus on one DE. I understand this is more or less how it works nowadays.

[FyreBrand]

I don't think that's the idea anyway. I would like to convince both end users and people deciding the default DE in Ubuntu, but I wouldn't even try to win KDE fans, let alone their developers.

I don't quite get why distros are expected to use both DEs or even any other window manager. DE's multiplicity is by itself setting back many people from approaching Linux (I've heard many times that song "when they agree on one thing, I'll take a look..."). I think choosing a distro should also mean choosing a desktop environment. While volunteering shouldn't be stopped by any means (that's what freedom means, right?), financial efforts should focus on one DE. I understand this is more or less how it works nowadays.It is confusing to a new user to understand what the difference in desktop environments means, but that is just part of the experience. Having multiple distributions centered around different package management (deb, rpm, and source) is also very confusing. By your reasoning we should really only have one distro as well so as not to confuse new users.

I actually like that Ubuntu officially supports multiple DE's and that there are somewhat stable projects and groups of people supporting non-official configurations like Fluxbuntu. It is great to have that choice built on such a solid foundation.

[sicofante]

By your reasoning we should really only have one distro as well so as not to confuse new users.
Please read again. You'll find that "by my reasoning" we should have distros focusing on one model, which has very little to do with having just one distro. Focusing on one DE, one filesystem (ext2/3, xfs, reiser, etc.), one packaging format, one-whatever does not mean prohibiting volunteers or users from choosing anything else. It does, however, bring consistency and a clear landscape where new users can choose between distros. What makes it difficult today is that most distros pretend to be doing exactly the same as the one next door. It takes many months of reading forums to be able to decide which distro to go with. I can't see how this is any good for the user or the distros themselves.

[oomingmak]

A better question than "Why is KDE so ugly?" is "What can I do to make KDE look the way I want it to?" and then describe the way you want it to look.
I have been wanting to ask this very question on here for ages (having lurked for a long time) but I was fearful of the response I would get. But now that someone has quoted this as an example of a good question to ask, I will do so.

I am trying to get to grips with Linux (first time noob Linux user) with a view to hopefully being able to dump Windows in the future, but I just can't get a DE environment that I am happy with.

Is there a detailed guide anywhere that explains (in very simple terms) how to replicate the look of the Gnome Desktop in KDE?

I've tried both Gnome and KDE and I much prefer the look of Gnome, but the lack of options for customisation / configuration drives me crazy. I find it extremely restrictive. KDE is better in terms of offering more configuration options, but I find the default desktop layout, and colour scheme hideously ugly.

I'd like to get a layout in KDE that is as close to the standard Gnome look as possible (preferably identical) i.e. no K menu at bottom of screen, single height task bar, menu bar at top of screen with default 3 menus, decent looking clock and exit button in top right of screen, remove excess blue colour to replace with Human like colour theme etc).

I spent hours going through the KDE options but could not find a way to do this. I got another panel at the top and shrunk it down, but I couldn't reproduce the menu structure of Gnome. As so many people speak about the flexibility of KDE, I'm sure that it can be done, but I just haven't been able to work out how to do it. I even trawled KDE Look and Gnome Look, but they're really daunting for a beginner like me.

When I asked on another forum for advice on this, I was just told "Why bother? Just use Gnome if that's what you want". This completely ignored the fact that I would then have to endure all the restrictions that go with it.

[sicofante]

May I ask what are you wanting to configure in Gnome that it won't allow you to? (Honestly curious here.)

[antenna]

I have been wanting to ask this very question on here for ages (having lurked for a long time) but I was fearful of the response I would get. But now that someone has quoted this as an example of a good question to ask, I will do so.

I am trying to get to grips with Linux (first time noob Linux user) with a view to hopefully being able to dump Windows in the future, but I just can't get a DE environment that I am happy with.

Is there a detailed guide anywhere that explains (in very simple terms) how to replicate the look of the Gnome Desktop in KDE?

I've tried both Gnome and KDE and I much prefer the look of Gnome, but the lack of options for customisation / configuration drives me crazy. I find it extremely restrictive. KDE is better in terms of offering more configuration options, but I find the default desktop layout, and colour scheme hideously ugly.

I'd like to get a layout in KDE that is as close to the standard Gnome look as possible (preferably identical) i.e. no K menu at bottom of screen, single height task bar, menu bar at top of screen with default 3 menus, decent looking clock and exit button in top right of screen, remove excess blue colour to replace with Human like colour theme etc).

I spent hours going through the KDE options but could not find a way to do this. I got another panel at the top and shrunk it down, but I couldn't reproduce the menu structure of Gnome. As so many people speak about the flexibility of KDE, I'm sure that it can be done, but I just haven't been able to work out how to do it. I even trawled KDE Look and Gnome Look, but they're really daunting for a beginner like me.

When I asked on another forum for advice on this, I was just told "Why bother? Just use Gnome if that's what you want". This completely ignored the fact that I would then have to endure all the restrictions that go with it.

I kind of tried to do this myself, getting somewhat close but still not near enough for my tastes. I find using the theme Klearlooks (available in the repositories as kde-style-klearlook) is a good start. Personally, I stumbled on finding a serious looking icon set on par with Tango, and then there's those blue bitmaps to deal with.

[ComplexNumber]

This completely ignored the fact that I would then have to endure all the restrictions that go with it.
right click on the menu in gnome, select edit menu. then make the system menu visible. you will then be introduced to an application called gconf editor (or configuration editor).
gnome really isn't restrictive at all.




to get kde to look close to gnome, it depends what part. kde applications tend to be rather 'busy' whereas they tend to be clean in gnome. that is something that you will never be able to replicate. you can try to match the look and feel by selecting the qtcurve style in kde control centre and then try to find a more 'subdued' colour scheme. you can tweak the colour settings of various components, so turn the contrast right down on all of them and select colours that are subdued (if they aren't already).when i had kde, i put the main panel at the top, then created another one that i placed at the bottom to replicate the gnome look (well, i was used to working in gnome so because my muscle memory expects the menu to be at the top, etc, i had to replicate that aspect of gnome).

[aysiu]

I've tried both Gnome and KDE and I much prefer the look of Gnome, but the lack of options for customisation / configuration drives me crazy. I find it extremely restrictive. KDE is better in terms of offering more configuration options, but I find the default desktop layout, and colour scheme hideously ugly. I don't know about the menu layout, but these links may help you get a more Gnome-like look:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=52773
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=51239
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=49582
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=48736
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=44730

[daniel of sarnia]

I've used both for a long time now, and I like KDE.

It conforms to the way I work better, it might not for you, but it dose for me.

That's all that really matters, they are both GPL'd. They are both nice desktops.

So a lot of you need to chill out, or just keep having your pointless, childish, Internet holy war wasting all your time. I don't care.

Have fun while other people, get real work done.

[sicofante]

just keep having your pointless, childish, Internet holy war wasting all your time. I don't care.
I honestly don't get this. First: if you don't like the discussion, why on Earth do you join it? Second: this "holy war" is a civilised conversation about desktop environments. So far I've learned a lot about them just by reading posts here. Why is it that in all of these Gnome<->KDE discussions someone comes along and wants everybody else to stop it? :confused:

[bailout]

I have been wanting to ask this very question on here for ages (having lurked for a long time) but I was fearful of the response I would get. But now that someone has quoted this as an example of a good question to ask, I will do so.

I am trying to get to grips with Linux (first time noob Linux user) with a view to hopefully being able to dump Windows in the future, but I just can't get a DE environment that I am happy with.

Is there a detailed guide anywhere that explains (in very simple terms) how to replicate the look of the Gnome Desktop in KDE?

I've tried both Gnome and KDE and I much prefer the look of Gnome, but the lack of options for customisation / configuration drives me crazy. I find it extremely restrictive. KDE is better in terms of offering more configuration options, but I find the default desktop layout, and colour scheme hideously ugly.

I'd like to get a layout in KDE that is as close to the standard Gnome look as possible (preferably identical) i.e. no K menu at bottom of screen, single height task bar, menu bar at top of screen with default 3 menus, decent looking clock and exit button in top right of screen, remove excess blue colour to replace with Human like colour theme etc).

I spent hours going through the KDE options but could not find a way to do this. I got another panel at the top and shrunk it down, but I couldn't reproduce the menu structure of Gnome. As so many people speak about the flexibility of KDE, I'm sure that it can be done, but I just haven't been able to work out how to do it. I even trawled KDE Look and Gnome Look, but they're really daunting for a beginner like me.

When I asked on another forum for advice on this, I was just told "Why bother? Just use Gnome if that's what you want". This completely ignored the fact that I would then have to endure all the restrictions that go with it.

You can certainly get very close to the layout, not sure about the 3 menus but it may be possible to get close.

I would post a screenshot of my desktop which has some of the elements you want but I am on my laptop which is arranged very differently.

Start by moving the main panel to the top of the screen and altering the size. It is best to use kcontrol to do this as I found some of the options seen to be missing in system settings (just type kcontrol into the run command or konsole). Then right click on the panel and >add new panel->external taskbar. This should be selectable in kcontrol so set it to the bottom of the screen. I think you then need to remove the taskbar from kicker; if so simply right-click on the panel and select ->remove applet->taskbar. I put the top bar on autohide with immediate hiding to avoid the excessive waste of screenspace that the gnome design causes.

To add shutdown buttons and some of the other things you want try right clicking on kicker and then ->add applet. A shutdown button is certainly available and you can also add other menus which you would need to do to mimick gnomes 3 menu design. I prefer to add a quicklauncher applet and add buttons to all the programs I use often and rarely use the main menu at all.

Just right click on the clock to alter the layout. I can't remember what is so fantastic about the gnome clock tbh:confused: I just remember a clock displaying the time :)

Have a look at kde-look for colour schemes and icons. I am sure I have seen human icons there for kde. I prefer neovo xt myself.

[aysiu]

Maybe it could be accomplished with using Kwin as the window manager in Gnome?

[kinson]

Using Ubuntu, cause I'm new to Linux, so I'm assuming that Ubuntu will be easiest to find documentation/help for :)

Cheers,
Kinson

[StewieHead]

I use ubuntu because I prefer gnome. However, I am interested in trying fluxbuntu at some point as well.

[steven8]

I was using Kubuntu when I first answered this thread, but I have gone back to straight forward Ubuntu Dapper.

[Ob1]

Openbox here, occasionally i use GNOME.

[Spr0k3t]

Ubuntu pure (gnome only), because Kubuntu has too much eye-candy to it and some of the appnames make no sense. I have Kubuntu setup as a separate session on my main PC and lappys, but I never use them. Fluxbuntu is also setup on my main PC as a separate session... I use Flux only when I really need to get work complete.

[graabein]

I use regular Ubuntu on my main box and Xubuntu on my old and busted laptop and on my old machine at my parents house. Ubuntu runs slower than Xubuntu on older machines.

I'm very impressed by XFCE and Xubuntu btw! =D>

[PartisanEntity]

I use Ubuntu mainly because I like the minimalism of Gnome (even though it's lack of 'configurability' leaves a lot to be desired).

I installed the kde desktop environment too because I like to play around with it. It is a bit too fussy for me though, too many bells and whistles.

[Leeghoofd]

I voted Ubuntu. I tried several versions, Kubuntu en xubuntu,etc but Ubuntu seems to work best for me.

It works perfectly with my older dell latitude laptop. Unfortunately I have been having issues with my main desktop ( no good drivers for sound or wireless ). I'm thinking of installing another wireless card now :)

[MrCheese]

I use Ubuntu 6.02 LTS - with absolutely no probs. My laptop is up 24/7 and my desktop system kicks XP into the dust. 'Nuff said!

[Linuturk]

Depending on the hardware I use:

Ubuntu for beefy machines

Xubuntu for medium machines

Fluxbuntu for the "should be paperweights"

[Castar]

For a Gnome-style menu use this

http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=22605

The best icons I could find for blue Tango (including proper icons for removable devices) are here

http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=50036

I don't think there are nice Human icons for KDE... :(

Finally, the best decoration is

http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=48318

Human colouring can be found in the links above by aysiu.

Now, if one adjusts the fonts to Sans Serif and creates the Gnome layout by adding a second panel and the applets that are by default in the Gnome desktop, one can be a happier likes-gnome-look KDE user.

[Pikestaff]

I use Kubuntu because it was the only *buntu I could get my wireless working on. Odd, I know. But hey. :tongue:

[harley_frog]

I use SimplyMEPIS. While not officially a *buntu version, it does use the Ubuntu repositories. I use it because it simply works out of the box without having to download and install a lot extra packages (like Win32 codec pack, KPlayer, Flash player, Java, Real Player, etc.) Not saying that I haven't installed a lot of programs, but for installing and surfing the 'Net in the shortest amount of time, I give nods to MEPIS.

[gameman12]

ubuntu is good for me just 'cause i'm completely new and it's a good start for everyone. i've managed to screw it up a bunch and fix it. it's a good start.

[bailout]

I use Kubuntu because I find kde apps to be better than gnome/gtk ones. I also dislike the design philosophy of gnome of removing control and choice from the user.

[C-A]

Kubuntu- I like the look and feel of Gnome better than KDE but I use KDE for the KDE applications which are great. I know I can run most of the KDE apps in Gnome but I would rather run them out of KDE.-plus KDE can be tweaked to resemble Gnome.

[qpieus]

Kubuntu. I like creating custom servicemenus to use in konqueror. I'm not a programmer, but that makes me feel like one :)
I understand I could do something similar with nautilus scripts, but I can't take the time right now to learn that.

[bertoldic]

Hi to everyone!
I'm an happy ubuntu user.
I like Gnome since Ubuntu has used it but I think Linus is right KDE is the answer.
Gnome has many things good and I like many of these.
However KDE is more complete!
Applications for KDE are a lot and all complete see K3B Amarok ecc.
Moreover commercial apps are developed using QT (I know they work also in gnome but it's not the same).
Gnome has to be customized for being good cause its icons are old style.
So my question is why use a DE that is far from being complete only its usability and try to implement all missing features from scratch?
Shouldn't be easier work a better usability of KDE?

KDE4 will be superior (please look only at how API are well designed) to Gnome 2.20 this is a fact so what will be of all money and development for Gnome.
Moreover I don't like mono in Gnome!Mono it's a good suite but it shouldn't be used for develop native Linux apps using C# Microsoft technology!And let me say that tomboy that is late and we don't need it.

If Ubuntu continues to use Gnome by default will be out of the challenge with Vista and MAC OSX ! I say this in this moment cause many people are thinking to switch to Ubuntu.
What will happen when users will see that their system is not able to do something cause it's simply doesn't do it? Ubuntu should develop all missing features?


This post doesn't want to be a flame but only a place to discuss what do you think for future ubuntu default DE.

I think that Linus Torvalds is right and also Mark Shuttleworth thinking in KDE for future.


Which are you opinion?

[raldz]

my answer is simple... I'm using Kubuntu or MEPIS.. which ever has the latest release... I started using Ubuntu since Warty, but upon looking at other distros, I began to love KDE... so, Kubuntu or MEPIS are my choices... but Kubuntu is a little bit sluggish..

[tbroderick]

Which are you opinion?

The future is wmii. I want my Wmiibuntu. [-o<

[blueturtl]

I'm wondering what these missing features might be? What doesn't Gnome do that Vista or KDE do? The only thing that really springs to mind is being able to set screesaver preferences.

[tigerpants]

Hi to everyone!
I'm an happy ubuntu user.
I like Gnome since Ubuntu has used it but I think Linus is right KDE is the answer.
Gnome has many things good and I like many of these.
However KDE is more complete!
Applications for KDE are a lot and all complete see K3B Amarok ecc.
Moreover commercial apps are developed using QT (I know they work also in gnome but it's not the same).
Gnome has to be customized for being good cause its icons are old style.
So my question is why use a DE that is far from being complete only its usability and try to implement all missing features from scratch?
Shouldn't be easier work a better usability of KDE?

KDE4 will be superior (please look only at how API are well designed) to Gnome 2.20 this is a fact so what will be of all money and development for Gnome.
Moreover I don't like mono in Gnome!Mono it's a good suite but it shouldn't be used for develop native Linux apps using C# Microsoft technology!And let me say that tomboy that is late and we don't need it.

If Ubuntu continues to use Gnome by default will be out of the challenge with Vista and MAC OSX ! I say this in this moment cause many people are thinking to switch to Ubuntu.
What will happen when users will see that their system is not able to do something cause it's simply doesn't do it? Ubuntu should develop all missing features?


This post doesn't want to be a flame but only a place to discuss what do you think for future ubuntu default DE.

I think that Linus Torvalds is right and also Mark Shuttleworth thinking in KDE for future.


Which are you opinion?

Not another argument about this. Look, use whatever suits you. I don't see that anymore KDE v Gnome threads are going to add anything significant to the argument. WM develop, die, new ones come in, yadda yadda. No one WM is "the best", no one person is ever right.
The whole thing is too subjective to bother arguing about in a constructive way.

[bertoldic]

I'm wondering what these missing features might be? What doesn't Gnome do that Vista or KDE do? The only thing that really springs to mind is being able to set screesaver preferences.

Some examples: Remove hide buttons from panels,create image gallery from nautilus,have filters in nautilus have different view in nautilus

And many many more missing features and a lot of apps kcalendar...ecc

that doesn't work the same way an example gaim is buggy!


Not another argument about this. Look, use whatever suits you. I don't see that anymore KDE v Gnome threads are going to add anything significant to the argument. WM develop, die, new ones come in, yadda yadda. No one WM is "the best", no one person is ever right.
The whole thing is too subjective to bother arguing about in a constructive way.

Probably You are right...

[SunnyRabbiera]

really what linus said about gnome does not matter, its what you want to use in the end.
I fing KDE in ubuntus repos desperately unstable and slow, same with kubuntu.
But its not like you cant install KDE, its your option.
that is what the OS is suppoedly to be about, options.

[Kobalt]

I think the KDE and the Gnome people will just never agree on this point... So there is no need to start threads just like "nana" is better than "nono".
And it's just the same about "Ubuntu should use 'nana' instead of 'nono' "...

But there is a case defending a better KDE implementation into Ubuntu, I must say : Ubuntu delivers the best Gnome (IMO), why not deliver at least a good quality KDE.

And I can here you scream "nana" and "nono" are not Desktop environment, but you don't know what I'm developing now :D

[megamania]

really what linus said about gnome does not matter, its what you want to use in the end.
I use Gnome, but I think what Linus Torvalds says does matter in terms of impact on the future of Linux.

[slayerboy]

I'm starting to think these kinds of threads are started just to incite a flame war. Use what you want to use.

Please, for the love of your religion's deity, can we stop with these "my *insert name of de/wm/app/distro/os* is better than your *insert name of de/wm/app/distro/os* " posts already?

[SunnyRabbiera]

Perhaps, but hey if he perfers KDE its his option.
Hey he uses a mac with a power PC, that doesnt mean we have to do the same.

[punkinside]

I'm starting to think these kinds of threads are started just to incite a flame war. Use what you want to use.

Please, for the love of your religion's deity, can we stop with these "my *insert name of de/wm/app/distro/os* is better than your *insert name of de/wm/app/distro/os* " posts already?

+1

[bailout]

I also think kde apps are better so I run kde and by the sound of your preferences you would be better with kubuntu as well. I always say people should try both and decide on the basis of which apps they prefer. Most of the stuff people talk about in these discussions ie panels/colour schemes/icons ec are not that important and can be changed, it is the apps that you use that are the main thing.

[DoctorMO]

Bah! Gtk and Qt should simply merge, their close enough as it is and a unified library would go a long way to providing the most features for developers while keeping the number of libraries small.

Both KDE and Gnome have problems, I find gnome to be too simple and stupid and I find KDE to be more unstable and expansive. The two camps should stop fighting an idiotic war with each side trying to create it's own version of ever app under the sun; sometimes very badly.

Unification of standards will happen as mass increases, it's the natural way. we just have to decide how to do it in order to limit barriers.

Those of you advocating choice are correct, no one should limit the options you have nor prevent you from using the better tool for your needs; but would it not be better to have tools which are not so bitterly divided?

[zAo]

Bah! Gtk and Qt should simply merge, their close enough as it is and a unified library would go a long way to providing the most features for developers while keeping the number of libraries small.

Both KDE and Gnome have problems, I find gnome to be too simple and stupid and I find KDE to be more unstable and expansive. The two camps should stop fighting an idiotic war with each side trying to create it's own version of ever app under the sun; sometimes very badly.

Amen.

[frodon]

Here is the link to the main KDE vs Gnome thread and we prefer to keep all these never ending discussions in one thread (BTW see the result of the poll) :
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=190994&highlight=kde+vs+gnome

@bertoldic, if you have valid arguments to keep this thread opened feel free to PM me.

Thread closed.

[wersdaluv]

There are lots of desktop environments but for some reason, many people prefer one over the others. That is one of the reasons why people use different distros.

Despite of the existence of many desktop environments and different preferences of Linux Users, why does Ubuntu run by a specific desktop environment by default and why is it GNOME?

[WalmartSniperLX]

Honestly I don't know. Gnome is great in many ways from features, support, to major tweaking. But, Gnome isnt the only desktop capable of all this. Seriously it beats me, but I personally like Gnome. Then again theres the Kubuntu and Xubuntu alternative for XFCE and KDE. There's also 3rd party Ubuntus running different desktops (like Fluxbuntu).

I guess Gnome is just in favor of Ubuntu and its developers

[EdThaSlayer]

The main reason I think is that GNOME is the easiest to use out of the box and since Ubuntu is mostly targeted at Windows converts they want to make the transition as painless as possible.

[karellen]

gnome is easy to use, it hasn't so many options and configuration tools like kde, it's simple and clean. I like it :)

[ComplexNumber]

There are lots of desktop environments but for some reason, many people prefer one over the others. That is one of the reasons why people use different distros.

Despite of the existence of many desktop environments and different preferences of Linux Users, why does Ubuntu run by a specific desktop environment by default and why is it GNOME?
probably becuase mark shuttleworth is a long time gnome supporter and developer.

[Somenoob]

Others are not as noob friendly

[Erik Trybom]

Ubuntu has the goal of being a one-CD distribution. That realistically means shipping only one desktop environment.

Why is it Gnome then? Well, it's easy to use, it looks plain and simple and it has a rapid development cycle (six months in fact, and that is precisely why Ubuntu also releases a new version every six months). But I think there's another reason as well. Gnome is part of the GNU project, and Ubuntu has always been the distro (together with Debian) that most strongly emphasises the ideals of free software. Thus choosing GNU's own desktop environment seems like a natural choice.

I really see this as a non-issue though considering the many alternatives there are. We have Kubuntu, Xubuntu and a bunch of others. Additionally, if you have a broadband connection, it's a trivial matter to install whatever environment you like.

[3rdalbum]

A large number of the people who were hired to work on Ubuntu actually had Gnome hacking experience. I don't know if that was cause or effect, I'm just pointing it out.

[DjDarkman]

gnome is easy to use, it hasn't so many options and configuration tools like kde, it's simple and clean. I like it :)

You mean hasn`t so many featues as kde.

To prove this concept I only say ,lots of gnome users use kde apps ,like k3b ,amarok and ktorrent ,but few kde users use gnome apps.

Why is being able to configure youre OS is considered a bad thing?
I think this is what open source about ,freedom to make things work exactly how you want them to work ,not the opposite.
Tell me what is so hard to do in KDE that`s easier in Gnome?

In my expirience I used both desktops and didn`t find on single fact that makes Gnome user friendlier than KDE ,and I don`t whant to die not knowing at least one of these facts :D.

[an.echte.trilingue]

There are lots of desktop environments but for some reason, many people prefer one over the others. That is one of the reasons why people use different distros.

Despite of the existence of many desktop environments and different preferences of Linux Users, why does Ubuntu run by a specific desktop environment by default and why is it GNOME?

Most third party apps are written for Gnome's GTK (GIMP Tool Kit), for many reasons. There used to be licensing issues in KDE's QT toolkit, and GTK still has better handles for apps to interface with. You can still run GTK apps in KDE, but the work faster and look better in GNOME.

Since Ubuntu is attempting to become a Windows replacement, third party apps are essential.

Take care
-mat

[glotz]

Why is Kubuntu using KDE by default? Why is Xubuntu using Xfce by default?

[DjDarkman]

Most third party apps are written for Gnome's GTK (GIMP Tool Kit), for many reasons. There used to be licensing issues in KDE's QT toolkit, and GTK still has better handles for apps to interface with. You can still run GTK apps in KDE, but the work faster and look better in GNOME.

Since Ubuntu is attempting to become a Windows replacement, third party apps are essential.

Take care
-mat

Yes ,because Gnome relies on third party apps ,and KDE has it`s own apps to function with ,it doesn`t need much third party things.

"GTK still has better handles for apps to interface with" Qt is much more advanced then GTK

"Since Ubuntu is attempting to become a Windows replacement, third party apps are essential." Wrong ,Ubuntu uses Gnome for the primarry project because much users imagnine wrong things about KDE ,and Gnome is considered more lightweight.

"There used to be licensing issues in KDE's Qt toolkit" actualy it`s trolltech`s Qt toolkit ,and the issue was between the FSF and Qt`s licence ,because Qt was just free and not Open Source ,that`s when some developers got scared and started the Gnome project ,but later Qt became dual licensed ,and companies use GTK because it`s free for them to use it ,accordning to the LGPL ,they rarely use Qt ,because they have to pay for it.

Ok this may have sounded strage here is an explination :
LGPL :
- youu canse it in open source projects
- you can link closed source projects to these libs

Qt`s licence :
-if you use Qt to develop an open source application it`s free and open source for you
-if you want to make a closed source program with Qt ,you got to pay trollctech for it

Personally I like Qt`s licence ,because it encourages open source development more then LGPL.

[FaceorKneecaps]

To me it's like stopping a fight in a schoolyard. To use this device you gave to have a desktop like this. And buuuhuuuu this device is not what I wanted. Why are there a competition between two desktop systems? Why???

They both work well..... and then again i realease that I am an adult.

[Gargamella]

mandriva uses to have both kde and gnome suitable on the same DVD...I think that in a "complete" Ubuntu DVD version you should have to be able to choose that on the run, during the install process.

[Kobalt]

It's been a long time since I thought that would be a great idea to have an Ubuntu DVD with both Gnome and KDE avaliable for installation... Any chance that has already been done by some Ubuntu master user of this forum ?

[DrainBead]

Most third party apps are written for Gnome's GTK (GIMP Tool Kit), for many reasons. There used to be licensing issues in KDE's QT toolkit, and GTK still has better handles for apps to interface with. You can still run GTK apps in KDE, but the work faster and look better in GNOME.

Since Ubuntu is attempting to become a Windows replacement, third party apps are essential.

Take care
-mat

Well, there are a LOT of apps out there that are QT apps so that statement isn't true at all and that GTK have better handles for apps? Heh, no.

GTK apps will look the same as all other apps in KDE if you have the proper packages installed so that's not an issue either, QT apps like Amarok don't just look bad in Gnome, they take up a lot of resources too.


I think Gnome is an excellent default choice but personally, i prefer KDE. :)

[bonzodog]

People, get used to Gnome, cause it staying, no matter what - Mark Shuttleworth was indeed a Debian and Gnome Developer before starting Ubuntu.

The Ubuntu project, and Suse, are both poster-boys for the work of the Gnome Foundation. A lot of Ubuntu's developers are also Core Gnome developers.

Gnome was chosen because of these reasons.

[lyceum]

Because Gnome ROCKS!!! It is easy to use and everything does not start with the same letter, and you can easily change your DE if you want to.

[an.echte.trilingue]

Yes ,because Gnome relies on third party apps ,and KDE has it`s own apps to function with ,it doesn`t need much third party things. There is a gnome-native equivalent of every single KDE app that I can think of. Just because Ubuntu uses OpenOffice and Firefox doesn't mean that there aren't apps out there that are part of the Gnome project. Besides, who says that just because you have konqueror and koffice you wouldn't want to use OpenOffice and Iceweasel? Both of those examples are arguably superior to the KDE native apps (but of course they are also arguably inferior; it depends what you want). Linux is about freedom, right? What about those apps that do not have a native KDE equivalent? Making it hard to use things written by other people is a very good way to marginalize your Desktop environment.


"GTK still has better handles for apps to interface with" Qt is much more advanced then GTKReally? Do you have a reference or is it your word against mine?


"Since Ubuntu is attempting to become a Windows replacement, third party apps are essential." Wrong ,Ubuntu uses Gnome for the primarry project because much users imagnine wrong things about KDE ,and Gnome is considered more lightweight.While my answer was only part of the answer (all the other parts I am aware of had already been mentioned), it is still a part of the answer (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1) and I don't think what you are saying here is true at all. Ubuntu is developed by experts and largely targets novice Linux users. The experts have reasons for their choice. The novice users are unlikely to imagine anything about KDE or Gnome at all, much less have any opinions on the subject. Everybody else knows how to install the DE they prefer.


"There used to be licensing issues in KDE's Qt toolkit" actualy it`s trolltech`s Qt toolkit ,and the issue was between the FSF and Qt`s licence ,because Qt was just free and not Open Source ,that`s when some developers got scared and started the Gnome project ,but later Qt became dual licensed ,and companies use GTK because it`s free for them to use it ,accordning to the LGPL ,they rarely use Qt ,because they have to pay for it.A bunch of KDE developers getting scared over QT licensing and leaving the project because of it sounds a lot like "licensing issues" to me. By the way, I know that Trolltech owns QT but I saw no need to bring them into the conversation. In English, the possessive can indicate both actual ownership and many other degrees of proximity (example: My friend says his school is better than mine).


Personally I like Qt`s licence ,because it encourages open source development more then LGPL.That is true if you dismiss the fact that until there is a major paradigm shift in the global economic model there will be compelling economic reasons for closed source software to exist (especially high-development cost software that does not require paid support, such as high graphic games). Don't hold your breath for that paradigm shift. Open Source will not survive unless it can interface with this world. Even Richard Stallman realizes this, which is why vorbis is under an even less restrictive BSD-style license. There is a reason that commercial apps are released in GTK first, and only in QT if there is a huge demand (skype, for example).


Well, there are a LOT of apps out there that are QT apps so that statement isn't true at all.Abiword, OpenOffice, Firefox, Gimp, nessus all use GTK. Yes, there are many apps for QT. There are many more that are GTK. If you don't believe me, count them ($apt-cache --full search gtk | grep Package: | sed -n '/.*/=' versus $apt-cache --full search qt | grep Package: | sed -n '/.*/='). I get 282 apps with "qt" in the description and 956 for gtk on debian etch, so it looks like a true statement to me. I know this isn't a very scientific method, but if you have a better one I am all ears.

Don't get me wrong on this. I also prefer working in KDE, but the fact remains that there are many compelling reasons to use GNOME.

Take care
-mat

[Quillz]

I think because GNOME is perhaps the best known and used window manager. I mean, not everyone is going to like it, but it certainly is attractive, modern and simple to use. Personally, I prefer Kubuntu since I'm a KDE fan, but GNOME makes a fine starting point, in my opinion.

[bryan.taylor]

...everything does not start with the same letter
That's the best answer I've ever heard :-D

[aysiu]

People, get used to Gnome, cause it staying, no matter what - Mark Shuttleworth was indeed a Debian and Gnome Developer before starting Ubuntu.

The Ubuntu project, and Suse, are both poster-boys for the work of the Gnome Foundation. A lot of Ubuntu's developers are also Core Gnome developers.

Gnome was chosen because of these reasons.
Since bonzodog has already given the answer to the question, any further discussion will just be KDE v. Gnome talk, so I've merged this thread in with the other KDE v. Gnome discussions.

[darkhatter]

I think because GNOME is perhaps the best known and used window manager. I mean, not everyone is going to like it, but it certainly is attractive, modern and simple to use. Personally, I prefer Kubuntu since I'm a KDE fan, but GNOME makes a fine starting point, in my opinion.file:///usr/share/ubuntu-artwork/home/index.html

I believe KDE is more common, but Gnome is more common with Ubuntu


That's the best answer I've ever heard :-D

itunes, iphone, imoviehd, iphoto.....

care to explain why apple can do it and KDE can't.

btw KDE puts 'k' in front of all their apps so you can tell that they are part of kde.

[FyreBrand]

KDE is moving away somewhat from the K-everything naming scheme as well. Dolphin, which will become the default file manager, doesn't start with a K.

Just to point out there are a lot of G-apps as well, just not quite so many. The naming scheme doesn't bother me anyways. If someone is nitpicking over K or G in front of a ton of KDE/Gnome apps then K/X/Flux/Nu/Ubuntu might not be the best distro for you. Just kidding. Just pointing out bizarre naming schemes don't belong to Gnome or KDE alone.

[amantonas]

This is a poll for Kde or Gnome.

[jfinkels]

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=190994

take a look there :D

[Crooksey]

This has been discussed countless times on forums and irc servers throughout, how about FVWM or Window Maker?

[r4ik]

This is a poll for Kde or Gnome.

No use to start a poll if want to try gnome go as we discussed.
This has been discussed to often.

[rusty4r]

not for newbies like me, I prefer Gnome.

For some reason the menu's in KDE just don't appeal to me. However the KDE menu's in PCLinuxOS I like better than Sabayon. I tried Kubuntu, but when I installed Edgy I didn't bother because I just prefer Gnome.

[x1a4]

Neither. Xfce rocks!

[Sef]

Moving this poll to Community Cafe.

[j.miller565]

KDE definetly

[slayerboy]

XFCE for me!

BTW....j.miller565, is it me or does that avatar/pic by your name just.....meh..nevermind...my mind is in the gutter

[lcafiero]

Late to the party: Xubuntu

I do like Gnome on Ubuntu, and I know how cool KDE is, so I'm not trying to start a flame war when I say that Kubuntu is really not for me. I'm partial to Xubuntu -- and how's this for a newbie reason? -- because it seems to run a lot faster on the iMac on which I have it installed.

[FoolsGold]

Ubuntu.

I haven't tried any of the variants, and I stick with what works; heck, it was hard enough converting to Linux in the first place, I didn't want to make it more difficult by going against the grain so to speak.

[karellen]

ubuntu because I like gnome, but I have also installed xubuntu and I use it from time to time

[Tmi]

Kubuntu.

I'm pretty content with the look and feel of both gnome and KDE, but since I really like many of the KDE apps I prefer to use KDE.

[Majorix]

I use Ubuntu because I like Gnome and my PC is fast enough not to use a light version like Xubuntu.

[310ei]

I use Ubuntu primarily but I've dabbled with Kubuntu on more than one occasion.

[Compucore]

Dapper drake of Ubuntu for my current Dell that I am using. And Xubuntu of dapper drake on my older Aptiva or Hoarty hedgehof on it. Depending on which one I want to put on it. Once I get my ML370 with dual processor.Ubuntu will be on that as well over here. With a raid 5 on that one. It is a oder compaq as well which is good the best part of it. I am getting it free from where I am working at with maybe two older laptops. :)

Compucore

[tagginannie]

I use both but any distro that has KDE as the default is one that I use the most :tongue:

[jariku]

I use Ubuntu because I've had less problems with it than with Kubuntu.

I'm starting to have feelings towards KDE that I thought I would only feel towards Windows. :lolflag:

[Pugwash]

Ubuntu on my laptop, xubuntu on my desktop pc. Very happy!

[Luggy]

The biggest problem I have with KDE is that I find it too messy and doesn't look as good as Gnome.

They may not be the greatest reasons in the world, but whenever I try and use Kubuntu I just get really sick of it after a short while because it just doens't feel right.

I love how Gnome is so simple and organized. Sure I may not get as many buttons to tweak every little thing, but for the most part I can do everything I want.

[wuzzerd]

Linux and Ubuntu are about choice. I lean towards KDE yet Gnome is simpler. Then I spend a lot of time running the even simpler Fluxbox, with menu entries for konqueror konsole and kate my favorite KDE apps.

For serious work I use the command line. lol

[forrestcupp]

I originally used Gnome in Ubuntu. Then I went back to Windows for a while. Then when I upgraded to Vista, the disappointment drove me back to Linux. I tried Sabayon v.3.3 which uses KDE. I really liked KDE (I thought I liked it better than I remembered Gnome), but then I decided I'd rather come back to Ubuntu, so I tried the Feisty Beta. When I got back into Gnome, I wondered why I liked KDE. Gnome seems a lot faster with everything, and I like the way it's set up better.

[bionnaki]

I prefer kde...but not just kubuntu or the default kde. I dont like those so much. I run kde-core + everything I require/want and nothing more + a highly customized interface.

[Medieval_Creations]

I'm a die hard, I almost always have a terminal open. I've used both KDE & Gnome both have pro's & con's.
Since Gnome comes shipped with Ubuntu I go with the flow. I've been using it for a while now and know exactly how to tweak it the way I want so I just stick with it.

[samjh]

I prefer KDE, but...

Ubuntu ships with Gnome as default. Ubuntu is my favouriate distro. I've experienced some minor stability and functionality problems with Kubuntu. I find Ubuntu with Gnome to be more stable and polished.

So despite my preference for KDE, I use Gnome.

[eentonig]

I preffer Gnome.
i used KDE long time back and it reminded me too hard in Windows. While it obviously wasn't windows. When I came across Gnome, I had a heard time getting used to it. But now I consider it the best compromise between userfriendliness and simplicity.

Allthough I'm still not very fond off working CLI as an end user, I always have a terminal open and run a lot of commands from there. Just because it's way faster than any GUI I know off. But I have the comfort to know that I don' t have to do it the hard way. There's always the GUI to fall back when I don't know the exact commands.

[bone_saw]

I've only briefly played around with KDE when I played with Knoppix for a couple of days before I downloaded and installed Ubuntu.

I actually like Gnome better (based on my very limited experience.)

Edit/Update:
I was curious so I added the KDE desktop and logged back in using it. I'm kinda digging it. Amarok is leaps and bounds above Rhythmbox.
I'd say it's a toss-up between the two for me. I'll play around with both, but I still think I like Gnome more.

[Flashstar]

I've gone through perhaps every main distro. out there. From Mepis to Suse, I've tried them all. I've found in the end though that Gnome is generally laid out much better. Instead of having a single launcher button (KDE) with numerous links off of it like windows, Gnome has several tabs which are much easier to access. I think that it all depends on what you prefer or how far from windows you want to go, but I still believe that Gnome is simply more refined. Plus, you can always install Amarok in Gnome.

[TheWizzard]

kde and gnome are just different. if you like gnome and dislike kde, then please use gnome.

if you want to know the differences, you can read:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/kdevsgnome
http://www.seopher.com/articles/kde_or_gnome_some_useful_advice_for_new_users

nevertheless, the bottom line is that quality is subjective. kde or gnome is a personal choice.
if you want to give kde a try, go ahead. you can read the experience of someone who tried the switch here:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/a_month_with_kde

cheers

[Durden]

I just switched back to gnome after trying kde and I'm not looking back till kde 4 comes out. It just seemed to me like kde tried to do too much while gnome was a little more user friendly. They both have their places and I like a lot of the kde apps still.

[nsleiman]

Talking about KDE, well i love Konqueror and its multi functionality, Ctrl+T for a new TAB, Amarok is the best music player for me ever, yakuake the sweetest terminal emulator, Kopete for messenging, k3b for buring cds (and more)..

actually i also love gnome, i find it more robust and user friendly, but KDE has so many cool features...

[konungursvia]

Linus says kde is more configurable than gnome. I don't really see the huzzah.

[krussell]

Hello :-)
I was a KDE user (on Slackware, its still one of the best distros). After installing Ubuntu gnome is my first choice for the moment. But I can surely say managing/copying/browsing files/folder takes lot less time in KDE.

[Fascination]

I prefer Fluxbox over Gnome and KDE, simply because I enjoy being able to make my desktop gui look exactly the way I want (and use the CLI for actual work). However, I do more server side work in linux and dont often get to see my gui these days anyway - generally I just remote in from whatever station or computer Im on.
I have to agree with the comments being made about KDE being too 'Windows' like, just as Gnome is too 'Mac' like. :P I would pick Gnome out of the two simply because it feels more comfortable to work in (very reminiscent of the Ubuntu philosophy) and it feels less like Im logged onto a Microsoft product. :)

[johndavid400]

one thing that keeps me on KDE is the configurability of the desktop.

Nice transparent taskbar:
Right click on the taskbar, select "configure panel" then click on "appearance", then click the box "enable transaprency".

Desktop widgets (weather, sensor monitors, cpu/memory usage, etc..):
$ sudo aptitude install superkaramba
to open: Kmenu>Utilities>Superkaramba
and add whatever themes you want.

Easily select/install/use desktop backgrounds:
right click on desktop, select "configure desktop", click "get new wallpapers"

Add to taskbar panel:
right click on taskbar panel, select one of the top two items "Add aplet to panel" or "Add application to panel". Select any application on your computer to add to the panel as a shortcut.

Just a few of the things that I like about KDE.

[rsambuca]

one thing that keeps me on KDE is the configurability of the desktop.

Nice transparent taskbar:
Right click on the taskbar, select "configure panel" then click on "appearance", then click the box "enable transaprency".

Desktop widgets (weather, sensor monitors, cpu/memory usage, etc..):
$ sudo aptitude install superkaramba
to open: Kmenu>Utilities>Superkaramba
and add whatever themes you want.

Easily select/install/use desktop backgrounds:
right click on desktop, select "configure desktop", click "get new wallpapers"

Add to taskbar panel:
right click on taskbar panel, select one of the top two items "Add aplet to panel" or "Add application to panel". Select any application on your computer to add to the panel as a shortcut.

Just a few of the things that I like about KDE.

KDE is definitely easier to configure, but every single thing you mentioned here is also easily done with gnome. Taskbar transparency, gdesklets, adding panels, desktops, all just right-clicks away.

[chakkaradeep]

KDE is definitely easier to configure, but every single thing you mentioned here is also easily done with gnome. Taskbar transparency, gdesklets, adding panels, desktops, all just right-clicks away.

I think KDE has so many places/options where things can be changed, but Gnome is straight forward and yes, Gnome is really slick when compared to KDE :) . What I love in Gnome is the menu system. I hate KDE bloated menu system :)

[Sunnz]

KDE is definitely easier to configure, but every single thing you mentioned here is also easily done with gnome. Taskbar transparency, gdesklets, adding panels, desktops, all just right-clicks away.
I think easier is debatable... not that I want to start one here!!

But I think all in all it just comes down whatever you are used to. If you are used to Gnome then you'll find Gnome to be easier to configure no matter what some great debater says.

[yigal.weinstein]

KDE is superior with its defaults in almost every way to GNOME.

file browser:
KDE - Konqueror: good at web browsing, ftp, samba shares, desktop file system
GNOME - Nautilus: has emblems but it can't deal with ftp/samba without stalling or with terrible problems. It can't surf the web

KDE - kmail handles mail almost as well as sylpheed-claws and is integrated into KDE
GNOME - Evolution: has needed to evolve for years but still hasn't. takes for ....ever to deal with mailboxes of a few thousand emails. It is the slowest mail program I know of.

KDE - amarok: need I say more? Stable, a bit ram intensive but a quality music player
GNOME - Rhythmbox: needs improvement, this is a euphamism. I would say it stinks to high heaven and crashes on me almost everytime I use it, but I just did and its the truth.

I could go on but I don't think I should have to.

Why pretend like these GUIs are on the same level? They aren't. KDE has quality, integrated applications installed by default and GNOME has inferior applications that at best one can say needs improving. I think that it is unfair to even talk about these two GUIs as comparable as one is still far better designed, KDE, to another that hides behind a centimeter thick make up of "simplicity" but is really a GUI falling apart. I am flaming I know but KDE is really so far better, to me than GNOME, at this stage that I don't understand why people support GNOME over KDE.

I use a P4 1.7Ghz processor with 512mb of ram with a 5200GeForce Nvidia card. Both systems work about as fast on this minimal hardware specs.. Note if you do $top when you enter KDE it will read 0% for xorg this is not true for GNOME. Note that there seams to be a small memory leak in KDE but after using it for a couple of days I simply restart KDM and I am happy for what I get with it over GNOME any day. Funding, putting time into an inferior project is a waste of time at best.

[ComplexNumber]

KDE is superior with its defaults in almost every way to GNOME.
really? :shock:. i'll have to bear that in mind from now on then. hehe.

some rather strange logic you have there.

[yigal.weinstein]

ComplexNumber

No I believe my logic is good and as you have not shown me where my error lies I am more than happy to think of you as someone who uses GNOME but has not the slightest reason for using it over KDE. There is no truth but there are observations. KDE is more fully developed than GNOME. KWifi monitor may not look as nice as NetworkManager but it handles the configuration of wifi cards that NetManager does not.

Time and again this is the case. For bluetooth support KDE is superior and has been for the past 2 years. In more ways than this KDE is simply better equipped to help a working person. Adobe decided to use Qt libraries for acroread which is infintitely better than Evince the default pdf reader. Xpdf by the way is far superior to Evince in loading time and speed but is no match, at present for acroread.

KDE should really be funded more than it is. It has a lot of incredibly loyal users. The type of work that users have given back to KDE is far more than anything done in GNOME bar none. Consider KDE-look vs. GNOME-look as an example.

[ComplexNumber]

if would be much more simple to say where you are correct. i think you may find that kde is behind gnome in virtualy every department apart from kio slaves and kparts. oh, and kde has a better bluetooth stack. thats if you analyse the various components that both desktops share (or are due to share). and that last statement is the crux. just look at svg support, authur/cairo(wheres arthur in kde?), HIG, sound(arts = joke), beagle search, dbus, etc etc.
the way you've gone about your rant is that if its in kde, then it must be better. you ignore the different philosophies between the desktops. for example, more configurable does not equal better. another example, you assume that because konqueror can surf the web , then it must be betetr than nautilus. not true. nautilus is even faster than konqueror on every benchmark bar one (see the speed tests in linux format magazine about 5 months ago). have you ever wondered why dolphin is going to be the default in kde4? perhaps you see that as a step back. i see that as being a big step forward.
my own long experience with both desktops suggests that kde is also somewhat less stable than gnome (and has been ever since gtk2). konqueror, for one, is an absolute crash monster of a nightmare. strange as it may seem, hardware detection is also handled better in gnome (yes, i know, it depends upon the kernel. gnome just handles it better). and i'm certainly not the only one who's noticed this....by any stretch of the imagination.

[FuturePilot]

I've switched to Kubuntu on my laptop and I must say, I've found a new appreciation for KDE. It's not as bad as I thought. I'm actually liking it a lot. It's a nice change. The thing about KDE is that you can configure just about everything. And it's not really bloated like a lot of people say.

There is one thing though that I have and will always hate, at least until KDE 4.0. And that's Konqueror. That has got to be the worst file manager ever. I really don't like it at all. It's so in your face. When I open a folder, does it really need to take up like the whole screen? And there's just way too many buttons on this thing.

I do kind of miss the GTK themes. They have a much warmer welcoming look to them.

[PhatStreet]

There is one thing though that I have and will always hate, at least until KDE 4.0. And that's Konqueror. I definitely agree. KDE4 may be the switching point for me, heh. Is there any way a novice like me could install a test version of KDE4 just to get a general feel for the progress being made?

[yigal.weinstein]

if would be much more simple to say where you are correct. i think you may find that kde is behind gnome in virtualy every department apart from kio slaves and kparts.
What I am getting at is the integration of usable parts by default. In GNOME you can download Banshe, Sylpheed-claws or what ever else you want, the same is true for KDE, but out of box KDE is ready to go with applications that are high quality, while I would argue Gnome is not - except for perhaps epiphany web browser which is a real gem both faster and more intuitive than firefox.


oh, and kde has a better bluetooth stack. thats if you analyse the various components that both desktops share (or are due to share). and that last statement is the crux.
KDE shares the same bluetooth stack as GNOME. I am not arguing that the stack is better in KDE I am arguing that it is more usable in KDE. In KDE you can browse through a mobile phone's drive via bluetooth. Bluetooth is a regular commodity in KDE not like some exotic animal as it is in GNOME where almost nothing works exactly as it should.


just look at svg support, authur/cairo(wheres arthur in kde?),
cairo and the qt paint engine do the same thing. What about SVG? KDE was using this stuff in 04-05?


beagle search, dbus
What is wrong with Kerry for beagle? Another thing is that Beagle at this point is CPU intensive and for most purposes $locate and $find serve exactly the same uses but do it better.

D-bus are you serious. You think hardware handling can only be done with Dbus? I just installed Deb. testing on a computer. It is dbus that fails to detect a ps/2 mouse. Nothing special about the mouse, it just doesn't detect it. Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it for using it as the only indication of what hardware is installed?


, etc etc. the way you've gone about your rant is that if its in kde, then it must be better.
No but by default almost every equivalent application is better in KDE.


you ignore the different philosophies between the desktops. for example, more configurable does not equal better.
I never mentioned configurability in my previous posts as a reason to endorse KDE. I support KDE because it has applications that work out of box and keep working.



another example, you assume that because konqueror can surf the web , then it must be betetr than nautilus. not true.

No the fact that konqueror can surf the web is only sugar on top of the fact that konqueror handles samba shares, ftp, bluetooth and other files equally well and does all well. This is hardly true of Nautilus and has not been since I can remember 3 years.



have you ever wondered why dolphin is going to be the default in kde4? perhaps you see that as a step back. i see that as being a big step forward.
my long experience with desktops suggests that kde is also somewhat less stable than gnome. konqueror, for one, is an absolute crash monster of a nightmare.

You bring up a valid point here. I am a vim user as apposed to an emacs user. As such I am more comfortable with focused applications. I like konqueror for what it offers however. I am not sure if I will continue to use it when 4.0 is ready. What I do know is that the services Konqueror advertises it delivers. In important ways Nautilus doesn't. Nautilus has awful samba share browsing capability, and virtually no bluetooth support, although it can "send" files to bluetooth devices.

FTP :) ya right. In fact many people use Firefox with GNOME for their FTP needs, Filezilla, as there is nothing better in Nautilus and more importantly there is no default good application for this.

Epiphany is a very good web browser I will give you that but Konqueror is better at present for its KDE integration.

[BOBSONATOR]

KDE= Eww.

Show me one good screenshot.

[Sunnz]

KDE= Eww.

Show me one good screenshot.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

[ComplexNumber]

yigal.weinstein
a few point of correction:
-integration is not the holy grail
-you're wrong about kde using svg first. gnome was using svg before kde. also, kde (still) has no support for svg icons. you can read about it here (http://www.osnews.com/story.php/6460/SVG-and-its-Path-into-the-Linux-Desktop/page1/). svg support appeared in gnome in april 2000. it first appeared in kde in august 2001.
-bluetooth. not the stack. i meant the profiles.
-kde isn't using a cairo equivalent yet. until it does, all talk about has is meaningless and the same meaning as Microsoft talking about winFS about 5 years ago.
-dbus is more advanced than dcop. the only reason why dbus is similar is to keep compatability. i wonder why the kde devs are more than keen to switch over to dbus.
-kerry is as badly coded as that one that mandriva was working on(ie kat). i used that and it would go into an infinite loop. and kerry is merely a frontend for beagle. ask yourself, why did kde use beagle as being the backend instead of kat.
-i don't know where you get the ideas that "by default almost every equivalent application is better in KDE.". again, you're not taking into account the differences in the philosophies. by default, gnome intends to keep the desktop simple. however, when we compare the best applications in their field, we only have to look at cinelerra, inkscape, gaim(pidgin), gimp, kino, beast, etc, etc to see where most of the best are coming from.
-"I support KDE because it has applications that work out of box and keep working". that definitely needs a *cough*. where on earth are you getting your ideas from :shock:

ok. i've used gnome for about 2 years in total, and kde about 5 years. how many years experience in total have you had with gnome? just curious to see where you are coming from.

[yigal.weinstein]

If you are unwilling to deal with what I have said for what it is then I am unwilling to have further conversations here.

Integration is desirable but not the holly grail (excuse me made a mistake here had too many beers). I never said that SVG was used 1st by KDE only that KDE has supported SVG for many years. Here is a KDE SVG icon them from 05:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=8341


Look great GNOME subscribes to HIG but if the applications it installs by default break easily, and they do why install them at all. I am talking about 1. Evolution and 2. Rhythmbox primarily. These applications usually cannot be uninstalled on any GNOME desktop as they are part of what makes GNOME, GNOME. Yelp sucks as it takes 1/2 a minute to get help on any subject. The default help engine in KDE fires up quickly and is there to help. GNOME documentation is out of date. What do you want? What ever it is GNOME has it or most of what it is you are looking for but I don't understand why you want a GUI that is poorly documented that has by default programs that break without much provoking.

Kapote is better than Gaim but this is realistically debatable.

[Ateo]

This seems to be my trend. I've been using Linux for 10 years now and I flip flop between KDE and Gnome every couple of years. In fact, I just went back to Gnome this past weekend after my first Ubuntu install. Who knows, maybe after a while I'll hate it and go running back to KDE.... It's happened before... =P

but honestly, both are equally good, equally powerful. and every so often, one sucks more than the other.


Kapote is better than Gaim but this is realistically debatable.

Hmm. Even when I actively use KDE, I use GAIM. Kopete sucks. On every level. From connectivity to layout... Sorry bro.

[ComplexNumber]

Integration is desirable but not beneficial. I never said that SVG was used 1st by KDE only that KDE has supported SVG for many years. Here is a KDE SVG icon them from 05:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=8341look inside. guess what? not even 1 svg icon. just because it has "SVG" ion the name doesn't make it an SVG. all the kde icon themes have to be converted to png. i had every single icon theme from kde-look, and i have never met even 1 svg kde icon theme.

the point that cannot be contended is the fact that in most cases, gnome is at a more mature stage in its parts and as a whole. not only that, but most of the shared components appeared on gnome first. kde followed. that doesn't mean that gnome is better. it just means that they are different. they suit different people with different tastes.

kopette is yet another crash monster. its best feature is the test protocol.

[yigal.weinstein]

I made a mistake as you can see bellow my intended response you was,

Integration is desirable but not the holly grail (excuse me made a mistake here had too many beers).

I disagree with you strongly but there is nothing more to say. Have a good one.

[rsambuca]

Look great GNOME subscribes to HIG but if the applications it installs by default break easily, and they do why install them at all. I am talking about 1. Evolution and 2. Rhythmbox primarily. Do you mind if I ask what exactly is unstable with Evolution and Rhythmbox? I am probably not classified as a "heavy user" of these programs, but I have never experienced any problems.

[PatrickMay16]

Hey guys, let's waste our time having a long and stupid argument where we dissect each others huge posts into several different quotes, fighting over which 'desktop environment' is better than the other.

[darweth]

Look great GNOME subscribes to HIG but if the applications it installs by default break easily, and they do why install them at all. I am talking about 1. Evolution and 2. Rhythmbox primarily. These applications usually cannot be uninstalled on any GNOME desktop as they are part of what makes GNOME, GNOME.

Excuse me... I am running GNOME in Arch Linux and have never installed either Evolution or Rhythmbox and never would. :) I do not feel as if my GNOME is any less GNOME. I use Amarok and web-based e-mail. I also use KTorrent and K3b. I prefer my environment to be GNOME however. I care not about HIG.

[wxnker]

A poll like this in a forum of a Gnome based distro is worth nothing.

If you need to compare Gnome with KDE you should NOT compare Ubuntu and Kubuntu either. Ubuntu is a more mature/older project (the # issue 1 priority) and ahead of Kubuntu in development. Comparing the two does NOT show KDE's real potential.

My personal opinion:
Ubuntu is a great distro and the community is excellent. There's only one thing wrong with Ubuntu... to much Gnome! :mrgreen:
Personally I choose another Linux distro for daily use because Kubuntu is not quite there yet (Not as good, as pretty and easy to use as KDE can be). I hope it will be.

Besides, most Gnome apps are embarrassing to look at (and use) in the year 2007. I've seen win 95 apps look better. That's a fact. :-\"
KDE on the other hand has brilliant base apps: k3b, amarok, kontact, kaffeine etc. Using Gnome without KDE apps is a pain in the a**. Using KDE with no Gnome apps is no problem at all.

Linus encourages people to switch to KDE. I see why.. KDE is not complex at all. It's a modern system with great usability. Gnome is simplicity simplicity simplicity (at the cost of usability for many common tasks). KDE offers the true Linux alternative to Windows and Mac OS (and the additional expensive software) out of the box... Period. =P~

[Happy_Man]

I have nothing against KDE personally, except that i strongly dislike it. A couple of months ago, I went ahead and slapped kubuntu-desktop on here, and logged into a KDE session. I took one look at that (absolutely horrible) K button and logged straight back out again. Summoned up some courage, logged back in. What I found was:

1. Organization needs to be IMPROVED DRASTICALLY. Nothing made sense to me. At all.
2. The stuff you WANT to change, you can't find. (K button)
3. The basic look of it is sordid, with an attitude of, "Look at me, I'm the best!" Kind of the DE I'd expect a pimp to use.

In short, I didn't like it. I'd take GNOME any day.

[darweth]

Can people explain further when they say that Ubuntu focuses too much on GNOME and is not suited for judgement of KDE. What exactly is limited when it comes to the (K)ubuntu part of the Ubuntuverse? Do people expect some sort of polish?

I have NEVER used Kubuntu, but I have used Arch with VANILLA KDE and KDEmod. What is lacking in Kubuntu from the basic stuff? Why is it wrong to judge it for KDE?

On Arch, I use both VANILLA GNOME and VANILLA KDE and I feel that that is the best way to judge them. Sticking to the base and then testing them out. :) Any distro-specific stuff is the wrong way IMO.

BTW, I use both because I simply cannot decide which I like better. I generally prefer KDE apps FUNCTION-WISE except for Firefox and Gaim. I also think Konqueror is superior to Nautilus as a file manager. However, I believe that GNOME feels a little snappier and more responsive. I also think GTK apps LOOK better, but the quality function-wise is generally less than KDE. I am not a power user so I do not see KDE as being more advanced in that respect. Usability is about the same IMO, with perhaps GNOME getting a VERY VERY slight edge. This is just mainly due to GNOME's snappiness and sometimes KDE just acts a little quirky. For example --- ARK occasionally does weird things, particularly when used with Konqueror context menus, while FILE-ROLLER is always 100% perfection. GNOME just seems to have a little more polish and it would probably be superior in a corporate setting.

That said --- I have no problem using QT apps in GNOME and vice versa. I actually think GTK apps look beautiful in KDE with GTK-QT-ENGINE. A uniformed look is not important to me.

Anyway---despite all I said, I do use KDE more than GNOME as of the last week, but I probably slightly prefer GNOME. I am a man of inconsistency! You can see in my previous message a few posts up that I was a dedicated GNOME user but this thread and a friend inspired me to switch to KDE and it has impressed me.

[sicofante]

Thanks wxnker for waking me up. I haven't post in this thread for a long time and thought I'd never do it again, but your post is worth a reply :)


A poll like this in a forum of a Gnome based distro is worth nothing.
I agree, but then again my personal opinion is that distros should focus on the DE of their choice. I don't quite get why every distro has to serve everyone.


most Gnome apps are embarrassing to look at (and use) in the year 2007. I've seen win 95 apps look better. That's a fact. :-\"That's anything but a fact.


KDE on the other hand has brilliant base apps: k3b, amarok, kontact, kaffeine etc. Using Gnome without KDE apps is a pain in the a**. Using KDE with no Gnome apps is no problem at all.Most usability issues with KDE are found in those "brilliant" apps as well. I just refuse to read vertical text (for instance) and will never force any loved one or a customer into that.


Linus encourages people to switch to KDE.It's been shown in this very thread why this is irrelevant at best or a good reason not to use KDE at worst.


KDE offers the true Linux alternative to Windows and Mac OS (and the additional expensive software) out of the box... Period. =P~Having all the big names in Linuxland (Redhat, Novell or Canonical) thinking just the opposite might not impress you, but they are the ones putting real "periods" out there. Thanks God. \\:D/

[Kingsley]

It's disappointing that so many people base their opinion of KDE on some slapdash apt-get install kubuntu-desktop without making a fresh install from a Kubuntu disc. My first experience happened through the first way and it flawed my judgment of KDE for months. My first REAL experience of KDE was through a fedora core 6 install with only KDE installed as a windows manager. I didn't like FC6 but it gave me a real feel for how great KDE can be. Ever since then, I've been running Kubuntu.

Also, I don't understand how Kubuntu is lacking compared to other KDE-based distros. The support is great on Ubuntu Forums and I couldn't be happier with the package management. I've tried PCLinuxOS and Mepis but not much was different.

[Turin Turambar]

First of all, Gnome has changed drastically over the time. Remember when you couldn't do a copy/paste if you closed the source app? Or couldn't change the app menu? It's all gone, thankfully!

In those days I preferred KDE and SuSE. But KDE always looked similar to windows. The K button, the time numbers, the menu... everything was bloated and I got a feeling like I was in some modern design project, not in a real and trusty OS.

Then with newer Ubuntu versions I rediscovered gnome and never went to KDE again.

[jfca283]

on my Pc KDE has problems reading CDs and DVDs
K3b doesn't burn and is very slow
that's why i prefer gnome
visually i chose KDE, but it doesn't allow me working well with my PC

[Shroomer]

I use Gnome 99.99% of the time because KDE runs rather clunky on my system. But once I get my new computer built I'm going to be 99.99% KDE

[tscook]

Both are bloated. OpenBox plz thx.

[aysiu]

Both are bloated. OpenBox plz thx.
IceWM for me.

[snoop]

I like gnome and xfce.

[plb]

Every time I tried KDE in the past. I always had network connection problems with certain KDE apps such as konq and kmail. Never did figure out why and apparently many other people have this problem. Either way, I never did like the feel or look of KDE apps, can't really put my finger on why though.

[Extreme Coder]

My view on this is that:
QT > GTK
KDE Environment < GNOME Environment( but KDE environment can be heavily customized to look like GNOME or anything else.)
Main KDE Apps(digiKam,Kaffeine,Amarok,Konqueror) > Main GNOME Apps(F-Spot or gThumb,Totem,Rhythmbox,Nautilus)

So I prefer KDE but use GNOME because its simpler and I like its feel. But that will change with KDE 4 with it following a HIG and having sane defaults for the environment.

Extreme Coder

[Peter1234123]

Lol, I thought I was alone in thinking that GNOME is a piece of garbage, however Linus apparently backs me :P. I was reading through GNOME forum past-messages and found one that has Linus protesting GNOME, saying that it treats its users as idiots, not allowing them to use GUI administration tools.

[r4ik]

Good luck with Kubuntu hope you like it !

[Quillz]

GNOME will work well for some and not so well for others.

[Rutabega]

I personally prefer Gnome aesthetically and pragmatically. KDE I guess just isn't for me as I don't really like the interface. Linux is great in terms of the choice that the user has. And that is its greatest strength.

[bullgr]

i used KDE in the past but after i install ubuntu, i see that gnome look's better in my native language.
and i believe gnome is more simple on use...

[Arlanthir]

I used KDE too until Ubuntu, even though I didn't use it for long. Now I use Gnome and I like the way it feels/looks.

[deathbyswiftwind]

I feel stuck at where I am. I like gnome for its implicity. But then I like kde for its looks and some other options. Its kinda confusing

[galv]

I can't seem to use KDE it just feels wrong... but I love many KDE apps (K3B, Amarok, K9Copy ...)

[aysiu]

For those in a bind (like Gnome, like KDE apps/options), consider running Gnome with Kwin as the window manager (instead of Gnome's default window manager--Metacity).

Knome Guide: Stealing KDE's Eye Candy (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=115974)

[galv]

For those in a bind (like Gnome, like KDE apps/options), consider running Gnome with Kwin as the window manager (instead of Gnome's default window manager--Metacity).

Knome Guide: Stealing KDE's Eye Candy (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=115974)
I'll take a look at this ... thanks :)

[Jhongy]

I've never understood the deal with the KDE default sounds. Did they hire an aging pianist, enclose them in a muffled box, and pay them in proportion to the number of dischordant sounds they could make?

[EerFoolWVU]

I put Ulitmate Ubuntu 1.3 on here before upgrading to Feisty Fawn so I can actually use both but I have to say I greatly prefer KDE.

Which do you use and for which reason do you use it? Gnome seems a bit too much like WIndows to me and I like the way KDE is setup, plus it seems to run a bit faster.

[tbroderick]

There is already a huge gnome vs. kde thread.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=190994

[EerFoolWVU]

There is already a huge gnome vs. kde thread.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=190994


sorry, as you can see by my join date, i'm new to the community, didn't mean to **** anybody off

[jerrylamos]

Well, KDE's Konqujeror doesn't do AOL Mail so that's a non-starter for me. I load Firefox which does; but then Ubuntu and Xubuntu come with Firefox already.

On some systems I've used safe graphics mode. That's slowest on Kubuntu especially scroll mouse.

Sometimes I want to look at/change screen resolution. Simple to get to on Ubuntu's Gnome, more complex/more menus/not as intuitive to me on KDE.

My usual idea is Ubuntu Gnome is fine for applications which is what I do - internet, internet mail, Office, digital pictures, internet videos (those that Ubuntu will do), documents, spreadsheets, ...

KDE seems to me to concentrate on people who like lots of eye candy, window dressing, and perhaps (my view) more interested in the tool than the applications.

I don't do games which does affect my view....

Cheers, Jerry:)

[kerry_s]

none of the above

I use fluxbox

[rocknrolf77]

I use gnome almost all the time. When I don't use gnome I use E17, and for gaming I use icewm. It's just personal what you like the most. I'm keeping my eyes open for kde4 though. Tried the kde4 snapshot live-cd the other day , but it's to early in development for a real opinion though. Amarok 2 has a new interface, but it's still just a development prview though. I guess I'm just a gnome person. Tried to like kde a lot of times, but it just feels like bloatware to me. I prefer the simpleness of gnome. :)

[Pobega]

You forgot neither.

Window Maker :)

[fuscia]

of the two, i much prefer kde. i guess i just like kde apps better (if one is going to use an intergrated desktop).

[bks]

I much prefer Gnome over KDE. It has a much cleaner, sleeker look.

[bks]

Tried to like kde a lot of times, but it just feels like bloatware to me. I prefer the simpleness of gnome. :)


I agree 110%, you hit the nail on the head!

[illu45]

For the most part I use XFCE, because I like the lightweight feel of it, without (IMO) sacrificing looks or usability. Between Gnome and KDE, I prefer Gnome, because it always seemed slicker and generally more intuitive to me. KDE just seemed a bit... heavy.

[BLTicklemonster]

I use either icewm or fluxbox in gnome mostly. I do come back to gnome for things such as getting on our network here at the house, and stuff now and then, though.

[aysiu]

I've merged this into the megathread but kept the new poll.

The old poll is attached as a screenshot for posterity.

I'll use anything. My main thing is IceWM.

Though, with the advent of Feisty, I'm dabbling in Xfce again. It's pretty zippy.

[RAV TUX]

KDE or Gnome?

I use both but prefer neither:

I prefer the "Enlightenment 17" (aka e17) desktop environment, I most like KDE applications which I can use in the e17 desktop environment, Gnome or any other desktop environment.

After e17 I prefer the Fluxbox environment.


I am currently using Gnome, honestly probably my least favorite desktop environment....but still a great desktop. XFCE is nice but e17 is more feature rich and advanced.

[karellen]

I must confess I use both, even if I spend 80-90% of my time in gnome :)

[BLTicklemonster]

I put kubuntu desktop back on last night again for the heck of it.

Yeah, I'm a gnome man for sure.

[samjh]

I use Gnome, but I prefer KDE.

Why? Because Kubuntu lacks polish and is less stable than standard Ubuntu. Stability is important for me, and Ubuntu is my favourite distro, so there is choice but to use Gnome-Ubuntu.

I prefer KDE because I think its default UI is designed better, and its development environment is better than Gnome (strictly IMHO).

[cunawarit]

XFCE mostly, Fluxbox sometimes...

[Eddie Wilson]

I use both. I dual boot with Ubuntu 6.06.1 (Getting ready to install 7.04), and Mepis 6.5. I have the best of both worlds.:)
Eddie

[Rob Alderson]

I tried to like KDE really I did, but I just can't do it, it's Gnome all the way for me. Sorry KDE fans.:)

[beast2k]

Which desktop really depends on the distro. I have found that for example when using Fedora there is no point to using KDE because it isn't the same KDE that was released by the developers at KDE. I don't want to acuse anyone of anything but it seems that gnome has recieved the lions share of the delelopment attention in Fedora and the reverse is true with Mandriva and KDE it makes me think what was the desktop like before the distros add their bits ?

[dspari1]

This poll is the major reason why I encourage the Kubuntu devs to make KDE look similar to Gnome by default just as the Xubuntu devs did. I'm sure a lot more people would keep Kubuntu if they would try this.

As for people saying: "Yuk, it looks too much like Gnome!"
My reply: "At least it doesn't look like Windows"


Here is a screenshot of my desktop:

[aysiu]

This poll is the major reason why I encourage the Kubuntu devs to make KDE look similar to Gnome by default just as the Xubuntu devs did. I'm sure a lot more people would keep Kubuntu if they would try this.

As for people saying: "Yuk, it looks too much like Gnome!"
My reply: "At least it doesn't look like Windows"


Here is a screenshot of my desktop:
I thought that was my idea (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=421772&highlight=idea+kubuntu+one+panel) ;)

[dspari1]

I thought that was my idea (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=421772&highlight=idea+kubuntu+one+panel) ;)

Great minds think alike.

[LookTJ]

GNOME

SImple and has more gui support.

[Erunno]

GNOME

SImple and has more gui support.

Sorry, but what ?!

[Castar]

I thought that was my idea (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=421772&highlight=idea+kubuntu+one+panel) ;)


This poll is the major reason why I encourage the Kubuntu devs to make KDE look similar to Gnome by default just as the Xubuntu devs did. I'm sure a lot more people would keep Kubuntu if they would try this.

As for people saying: "Yuk, it looks too much like Gnome!"
My reply: "At least it doesn't look like Windows"


Here is a screenshot of my desktop:

You can go even further to get the closest-to-gnome experience ;)

At least in the blue version :)

[honeydew]

I have switched between many desktops enviorments and I find my self back on gnome more than any other. Maybe because it was my first. It allways seemed less resource consuming than KDE but more fitting to my needs unlike fluxbox or blackbox or xfce.

[deepclutch]

GNOME and GNOME only.Even if i die,dont want to have KDE on my system.KDE sucks!I hate trolltech and qt library.USE GNOME OR any other GUI like XFCE based on gtk2.never ever KDE!!KDE suxks!:mad: :mad:

[deepclutch]

I agree 110%, you hit the nail on the head!
^^^ DItto.same:popcorn:

[steven8]

GNOME and GNOME only.Even if i die,dont want to have KDE on my system.KDE sucks!I hate trolltech and qt library.USE GNOME OR any other GUI like XFCE based on gtk2.never ever KDE!!KDE suxks!:mad: :mad:

You don't care for KDE. . .do you.

[kuja]

GNOME and GNOME only.Even if i die,dont want to have KDE on my system.KDE sucks!I hate trolltech and qt library.USE GNOME OR any other GUI like XFCE based on gtk2.never ever KDE!!KDE suxks!:mad: :mad:

Bah Humbug!

[Eric Layne]

Do you use KDE or Gnome?
KDE
Gnome
Both

Neither. They are both slow, buggy and clunky.

[frup]

I don't like that some programs are only for gnome and some only for KDE. It's silly.

[BLTicklemonster]

Hmmm, I tried to install the latest version of k3b, and had to install just kde, which I did, of course the new k3b didn't work.

But I tried kde, and it's not half bad. I like it better than kubuntu.

But I still like gnome better than it, and icewm and fluxbox are my favorites.

[tehkain]

Hey guys I am a gnome user. I love gnome but I am bored and have no classes for a few months so I wanted to mess around with kde to just waist some time.

So my questions. How big is the kubuntu-desktop package? Size wise. Then, Is there an easy way to keep the kubuntu utilities out of my gnome account(bars and all)?

[BLTicklemonster]

It's not small. If you want something quick to set up, then have lots of fun configuring, try icewm, fluxbox, or openbox. You'll still be running in Gnome, but there's all kinds of fun stuff you can do.

[mills]

Hmmm, I tried to install the latest version of k3b, and had to install just kde, which I did, of course the new k3b didn't work.

But I tried kde, and it's not half bad. I like it better than kubuntu.

But I still like gnome better than it, and icewm and fluxbox are my favorites.

just goes to show how klueless iam, I thought kubuntu was kde :confused:

[aysiu]

So my questions. How big is the kubuntu-desktop package? Size wise. Then, Is there an easy way to keep the kubuntu utilities out of my gnome account(bars and all)? Just paste
sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude install kubuntu-desktop in the terminal. When you're asked if you want to proceed, say no. It'll tell you before then how much space the installation will take up.

There are also lighter versions of KDE you can install--kde-core, for example.

[aysiu]

just goes to show how klueless iam, I thought kubuntu was kde :confused: Kubuntu is the version of Ubuntu that uses KDE as its default desktop environment. Kubuntu's implementation of KDE is not the standard KDE set of packages. Read more about the different KDE packages here:
http://psychocats.net/ubuntu/kde-core#otherways

[deepclutch]

there are gazillion distros out there supporting Kde.its my bad that Ubuntu is now forked into different DE's esp kubuntu crap.huh i may be leaving Linux soon:( .read below:
GNOME is enough for a simple human being like ME.
those who wants more eyecandy=go take kde.
when GNOME will be killed by Kde fanboys and trolltech.I will leave linux and buy a Vista.afterwards I'll be the pioneer in bashing How Linux sucks with KDE.
that time will some one post here-may be that simple GNOME is good?it did the job nicely;yet we kde fanboys-GNOME bashers killed it.
Microsoft Here am coming.
Hello to All kde fanboys!
haan!XFCE will be the next victim for kde fanboys,next fluxbox,enlightenment and goes on.And the Linux users apps all have a "K" standing.God Knows ,Linus changing his name to Klinus and Linux to Klinux.

[GeneralZod]

there are gazillion distros out there supporting Kde.its my bad that Ubuntu is now forked into different DE's esp kubuntu crap.huh i may be leaving Linux soon:( .read below:
GNOME is enough for a simple human being like ME.
those who wants more eyecandy=go take kde.
when GNOME will be killed by Kde fanboys and trolltech.I will leave linux and buy a Vista.afterwards I'll be the pioneer in bashing How Linux sucks with KDE.
that time will some one post here-may be that simple GNOME is good?it did the job nicely;yet we kde fanboys-GNOME bashers killed it.
Microsoft Here am coming.
Hello to All kde fanboys!
haan!XFCE will be the next victim for kde fanboys,next fluxbox,enlightenment and goes on.And the Linux users apps all have a "K" standing.God Knows ,Linus changing his name to Klinus and Linux to Klinux.

Is this a joke?

[Castar]

I really hope it is, even though I don't find it funny.

[greymongrey]

I used Kubuntu 6.10 because nearly everyone said it was better for new converts from Windows like myself. For 7.04 I decided to try Gnome and I must say, it's far and away the better desktop for me. The main thing I disliked about KDE was it's general flakiness, for lack of a better word.

[Paulo79]

I have the same impression (and disappointment) here. I tried both Ubuntu and Kubuntu versions 6.10 and 7.04 and Ubuntu looks and feels a lot more polished than Kubuntu.

I've used Linux for almost ten years and do like KDE a lot better than Gnome (and I don't want to change anybody else's opinions about their favorite desktop environment), but I'm seriously considering installing Ubuntu for my girlfriend (yes, I do have one!). Of course, a mixing of Ubuntu and Kubuntu packages/default settings is best for most advanced users.

In my opinion and among other things, K3B is the best CD/DVD burner, Konqueror is the best file manager, and the button sizes in Gnome task bar are just weird. But Ubuntu feels better than Kubuntu as they are out-of-the-box.

For instance:

1) In ubuntu, you download a .deb using firefox and it will offer you to install it. Very strangely, firefox (or its MIME type / application) is not configured like this in Kubuntu!! I found that feature to be very useful for beginners using ubuntu since one can download and install, for example, automatix with a few mouse clicks without having to add repositories and gpg keys and stuff... (yes, I know Feisty offers other easy ways to install codecs, that's not the case here);

2) Adept sucks as compared to its equivalent in Ubuntu; update notifications are much nicer in Ubuntu. it even reminds you when you need to reboot because you've just upgraded your kernel (even though you may not know what a kernel is, but your sound or video card may work better after you reboot);

3) Ubuntu 6.10 already had the feature with which pressing the power button will let you choose among logoff, suspend, hibernate, lock. This has been just added to Kubuntu 7.04;

4) Finding all the preferences and configurations is a lot easier in Ubuntu. Kubuntu doesn't even show KControl on the menu by default.

5) when your password is required to perform a "sudo" (i.e. run something as root), Gnome simply asks your password and makes everything else on the screen darker. KDEsu should be renamed to KDEsucks!

6) [ add complains in previous posts to this thread and also your own complain here. I gotta go back to work... ]

This is very frustrating because "fixing" Kubuntu doesn't require a lot of (if any) development efforts. You just need someone with time and good sense to pick reasonable defaults for the configurations (i.e. polishing). Remember, the beginner/desktop user is the target. It is not a shame to borrow some good ideas/applications from Gnome/Ubuntu.

I have Kubuntu 6.10 in my laptop and would like to replace/upgrade it with Kubuntu 7.04. Still thinking about it.

Those were my 5 cents...

Best,

Paulo

[ThinkBuntu]

I use normal Ubuntu 7.04 with KDE installed as well. I use GNOME for more serious work, and KDE for things that require more creativity. I don't know why, but the KDE environment stimulates the artistic part of my mind better. So web design happens there, and even a little Ruby development (when you're just hammering away at code on a white screen, it's nice to have some eye candy laying about).

[gashcr]

I just don't feel comfortable with KDE... even the first time I used Linux... back then in 2000 using redhat at college, I always felt more comfortable with gnome... the look n' feel its pretty more natural for me

[reckless2k2]

I prefer KDE to GNOME but I've been using Ubuntu to Kubuntu for a few years now. I started with Kubuntu but Kubuntu was and still is buggy with KDE crashes and runs slower on any of my different machines than Ubuntu.

Overall, I experience more issues running Kubuntu versus Ubuntu so my choice just happens to be Ubuntu. Although, the "main" machine in the house used by my wife and kids runs Kubuntu. haha.

[b0ng0]

I used Kubuntu 6.10 until 7.04 came out then switched to Ubuntu to try out Gnome. I tried installing Kubuntu 7.04 but couldn't get wireless working so I have been pretty much forced to stick with Gnome, although I find it crashes less.

[use a name]

I voted kubuntu, but I'm trying gnome every now and then. But every time, I go back to kde asap... Can't help it. I really like some things in gnome, but I like kde a whole lot better. Probably because I haven't put enough effort in making gnome the DE I want it to be yet...

[john.f]

there are gazillion distros out there supporting Kde.its my bad that Ubuntu is now forked into different DE's esp kubuntu crap.huh i may be leaving Linux soon:( .read below:
GNOME is enough for a simple human being like ME.
those who wants more eyecandy=go take kde.
when GNOME will be killed by Kde fanboys and trolltech.I will leave linux and buy a Vista.afterwards I'll be the pioneer in bashing How Linux sucks with KDE.
that time will some one post here-may be that simple GNOME is good?it did the job nicely;yet we kde fanboys-GNOME bashers killed it.
Microsoft Here am coming.
Hello to All kde fanboys!
haan!XFCE will be the next victim for kde fanboys,next fluxbox,enlightenment and goes on.And the Linux users apps all have a "K" standing.God Knows ,Linus changing his name to Klinus and Linux to Klinux.


Wow. I feel welcome now. :)

You refer to a gazillion distros that support KDE, but how much impact do they have? The ones that have the most commercial impact (Red Hat, Novell, and Ubuntu) all default to Gnome. When SUSE was KDE-based, it gave users a choice, and helped maintain a balacne in the force. Now that Novell brought in the "monkey boys" to run the show, Gnome has a clean sweep. That definitely shifts the balance in the eyes of software makers.

Even though I'm new to the *buntu scene (recent convert from openSUSE), I haven't seen any announcements that Ubuntu is planning to drop Gnome anytime soon. So, if that's the case, why should you care? Use Gnome, and let everyone else use what they prefer, be it KDE, xfce, fluxbox, or one of the many other options out there. KDE users aren't out to destroy anyone. The Gnome vs. KDE war is old and needs to go away. Until I read your post, I was impressed at how well people get along in this forum and respect each others preferences.

I've tried to use gnome, and there always seems to be some issue that causes me not to make the switch. I know there are others who have had the same experience with KDE. I'm sure in the future I'll try it again, and if it suits my needs better I'll switch.

By the way, it's not just Linus that uses KDE. I read that Mark is using it as well. Maybe they are out to get you. :)

[Ganda_Melga]

Well, some people told me Linux is not for me. Maybe it isn't. But I really can't let go of it. I'm addicted to Xubuntu, I confess.

I've been searching the forum about WM (window managers). Would like to hear from other users: Wich Window Manager do you prefer, and why? It seems to me there are a lot of them.

I found one called "Mosquito" wich is supposed to be very light. Altough english readers may not know about, my nickname is portuguese and means roughly "Big Mosquito". Therefore I was intrigued by the Mosquito WM. The problem is a downloaded the files and can't seem to install them. It a compressed file (tar.gz, I think). How do I install this thing?

I've looked around at http://xwinman.org/ Many WM, so please, let's hear it from you. Wich is your favorite and why?

[bludhound]

GNOME for me - without a doubt. I love the simple yet flexible and work-oriented interface it offers.

Enlightenment DR17 looks really promising, but I don't usually use pre-released software.

[karellen]

gnome, kde, xfce - in this order :)

[SunnyRabbiera]

Gnome and windowmaker, enlightenment is good too

[sdide]

I prefer blackbox or openbox.

No extras no nothing, just a plain windowmanager. bbkeys give me full control of keyboard shorcuts, bbbutton gives me control of buttons in a panel.

Thats all i need.

[Ganda_Melga]

I prefer blackbox or openbox.

No extras no nothing, just a plain windowmanager. bbkeys give me full control of keyboard shorcuts, bbbutton gives me control of buttons in a panel.

Thats all i need.

Well, I did manage to install blackbox, but i get no menus, no icons, nothing! The only thing I can do is open a terminal and write commands. A bit limited, since I'm a complete nerd using Linux. Don't even know how to install the "Mosquito" or any other WM...




Ps. Screen resolution in blackbox is killing my eyes, and I don't even manage to change that one thing.

[AndyCooll]

GNOME. Simply because it's the one I'm familiar with. It was the first one I used when I began using Linux (with Fedora). After that I then moved to Ubuntu and of course it is the default WM with this too.

I've tried KDE, however I just cannot get used to it. I do however prefer some of the KDE apps to the GNOME equivalents (Amarok, K3B and Gwenview immediately spring to mind) and use them.

:cool:

[dada1958]

Gnome is a Desktop Environment, Metacity is the default window manager.

[Pobega]

WindowMaker is by far the best for what I use it for.

it is very minimalistic, easy to configure, lacks eye candy (Which distracts me from working), and all in all is very fast and responsive. apt-get install wmaker wmakerconf to install WindowMaker and it's configuration interface.

[sdide]

Well, I did manage to install blackbox, but i get no menus, no icons, nothing! The only thing I can do is open a terminal and write commands. A bit limited, since I'm a complete nerd using Linux. Don't even know how to install the "Mosquito" or any other WM...


Ps. Screen resolution in blackbox is killing my eyes, and I don't even manage to change that one thing.

Well,
fist off, the menus in blackbox is just textfiles, that you edit adhoc to your needs.
You can add anything you like to your menus.

second, if you are a linux nerd, you don't need anything else but the terminal. :)

third: The screen resolution can be changed in blackbox,

[Outrunner]

I like all the *boxes and also IceWM and Enlightenment 17

[Ganda_Melga]

Well,
fist off, the menus in blackbox is just textfiles, that you edit adhoc to your needs.
You can add anything you like to your menus.

second, if you are a linux nerd, you don't need anything else but the terminal. :)

third: The screen resolution can be changed in blackbox,


Well, I'm a nerd particulary using the terminal. :)

How do I chance the screen resolution in the terminal? Because there are no other menus...

[jarvis13]

Metacity.

[Ganda_Melga]

Can I install more than one? This machine is very old. Pentium 2 at 350 Mhz. The graphics board was a 2 Mega board, but now I replaced for a 32 mega

[sdide]

Well, I'm a nerd particulary using the terminal. :)

How do I chance the screen resolution in the terminal? Because there are no other menus...

You use xrandr

to list possible modes
~$ xrandr -q

to change mode
~$ xrandr -s <geometry>

[AndyCooll]

Gnome is a Desktop Environment, Metacity is the default window manager.

Yep, you're right! My mistake. Got carried away having read a few of the responses and didn't read the thread title properly! Doh!!
:(

[tbroderick]

There is only one WM, the rest are all crap.

DWM

[Ganda_Melga]

There is only one WM, the rest are all crap.

DWM


Why? Can you tell me of its advantages over the others?

[siralphred]

gnome and fluxbox

[Anthem]

I use GNOME, because I use Ubuntu.

I'm hoping for a well-polished Kubuntu w/ KDE4 this year, and if/when that happens I'll probably switch back.

[thisllub]

E17

Fast, looks good and works better with dual monitors than gnome or kde.

Gnome annoys me. It feels like Windows 3.1

[jrusso2]

I started using the KDE beta back in 97 or 98.. Stuck with it ever since.

[juxtaposed]

The one that Xfce uses...

[Ganda_Melga]

The one that Xfce uses...


I have Xubuntu installed; therefore I already have XFCE. Gnome and KDE are too heavy for this machine.

I was asking about Window Managers. WM.


Anyway, thanks for your reply. :popcorn:

[tbroderick]

Why? Can you tell me of its advantages over the others?

http://www.suckless.org/wiki/dwm

[Sunflower1970]

My favorite is Gnome. I like the look and the feel of it.

But, I've begun playing around with a whole bunch more to see what's out there. At the moment, I'm using Xubuntu on my oldest machine. I like that it looks like Gnome, and almost acts like it....but there are still some things I'm not too fond of such as how to configure the panels. Gnome does it better. But, I love Thunar in Xubuntu. Much better than Nautilus IMHO. I don't need or want anything fancy in a file manager, just something where I can find my files. That's all. :)

I've also been playing around with Openbox, Blackbox, Fluxbox, FVWM, FVWM-Crystal, E17, and IceWM. Out of those, I really like IceWM. It's very easy to configure. I find I have just too much darned fun tinkering around in it. Next is E17. Takes a bit of getting used to, and a bit of configuring, It's great for older machines to give them some eye candy. Recently, though E17 on my machine has been very buggy. Right after a few of the updates I did. My applications menu is empty, and the dock on the bottom no longer allows me to choose my programs. :( I've tried uninstalling it and removing all the configuration files, and reinstall, yet it's always the same thing. Will have to play with it a bit more to see what's going on.

Fvwm is okay, but I like its companion Fvwm-crystal. It just looks and feels cool. Love how fast it is opening up programs here and there.

I'm getting used to Fluxbox. I use it with Rox-Filer so I can have icons on my desktop, and a background switcher. Openbox and Blackbox are similar. At times, I like how sparse they are, and how quick everything opens. Kind of fun to use the terminal for just about everything. It was very unnerving at first, especially with Openbox. I thought I had done something wrong because I had nothing but a blank screen. Took a moment or two to realize if I clicked the mous, my menu would come up.

[Ganda_Melga]

My favorite is Gnome. I like the look and the feel of it.

But, I've begun playing around with a whole bunch more to see what's out there. At the moment, I'm using Xubuntu on my oldest machine. I like that it looks like Gnome, and almost acts like it....but there are still some things I'm not too fond of such as how to configure the panels. Gnome does it better. But, I love Thunar in Xubuntu. Much better than Nautilus IMHO. I don't need or want anything fancy in a file manager, just something where I can find my files. That's all. :)

I've also been playing around with Openbox, Blackbox, Fluxbox, FVWM, FVWM-Crystal, E17, and IceWM. Out of those, I really like IceWM. It's very easy to configure. I find I have just too much darned fun tinkering around in it. Next is E17. Takes a bit of getting used to, and a bit of configuring, It's great for older machines to give them some eye candy. Recently, though E17 on my machine has been very buggy. Right after a few of the updates I did. My applications menu is empty, and the dock on the bottom no longer allows me to choose my programs. :( I've tried uninstalling it and removing all the configuration files, and reinstall, yet it's always the same thing. Will have to play with it a bit more to see what's going on.

Fvwm is okay, but I like its companion Fvwm-crystal. It just looks and feels cool. Love how fast it is opening up programs here and there.

I'm getting used to Fluxbox. I use it with Rox-Filer so I can have icons on my desktop, and a background switcher. Openbox and Blackbox are similar. At times, I like how sparse they are, and how quick everything opens. Kind of fun to use the terminal for just about everything. It was very unnerving at first, especially with Openbox. I thought I had done something wrong because I had nothing but a blank screen. Took a moment or two to realize if I clicked the mous, my menu would come up.


Wow! You tried quite a few! I must say, at this point, I'm thinking between IceWM, WindowMaker and Fvwm-crystal. I saw a few pictures of Fvwm-crystal and it looks very very nice.

One kind user already showed me how to install Window Maker. To install any other I supose i only have to use the same command and replace the name of the manager, right?

[thisllub]

dwm has no multihead support. It is not designed to work well with Xinerama setups: it is designed to work well with high-resolution notebook setups and wide-screen setups instead - the default window arrangement algorithm seems mutually exclusive of multihead or Xinerama setups.

It is of no value to me then.

[tbroderick]

It is of no value to me then.

I like using only one monitor. Don't have the space for more then one, nor do I need more then one monitor.

[ronocdh]

I personally have stuck with Gnome; all the times I try KDE it just looks hideous. I don't like how it mirrors the MS Windows desktop paradigms. (Yes, I realize I've gotten myself in trouble by saying that.)

I'd really like to try out Fluxbox. Is there a simple aptitude command I can run from the command line to give it a whirl? I'm more familiar with changing DEs than WMs....

[jviscosi]

Fluxbox. Fast, has the Slit for dockapps, and the user is more or less in complete control of what runs and when.

[Iceni]

I use gnome on my main machine, and kde on my laptop. I really like both. Also have E17 and xfce for trying out:)

[tbroderick]

Gnome, Kde, and Xfce are not window managers. Please stop saying that as an answer. Metacity, kwin, and xfwm4 are acceptable answers. Thank you.

[jpkotta]

FVWM (http://www.fvwm.org). If you want to do it, you can probably do it in FVWM without hacking source code. My favorite hack is to bind an "alt-Tab"-like action to the mouse wheel on the screen edges. I can flip through windows by scrolling the wheel on the edges of the screen (see: Fitt's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitt's_law)). I recently got a dual head setup at work, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that my config handled Xinerama quite well (I basically only changed a few geometry settings in my config).

Start with Fvwm-Crystal or Fvwm-Themes, and tweak it to suit your needs. Or try to do it from scratch and see what you can do. It's fun.

Also, Knuth (http://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm@lists.math.uh.edu/msg11445.html) uses it. That confirms that it's good <wink>.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FVWM-Crystal
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FVWM

[heathen]

fluxbox... i get distrac... OOOO Shiney!!!!


im sorry, what were we talking about?

[grte]

It is of no value to me then.

If you like the idea behind dwm but want a few more features, you can try wmii. dwm is basically a stripped down version of that.

The original sentiment is ridiculous of course. dwm is okay, but as far as tiling/framing window managers go, ratpoison is superior.

I like openbox best, though.

[rhonaldmoses]

Howdy,

My personal choice of desktops varies from distributions. Though I am a KDE adict, I can't stand Kubuntu or any other distros' KDE. I prefer openSuSE 10.2 (their forked KDE is amazing and more organized).

When it comes to GNOME, though I am not a die hard fan, Ubuntu is my choice. They give clean, neat, uncluttered window manager.

Adios.

[urukrama]

Openbox. It takes a while getting used to it, but once you are at home in Openbox, it really aids productivity. Simple, elegant, fast, stable, customisable. Find the right theme, and all looks nice too.

[racoq]

Gnome, Kde, and Xfce are not window managers. Please stop saying that as an answer. Metacity, kwin, and xfwm4 are acceptable answers. Thank you.


i agree. Stop confusing things. As i know its possible for instance using enlightnement and ICEWM on gnome, kde or xfce. Please dn't confuse the users in this thread or Ganda_Melga.


Just a question, is there any guide to configure Xfce with the ICEWM window manager?

[kaede]

i just stick with ubuntu default. Metacity i guess. since im really new with this.