Slashdot Mirror
From GNOME to KDE and Back Again
Slashdot's own Roblimo has an interesting introspective on what makes us so prone to liking one window manager over another. More than likely it's just the inherent laziness of most users that precludes change. "I used KDE as my primary desktop from 1996 through 2006, when I installed the GNOME version of Ubuntu and found that I liked it better than the KDE desktop I'd faced every morning for so many years. Last January, I got a new Dell Latitude D630 laptop and decided to install Kubuntu on it, but within a few weeks, I went back to GNOME. Does this mean GNOME is now a better desktop than KDE, or just that I have become so accustomed to GNOME that it's hard for me to give it up?"
Choices! I find myself alternating every so often, but really prefer KDE (v4 is looking good).
Neither.
It just means you prefer GNOME to KDE. That's all. Saying something is more superior because you prefer it over everything else (without any other grounds) is something the Slashdot crowd should recognize from a mile away: fanboism.
Personally, I prefer Fluxbox. Does that make Fluxbox superior? No, it just means that as a minimalist user, a more trimmed window manager does the trick for me.
I remember a article here about how the brain tricks the body into thinking a tool is part of the body.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/01/29/2241257.shtml
I think it's just a more advance form of that. This won't go over well with the Linux Proselytizers, with regards to Linux/Windows. Makes ya feel for those stuck in bad OSes.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Most decisions of this sort are driven by laziness. We end up using the system/interface/whatever that allows us to get the most done with the least effort. Sometimes the multitude of options available in the default KDE setup allows a person to get to an application faster. Sometimes the uncluttered default GNOME setup gives you the feel of a more lightweight window manager without sacrificing most of the creature comforts. In either case, laziness is the underlying driver for our decision-making. It's the underlying driver for most software decisions.
In fact, it's one of the reasons software was invented: So I can sit on my ass all day getting paid to turn my day-dreams into reality.
In the article, the author describes several uses he had when using Kubuntu. I have had similar issues, but all is reduced to the fact that Kubuntu is a hack "KDE-patched" version of Ubuntu. When you use Kubuntu after using Ubuntu you can "feel" that it seems as they just threw the kde libraries and desktop into the Ubuntu distro. There are a lot of integrity issues. Particularly I have also had the wireless network issue, while it is working flawlessly in Ubuntu, Kubuntu is a complete mess.
But that does not mean that KDE is better or worst than Gnome, if you use a KDE-oriented desktop (such as SUSE or Mandriva) which have KDE preconfigured out of the box, the experience will be different...
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I think you are making a false dichotomy here, and that at least a third option should be considered: Kubuntu might not be the best KDE desktop around. Bear in mind that Ubuntu was initially Gnome-only, and that to this day that's the desktop that gets most of Canonical's resources. Kubuntu doesn't get nowhere near the same level of attention, and that shows. Kubuntu mostly lacks polishing, ie, the "little things" that end up making a substantial impact on the user's experience. Moreover, there have been in the past a number of serious, potential data-loss bugs in Kubuntu that festered for *months* because there was just not the manpower to fix them. That is substantial evidence that Kubuntu is a second-class citizen for Canonical.
While I find KDE overall a superior desktop to Gnome, I have to agree that Ubuntu is generally a better desktop experience than Kubuntu. However, I just wish people would stop equating Gnome==Ubuntu and KDE==Kubuntu, and therefore Gnome > KDE.
Have a squat over at the hobo house.
Says the guy who's got a sig that mocks Mac users.
Is there a KDE user out there who doesn't change every single panel and menu around first thing? My impression has always been that the KDE devs don't care much about defaults because 1) That should be left to the distros and 2) The user is going to change it all around anyway. Criticizing the default UI for KDE is dumb. You're not supposed to use it.
This is the polar opposite of the Gnome policy of assuming the user is too stupid to know how they work best.
KDE3 is cluttered because it's unorganized, not because it has features similar to Windows.
I'm not saying this is you in particular, but people spend far too much time trying to NOT be like Windows instead of just trying to do things well.
All this article really manages to do is to explain that different applications are different. Linux users should already know that, but strangely many of them seem not to, so I guess there's a place for an article like this. (For example, the thing about Blowfish, gedit and Kate being different text editors that suit different people.) I'm a KDE user now. It took me a long time to get accustomed to KDE. I tried many different desktops at a quite regular basis but ended up going back to GNOME. The reason then was because it is so plain and un-cluttered. This was important because I had primarily used Windows before and everything from the architecture of the OS to the applications were unfamiliar to me. The problem is that as I became more and more accustomed to Linux I also wanted more from it. And KDE simply has much more to offer. Take for example the menu you get when you right click on the title bar of a window. Most desktops/WMs give you some very basic options. KDE alone gives you advanced options and the possibility to always apply certain rules for a window. Of course this might scare you off if all you wanted to do was to Close or Minimize the window, but still there can be no argument about how powerful KDE is. I don't think KDE is nonsensical in any way (above post). All the KDE applications have a similar structure in the File menu; something I hope other desktops will copy. Everything is well structured, take for example the Configure Shortcuts option that almost every KDE application has. It is the most neatly integrated desktop that I've seen. The argument about default looks in distros and desktops is valid, but scary. I don't like KDE's default look or behaviour, but the point is that I can easily change it. This is true for GNOME and other Linux WMs aswell. If people do not want to use this power, then maybe the problem lies with them and not the desktop. You can't expect anybody to give you a perfect default look since we all like different things. The best you can ask for is tolerable defaults and easy configuration, which KDE does have. It is true as the article claims that we dislike change (because it means we have to learn new ways to do things that we need to do). I think this will be less of a problem for KDE in the future, since many KDE 4 applications are being ported to other Windows. Perhaps in the future people that are already accustomed to using Konqueror or Amarok under Windows will find the transition to the powerful but cluttered KDE much easier than a transition to GNOME. Finally further down in the thread some people express that there is no point in discussing what we like/dislike about this kind of software. Which is weird because computer interfaces will play an increasingly important role in the lives of millions of people for the next few decades. Of course we need to have this discussion.
(I'm sorry for the post above, it was supposed to be divided into paragraphs. I'm posting it again since it's pretty much impossible to read my last post.)
All this article really manages to do is to explain that different applications are different. Linux users should already know that, but strangely many of them seem not to, so I guess there's a place for an article like this. (For example, the thing about Blowfish, gedit and Kate being different text editors that suit different people.)
I'm a KDE user now. It took me a long time to get accustomed to KDE. I tried many different desktops at a quite regular basis but ended up going back to GNOME. The reason then was because it is so plain and un-cluttered. This was important because I had primarily used Windows before and everything from the architecture of the OS to the applications were unfamiliar to me. The problem is that as I became more and more accustomed to Linux I also wanted more from it.
And KDE simply has much more to offer. Take for example the menu you get when you right click on the title bar of a window. Most desktops/WMs give you some very basic options. KDE alone gives you advanced options and the possibility to always apply certain rules for a window. Of course this might scare you off if all you wanted to do was to Close or Minimize the window, but still there can be no argument about how powerful KDE is.
I don't think KDE is nonsensical in any way (above post). All the KDE applications have a similar structure in the File menu; something I hope other desktops will copy. Everything is well structured, take for example the Configure Shortcuts option that almost every KDE application has. It is the most neatly integrated desktop that I've seen.
The argument about default looks in distros and desktops is valid, but scary. I don't like KDE's default look or behaviour, but the point is that I can easily change it. This is true for GNOME and other Linux WMs aswell. If people do not want to use this power, then maybe the problem lies with them and not the desktop. You can't expect anybody to give you a perfect default look since we all like different things. The best you can ask for is tolerable defaults and easy configuration, which KDE does have.
It is true as the article claims that we dislike change (because it means we have to learn new ways to do things that we need to do). I think this will be less of a problem for KDE in the future, since many KDE 4 applications are being ported to other Windows. Perhaps in the future people that are already accustomed to using Konqueror or Amarok under Windows will find the transition to the powerful but cluttered KDE much easier than a transition to GNOME.
Finally further down in the thread some people express that there is no point in discussing what we like/dislike about this kind of software. Which is weird because computer interfaces will play an increasingly important role in the lives of millions of people for the next few decades. Of course we need to have this discussion.