Has GNOME Become LAME?

auferstehung writes "Nicholas Petreley (should that be KNicholas KPetreley) of LinuxWorld and VarLinux.org has taken his gloves off in the latest article in his KDE vs Gnome series. An unabashed KDE supporter, Petreley uses some choice fighting words in re-acronymizing GNOME as the Language Agnostic Morphable Environment (LAME) Franken-GUI. Despite the sensationalistic flamage throughout the article, several of his GNOME criticisms (Gconf, file selector, features) echo those already voiced within the GNOME community itself. A happy GNOME user myself, please someone...tell me it isn't so."

Comments

Gnome's very problem

[Krapangor]

is that it uses an linear object/message distribution sheme versus the highly nonlinear sheme used in KDE.

The Gnome developer say that the linear sheme is easier to analyze and therefore bottlenecks and instabilities can be easier discovered. This is indeed true. But on the other hand the growth of of linear systems is exponentially limited and the realignment rates to new configurations is very slow. That's a basic fact from systems theory. You can even prove that a continuous, linear system can only asymptotically realigned, but the discrete configuration space for Gnome gives convergence in finite time.
KDE uses a much more complicated nonlinear systems. While these system don't contain stable trajectories, it's nevertheless possible to get realignment by analysis of the system with chaos theory. Additionally nonlinear systems have supexponential growth, in fact any configuration can met in the fixed controll-access time eta_0. This explains KDE capability to react much faster at high load peaks. And you get even better stability than Gnome.

I don't think that Gnome will get very far unless the change the object/messaging system dramatically. Well, even Microsoft has learned that lesson.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnome sucks and Linux is not as stable as preachers claim. I run linux. And with Gnome I can consistently reproduce crashing the system --the entire system. I can't do it under KDE.

For example: On one computer that I have, I install Linux Mandrake (CD#1 only --typical). Then I start a session with Gnome, without making any modifications (no name for computer by default). Gnome complains that I don't have a name for my computer and that this might cause problems. I open Netscape Communicator and attempt to "Edit Preferences". The entire system hangs. From Netscape to Gnome to Linux, the whole thing is gone.

Now the fact that Gnome crashes is one thing...fine, Gnome sucks, move on. But the thing that concerns me is that Linux was toast as a whole! I couldn't break out of the locked session.

Whether or not this is a Gnome specific problem, the fact remains, Linux was compromised at the hands of Gnome.

I cannot say that I can reproduce a blue screen on NT, nor a hangup. On my NT box at work I've never had a blue screen or a hang and it's been running since the millenium (mandatory shutdown for y2k). My other computer at home (more complex installation) might have had one blue screen this year --so few that I can't even remember.

So where is the stability advantage with Linux?

Re:Why do some many prefer Gnome then ?

[deaddrunk]

These 'drooling morons' have, however, figured out fairly trivial things such as regular bathing and social skills which seem to beyond some of the geniuses here.