What is the diffenence between Gnome KDE and XFCE?

[general.rule]

I am a user of Windows wishing to switch to Linux but I am confused as there are a lot of distribution and in addition to that there are three versions of Linux, Gnome KDE and XFCE. Would someone here guide me as to what is the difference between these three versions and which one is used by the majority? Also which version is full, complete and the fastest as well as most user friendly? Please recommend me which Linux distro I should choose and which version? I have heard a lot about Ubuntu since some time and I have found here that its a very large friendly community willing to help people. I am confused and need your assistance. Thanks:)

[PartisanEntity]

They all differ in the desktop environment they use, Ubunt uses GNOME, Kubuntu uses KDE and Xubuntu uses XFCE.

Out of these three, XFCE is the lightest and most minimalist, suitable for older or low end computers. GNOME is my favourite, it is not that light but also simple. KDE is quite flashy.

Otherwise they are all the same operating system.

[epimer]

The concept of different desktop environments can be confusing when migrating from Windows (I speak from experience there!). The important thing to remember is that they all overlay the same operating system - it's not quite as simple as a cosmetic choice, but it might help to think of it in those terms to begin with.

If you're moving to Ubuntu, I would suggest doing just that - so you would be using GNOME. I say this because a lot of the resources, tutorials, How Tos etc. will make the assumption that you're using the default desktop environment, so it might save you some headaches.

Once you're comfortable, though, it's worth experimenting with the other desktop environments, to see if they suit your personal preferences better. You can install alternative desktop environments very easily once you're up and running.

[samjh]

KDE uses QT as its base library. It emphasises configurability, so that the user has options to configure almost every aspect of the graphical interface and some of the underlying operating system settings. The use of the QT library and its derived KDE libraries also provide extremely powerful frameworks for developing applications in C++ in QT's Gnu Public License (GPL), and KDE's Lesser Gnu Public License (LGPL).

Gnome uses GTK and various Gnome-specific libraries. It emphasises simplicity, and the provision of "sensible defaults", while sacrificing some configurability. Although Gnome can be very configurable, the user needs to rely more on scripting files, rather than being able to change settings using a graphical interface. From a developer's point of view, Gnome and GTK uses C, and has some problems with relatively poor documentation, but wider availability of language bindings other than C and the more liberal LGPL.

XFCE uses GTK, but is programmed using C++. It emphasises minimalism, again by comprising on configurability. That emphasis makes XFCE small and fast, suitable for older or conservative computer hardware. For developers, XFCE focuses on C++, but is built on the GTK widget set as its base. It is relatively well documented, but less than QT, and boasts less features.

[igknighted]

KDE uses QT as its base library. It emphasises configurability, so that the user has options to configure almost every aspect of the graphical interface and some of the underlying operating system settings. The use of the QT library and its derived KDE libraries also provide extremely powerful frameworks for developing applications in C++ in QT's Gnu Public License (GPL), and KDE's Lesser Gnu Public License (LGPL).

Gnome uses GTK and various Gnome-specific libraries. It emphasises simplicity, and the provision of "sensible defaults", while sacrificing some configurability. Although Gnome can be very configurable, the user needs to rely more on scripting files, rather than being able to change settings using a graphical interface. From a developer's point of view, Gnome and GTK uses C, and has some problems with relatively poor documentation, but wider availability of language bindings other than C and the more liberal LGPL.

XFCE uses GTK, but is programmed using C++. It emphasises minimalism, again by comprising on configurability. That emphasis makes XFCE small and fast, suitable for older or conservative computer hardware. For developers, XFCE focuses on C++, but is built on the GTK widget set as its base. It is relatively well documented, but less than QT, and boasts less features.

I think more importantly than "configurability", KDE emphasizes collaboration between applications. Kate/Krite can be used as plugins in konqueror for viewing text files. Konsole can be pulled into the Kate window. Kaffeine can be used to play media clips in other applications. KDE values reusable code. If there is a working text editor or media player, why not just use it as part of whatever new app I am writing. Gnome does not have this integration. Gnome's focus is on a clear, consistant UI.

Personally, I find gnome's "clean" user interface to be boring and very 90's looking. KDE's is indeed a bit cluttered at times, but in the end is prefferable to me. I also value the tight integration that KDE has, and that is my #1 reason for using it.

[mostwanted]

KDE uses QT as its base library. It emphasises configurability, so that the user has options to configure almost every aspect of the graphical interface and some of the underlying operating system settings. The use of the QT library and its derived KDE libraries also provide extremely powerful frameworks for developing applications in C++ in QT's Gnu Public License (GPL), and KDE's Lesser Gnu Public License (LGPL).

Gnome uses GTK and various Gnome-specific libraries. It emphasises simplicity, and the provision of "sensible defaults", while sacrificing some configurability. Although Gnome can be very configurable, the user needs to rely more on scripting files, rather than being able to change settings using a graphical interface. From a developer's point of view, Gnome and GTK uses C, and has some problems with relatively poor documentation, but wider availability of language bindings other than C and the more liberal LGPL.

XFCE uses GTK, but is programmed using C++. It emphasises minimalism, again by comprising on configurability. That emphasis makes XFCE small and fast, suitable for older or conservative computer hardware. For developers, XFCE focuses on C++, but is built on the GTK widget set as its base. It is relatively well documented, but less than QT, and boasts less features.

Great unbiased basic descriptions. This should be quoted in every Gnome vs. KDE thread from now on.

[fuscia]

nice post, samjh.

to the op...you should probably go with the defaults of whichever linux distro you choose. if you're really new to linux, you won't know enough to take advantage of a particular desktop environment. ubuntu is pretty idiot friendly and so are the ubuntu forums. i didn't know a damn thing the day i installed and i had a bunch of people talking me through it.

[nowshining]

it only seems like about a 16mb download - I might try it meself. :) I think KDE was over 200mbs and seems like too big a download. Maybe i'll also look up screenshots first - to the OP - if ur completely new to linux/ubuntu then use gnome for a bit and get used to it before you want to change a lot of things around.

[LaRoza]

To the OP, there are many more DE and WM (Desktop Environments and Window Managers), but when you first start out, take time to learn before switching. I use Fluxbox, which you might want to try in the future after you are comfortable with Linux.

[nowshining]

exactly what LaRoza said.

[LaRoza]

exactly what LaRoza said.

You use Fluxbox also?

[nowshining]

"To the OP, there are many more DE and WM (Desktop Environments and Window Managers), but when you first start out, take time to learn before switching." and "which you might want to try in the future after you are comfortable with Linux."

was what I was referring to, I use Gnome - I may switch tho. :) altho I do seem happy with gnome - i'd really like one that looked like litestep for windows tho. :)

[SunnyRabbiera]

For the beginner KDE might be a bit easier to understand then Gnome due to its windows like behavior.
But really gnome isnt really hard either, its just some minor adjustments to get used to.

[happysmileman]

I tend to think of GNOME as much better for beginners, and KDE is better for a user who wants to be able to customise everything, or program since QT seems a lot easier than GTK.

So to the OP: Try regular Ubuntu first, not only is GNOME provided with sensible defaults, it's just simpler because most Ubuntu tutorials and all are written for people using GNOME, when you get to the stage where you no longer think you need the tutorials try KDE (it's no harder to use, just harder to get help with on these forums).

Then use which you think is best (maybe even try out some more DE's when you consider yourself good enough)

[Onyros]

To the OP, there are many more DE and WM (Desktop Environments and Window Managers), but when you first start out, take time to learn before switching. I use Fluxbox, which you might want to try in the future after you are comfortable with Linux.Another big YAY for Fluxbox.

It's perfect in its simplicity (and the tabs+auto-tabs are THE killer features for Fluxbox). And it can look really good, too. :)

[igknighted]

For the beginner KDE might be a bit easier to understand then Gnome due to its windows like behavior.
But really gnome isnt really hard either, its just some minor adjustments to get used to.

How so? Gnome uses double click while KDE is single click (gnome's being more windows-like, of course). If you mean the single panel as opposed to two, thats a really really trivial matter. The positions is (a) easy to drag around to put where you like, just like windows, and also (b) position is much more trivial than how the thing behaves.

I will grant that KDE is more windows-esque in that in KDE you have to click OK for settings to be enabled, while in Gnome they take place immediately. In the end, however, both are roughly equal in how "windows-like" they are, but to say KDE is more so simply because of the single panel layout that Ubuntu uses as default is foolish.

[mivo]

How so? Gnome uses double click while KDE is single click (gnome's being more windows-like, of course).

Plus, it can be changed easily. It's just one radio button away in System Settings -> Keyboard & Mouse -> Mouse -> Double-click to open files and folders. :)

[multifaceted]

My advice to you as a relatively new user myself, is to:

Burn a few live CD's and see how they all operate. Any of us can tell you which DE would be better for you as a beginner but, the truth is, only YOU know what works for YOU

That is the lexicon of Linux.... or the "Linuxicon"

Every user is different and has said preferences and computing knowledge. The best way is to do it is just what you are doing now. Research. Try out and see which will work best for you and what you use your computer for.

Kudos to you for asking before diving in!

[curuxz]

How so? Gnome uses double click while KDE is single click (gnome's being more windows-like, of course). If you mean the single panel as opposed to two, thats a really really trivial matter. The positions is (a) easy to drag around to put where you like, just like windows, and also (b) position is much more trivial than how the thing behaves.

I will grant that KDE is more windows-esque in that in KDE you have to click OK for settings to be enabled, while in Gnome they take place immediately. In the end, however, both are roughly equal in how "windows-like" they are, but to say KDE is more so simply because of the single panel layout that Ubuntu uses as default is foolish.

The whole single, double click thing is wrong, your talking about defaults. One of the cool things KDE does is when a new user logs in for the first time they have the chance to put it into 'windows mode' where its all double click and the same UI behavours as windows.


Personaly I think the interface should be standardised between KDE and Gnome, it would not take much to get the default KDE install with the same layout as gnome and then at least we would have consistancy, and a rather special default looking KDE :)