GNOME versus KDE

[Tsboncompte]

Hello to all

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

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

[Tsboncompte]

Hello to all

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

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

[Adrian]

Hello to all

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

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

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

Here are some screenshots:
http://opensourceversus.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0
Keep in mind that this is the default look. Both can be customized to look like the other one.

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

[m.musashi]

I was curious too and installed the kubuntu-desktop

sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

I've been playing around and there doesn't seem to be much difference except in the way it looks. At least that is all I can notice. Perhaps there is some behind the scenes stuff and maybe one or the other is better at something but to be honest I think they are two sides of the same coin.

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

[aysiu]

My experience:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/kdevsgnome

[rfruth]

I tried them both (KDE & GDE) and ended up liking Gnome, but try them both cause thats the only way to find out

[super]

i like gnome better. my reasons have no technically solid foundations, i just happen to like gnome better.

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

[rfruth]

I tried them both (KDE & GDE) and ended up liking Gnome, but try them both cause thats the only way to find out ...

[Adrian]

Also, these rather old threads might be of interest to you:

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

[ComplexNumber]

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


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