Reasons you use Gnome over KDE

ebrostig · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 12:11 am Post subject:

Lol!

The clock configuration has only 2 tabs..

You can either configure a program from the control center or from within the program. It is the same menu.

One of the things that has been used against KDE and for Gnome is the multitude of configuration options. Some say that gnome is more configurable than KDE. I guess this is not the case anymore then?

I personally like KDE and XFCE4. I like KDE because it is very streamlined and makes my day more efficient. I like XFCE4 because it is slick and fast, but I mostly run it on my test machine.

Each to his or hers own

Erik
_________________
'Yes, Firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'

X · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 12:14 am Post subject:

I've used kde on occasion, and it's really nice. It has tons of apps for small things like ppp and fax that are somewhat overlooked in gnome. It's also very integrated...

Despite all that, I always switch back to gnome because I like the feel of it better. It's probably just because I started using gnome first. I also use a lot of gtk apps (Mozilla, gimp, Gaim, epiphany, sylpheed-claws, gnome-terminal, etc) and gnome seems to interface with them a bit better, plus I don't have to load qt and gtk.

I also like the gnome panel a whole lot more than kicker (I think that's the kde panel..). I'll be interested in a new KDE panel, slicker, I've heard a bit about somewhere.

mmealman · Guru Joined: 02 Nov 2002 Posts: 348 Location: Florida

The thing between KDE and GNOME is that I think KDE tends to have a much busier interface:

Konqerer:
[img:4da6aa9e2a]http://loki.bisginc.com/~mmealman/konq.png[/img:4da6aa9e2a]

Epiphany:
[img:4da6aa9e2a]http://loki.bisginc.com/~mmealman/epiph.png[/img:4da6aa9e2a]

Some people will look at KDE and go "uhn, gaudy". Others will look at GNOME and go "boring, Zzzzz".

RedBeard0531 · Guru Joined: 21 Sep 2002 Posts: 415 Location: maryland

chemaja · n00b Joined: 14 Jul 2003 Posts: 12

Aaaah the GNOME/KDE saga.... actually I'm glad they both exist: competition/choice is good. In my three years or so of using Linux-based operating systems, I, like many others, have not been able to make up my mind as to which I prefer.

I *want* GNOME to be my preferred desktop, but it's not. Here's why:

(1) Nautilus: I can't stand it. It doesn't feel "natural". I like to be able to easily use the keyboard to naviagate my filesystem. Where is the list of keyboard shortcuts, or the keyboard shortcut tips? I like to be able to right-drag files onto a target and get a context-menu of action options. I like the file tree being displayed by default. I like a whole bunch of functions at my disposal. Nautilus doesn't give me that. Maybe some these features are there, but if I can't figure out 80% of a GUI-based filemanager in 10 mins, there's something wrong.

(2) Open/Save dialog: Yes, I know its about to be upgraded, and I know there is tab-completion support in the current dialog, but the features I crave are not there *now*. KDE does it in style.

(3) Over-simplification: Not really a flaw. Simplicity is a cornerstone of GNOME's design philosophy, and that's cool. Just not for me.

I want KDE *not* to be my preferred desktop. Here's why:

Licencing: AFAIK, a developer can't develop a free KDE app, then decide to sell it. They have to decide the project's licence type at the outset. Quite inconvenient. However, I don't mind the fact that if a developer wants to develop a KDE app, they have to pay Trolltech a fee. If the developer is going to make money off their app, then they can give a bit back and help make Qt even better. I'm basing my facts here on what I've been told by an (apparently) knowledgeable friend of mine. If I'm wrong, please shoot me down and post a correction. Cbf'ed looking it up. :mrgreen:

Sex appeal: IMHO, GNOME just *looks* better than KDE, regardless of theming (although those KDE Plastik theme screenshots look awesome. It makes KDE look like GNOME -- something I've always wanted. Definately gonna try it out! :wink:

). Note, I'm not tallking about "advanced eye candy" (transparency, etc.), which I believe, KDE does better. Just the basic "look" of the desktop.

Geez. I didn't really mean to type that much. First time I've ever posted my thoughts on the whole KDE/GNOME thing. Ever. So I had to vent... :wink:

slarti` · Retired Dev Joined: 20 Sep 2003 Posts: 376 Location: UK

Well my experience goes something like this:

Knoppix + first taste of Linux and KDE
Full install of mandrake, enjoyed KDE
switched to GNOME to see what it was like
Switched to fluxbox with some really ugly settings

<--- break from linux --->

messing around with debian. KDE.
Installed Gentoo. Was using KDE 3.1.4 till quite recently.
Unmerged KDE/Qt off my system. Now a GNOME purist ;P

I think KDE is EXTREMELY well integrated and 'complete' and it is very functional, as well as great for beginners.

However, I think GNOME is, on the whole, better looking. I MUCH prefer gdesklets to karamba as well. I also think that commonly, GTK2 apps are a little better designed in terms of functionality, and interface, than Qt ones.

Evolution or KMail?
Gaim or Kopete?
Firebird or Konqi?
Rhythmbox or erm... Noatun?
Abiword or KWord?
etc..

GNOME interfaces definately follow the KISS principal mentioned earlier in this thread. And I love it, and I think it is more useable because of that. GNOME needs KDE's polish, which I think it is a long way to acheiving. The new versions of GTK look absolutely top, and GTK applications are maturing nicely.
_________________
Gentoo/AMD64, shell-tools, net-mail, vim, recruiters
IRC: slarti @ irc.freenode.net
Devspace

RedBeard0531 · Guru Joined: 21 Sep 2002 Posts: 415 Location: maryland

slarti` · Retired Dev Joined: 20 Sep 2003 Posts: 376 Location: UK

Well, some apps Qt apps, particularly KMail, have such stunningly poorly designed UIs IMO.

Gnome apps are simple, fast, pretty, clean, and do exactly what they say on the tin. That's how I like it

For everything else there's aterm

_________________
Gentoo/AMD64, shell-tools, net-mail, vim, recruiters
IRC: slarti @ irc.freenode.net
Devspace

Athas · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:45 pm Post subject:

Gnome doesn't really need any advanced options, thats why there aren't any. KDE can control your whole system, true, but I dont really need my desktop to do that, xterm was written for a reason, u'know

I prefer Gnome for its slick, clean look and its well written customizability (as opposed to settings-hell in KDE

).
_________________
Emacs-optimized danish console keymap - My .emacs
Climacs - next generation Emacs.

duff · Guru Joined: 19 Jun 2002 Posts: 466 Location: Clemson, SC

Well, I can't say anything bad about GNOME.. seeing one of my officemates computer with Ximian/Gnome/Crux was the reason I switched to linux almost 2 years ago. But since last July I've been a dedicated Fluxboxer. I saw KDE on a friends comp with Mandrake about 3 or 4 years and it left such a bad impression of me I've never felt compelled to try it. And seeing some recent screenshots hasn't changed my opinion of it. Again, I've never used it, just saw it.
However, I have been liking what I've seen with Gnome 2.4..mostly in how Evolution has been changing on me. So right now I'm building a light Gnome2.4 and give it another shot. Does Gnome support desktop switching via the mouse wheel yet? That may the one feature that will turn me or not.

X · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:36 pm Post subject:

A lot of gnome's extra functionality has to be enabled using gconf-editor or a similar tool. For example, to change F1 to launch an arbitrary application, you have to edit /apps/metacity/keybinding_commands and the corresponding global_keybindings--there's no gui thing in the preferences that I have found.

I think It's a good method. Keep the interface simple, but allow for more advanced configuration without confusing gui clutter.

Verteron · Apprentice Joined: 23 Jul 2003 Posts: 189

Mr.Gone · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:59 pm Post subject: KDE over Gnome, and nagging guilt

I recently switched to KDE over GNOME.

For some reason, GNOME seems more.. ..open? Friendly? Less restrictive? I'm not sure what it is exactly, but Gnome seems like a desktop that, if it worked a bit more smoothly, could by far beat out KDE.

But:

After trying the newest KDE ebuild, I have, for the first time since I first started using linux five to six years ago, felt like I was in a cohesive, user-friendly, solid desktop system. I keep running into little features where I think, on impulse, "Oh! How nice!" ..rather than running into "Oh, I've got to go do this, then configure that, and.. ah! There we go. Just like I want it."

However, for whatever reason, there is a nagging guilt at using KDE. I feel like I'm going into a doomed relationship with KDE just because it's seducing me, rather than sticking with GNOME which I actually love, and will probably go running back to in the end.
_________________
Sadness.

slarti` · Retired Dev Joined: 20 Sep 2003 Posts: 376 Location: UK

RedBeard0531 · Guru Joined: 21 Sep 2002 Posts: 415 Location: maryland

LJ · Apprentice Joined: 27 Dec 2002 Posts: 156

I've switched from KDE when gnome 2.4 was released. It seems faster than older version (my primary complaint) and the themes look a lot more solid. KDE is just a bit more flakey.

Ari Rahikkala · Guru Joined: 02 Oct 2002 Posts: 370 Location: Finland

Once KDE 3.2 is released, I'll see if I can burn some anime onto CD-Rs again to make space, and then install it like I've installed most new releases of KDE, GNOME and XFCE lately. And if everything goes like before, I'll be impressed, but also will have to restrain myself to be able to use it for longer than ten minutes. Then I will return to a hacked evilwm, lots of reverse-video xterms and Mozilla Firebird again anyway.

What's my opinion about KDE? I hate those endless rows of useless icons, drawn with plenty of bright yellows and cyans. The default colour scheme is revolting. Most applications have rather poorly thought out interfaces. Technologically it's unbelievable, its development is faster than anything I've ever seen in any other graphical desktop environment. KDE users seem to be able to take the tricks you can do with kioslaves for granted. Oh, and KDE's configurability borders the unprecendented.

What's my opinion about GNOME? It's a beautiful, simple, business-like environment. I'm not quite used to the almost complete absence of "Apply" buttons and, more generally, I don't really like the way (*) the dialogs for changing settings are designed in GNOME. Architectural changes such as GStreamer are hailed as great improvements in GNOME where it seems they would be almost trivial, everyday stuff in KDE. There are many applications that are written in GTK+ and come more or less from the GNOME world, enough that you could call them GNOME apps, that are simply... killer. Mystilleef put it better than I could. I switched from cplay to rhythmbox even though it seems to be rather buggy at least with the GStreamer back-end simply because... OK, I know, it's an iTunes clone but still, the interface is Just Right for me. Much better than xmms, anyway.

(*) If I wasn't aware that people would kick me for it, I would use the word "paradigm" here
_________________
<laurentius> gentoo linux?
<ari> Yesh.
<laurentius> they look horny

Verteron · Apprentice Joined: 23 Jul 2003 Posts: 189

Toth · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 23 Feb 2003 Posts: 133

I notice alot of people saying that GNOME is faster for them yet I've always found KDE/QT to be much more responsive. For example, clicking on a menu in a GTK2 program often lags for just a fraction of a second, but there is no such lag in QT apps. I do have an older laptop though...maybe GTK runs better than QT on modern CPUs.

Edit: I don't know exactly what the QT license is like but $1500 is not unreasonable for developing a commercial application. Ideally, if you're developing a commercial application you intend to make money off of it (and hopefully more than $1500).

Verteron · Apprentice Joined: 23 Jul 2003 Posts: 189

petrjanda · Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 12:31 am Post subject:

Can anyone who runs KDE 3.2 alpha post screenshots of Konqueror? Id like to see how much the thing changed.
Thanx

Retriever II · Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:46 am Post subject:

It sort of amuses me how many of you tie GTK/QT applications so strictly to their respective desktops (Gnome/KDE).

Well, I don't know anything about running QT applications in Gnome, but I'm running KDE, and I run plenty of GTK apps without a second thought. I use Mozilla over Konqueror, I use Gaim, I use Gimp.

Software has almost no bearing on my decision to use KDE, the desktop just feels better to me. Granted, QT apps are a bonus because they interface well, and I'm sure Gimp would look nicer in Gnome than it does right now. I put the Crux theme on Gaim so it matches ok, and Mozilla has it's own little system for theming (Since I used Mozilla in Windows, it seemed logical to use Mozilla over Konquerer).

slarti` · Retired Dev Joined: 20 Sep 2003 Posts: 376 Location: UK

Mozilla isn't actually GTK at all unless you compile it with the gtk2 USE flags. It (and all it's spinoffs) look 100x better using GTK2 though.
_________________
Gentoo/AMD64, shell-tools, net-mail, vim, recruiters
IRC: slarti @ irc.freenode.net
Devspace

gkmac · Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 1:17 pm Post subject: