GNOME vs. KDE: the Latest Round

jammag writes "The debate about whether KDE or GNOME is the better Linux desktop is longstanding. Yet as Linux pundit Bruce Byfield discusses, it has entered a fresh chapter now that both desktop environments have versions that are radically different from their incarnations just a few years back. Moreover, 'the differences in KDE 4.6 and GNOME 3 (the latest releases) are greater than they have ever been,' he writes. Casting aside his usual diplomacy, Byfield acknowledges that he's heard rave reviews about GNOME 3, but disagrees: 'I suspect that the majority of users are more likely to be satisfied with KDE 4.6 than GNOME 3.'"

Comments

And your point is????

[cptdondo]

The whole idea of linux is choice. I run xfce4; once in a fit of stupidy I suggested my wife log in using KDE as it was closer to Windows and not as sparse as XFCE. Bad idea.... Turns out some people (4 for 4 in my family) prefer the sparseness of XFCE to any complicated desktop. I know this will bring forth an avalanche of "What about Ratpoison, Windowmaker, etc, etc, etc?"

Exactly. Run what you like and let the pundits amuse themselves.

Re:And your point is????

[slackergod]

I think his underlying point was that many of us users do (or will) miss the old choices.

I used to prefer KDE 3. Then KDE4 came along and replaced it; and the new design just made too many fixed assumptions about things I wanted to configure, and constantly threw in my face things I didn't want to *have* to configure. I never really cared about the stability / completness issue of the early 4.x series - I respect it took a while to refactor all that code. Still, with the fundamental interface changes they made, even today, I just don't want to use KDE4.

So I migrated to Gnome 2. I liked it ok. It's not as configurable, but I could get it close enough to how I like to do things. But instead of polishing it, and fleshing out the details, Gnome seems obsessed with removing features unless 80% of the users are using it (and everyone has some feature that's in that 20% category, so it slowly annoys the whole userbase). But it's at least currently usuable for me.

Now Gnome3 comes along. I appreciate everyone's trying to improve the desktop metaphor. But personally, I'm a spacial person - I remember where my virtual desktops are relative to eachother, what windows I put where, it maps nicely to an actual desktop you just can see only a part of. Gnome3's workspaces break that spacial mapping for me, and make it much harder to use.

And then there's XFCE. I like XFCE, it's been hanging on for a long time. But I'd like a little more integration and polish than it offers (I respect the fact that they're trying to be minimal. They've done a great job, given their goals).

But all that comes down to the fact that, for me and others: linux may be choice, but I feel like my choices are being taken away, as when Gnome2 goes away to bitrot, there won't be a desktop that I consider usuable. And forking and picking up the codebase of one of these environments is just way too big a task for individual coders - the only way it'll happen is if one of the projects has a schism, and they all seem way too in agreement for that to happen.

It feels like we're heading towards 15 years ago, when all the desktop environments were either incomplete, or different for different's sake.

Gnome is the MS of the OOS Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been in both communities, I characterize the Gnome community as very MS-like in these more modern times.

While working at MS, I saw a lot of the same "Not invented here" crap that I see in the gnome community on a daily basis. I also saw the same political maneuvering, the same tribal fears, and in general the same of what is in my own personal opinion a great lack of regard for others over their own projects/groups/goals.

I see the KDE group as entirely different. They work as a team, have the same common goals (in general) and let good ideas thrive even if it violates somebodies pet project or personal goal.

Posting AC an not mentioning the company by name for obvious legal reasons, but consider your here I figure your smart enough to get what I'm trying to say.

oh noes

[MikeyO]

We better figure this one quick, seeing as how this is going to be the the year of the Linux desktop...

Workstation Linux

[Sir_Kurt]

I run an architecture firm entirely on Linux. All our workstations have two reasonably big screens and use Gnome. I have used Gnome since its earliest inception in various flavers of Redhat, Fedora and Ubuntu.

I have to say that as much as I don't want to, we are going to have to change to Xfce or some other alternative. Gnome shell is a disaster for the way we work. I can't believe that the developers and UI designers have completely failed to take into account those of us that are actually using our workstations to do heavy duty computational, graphic and design work.

We have spent the last 20 years moving to ever larger and multiple screens because we need the real estate. Now we are supposed to work as if we were using a cell phone? What a joke.

The developers need a good whack will a clue stick. As does Redhat. The least they could do is have a fall back to the Gnome 2 series.

  We don't want to be the subject of an experimentet about how we "should be working."

This is serious business to us and has a big effect on our bottom line.

Kurt

Re:Workstation Linux

[diegocg]

100% agree. IMO, gnome shell wouldn't be that bad if it was configurable, but users aren't allowed to configure anything. My feed reader has a systray icon with a number that tells me the number of unread posts. With a traditional desktop the systray icon is always visible and I know if I have unread posts, but gnome-shell decided that the systray must be an extra lower panel that hides automatically. The upper panel has a lot of unused space 100% of the time, and the systray could be put there, but configuring things is not allowed in the default configuration. Even the accesibility icon can't be removed.

Now I understand why Linus called them "interface nazis". Gnome shell makes OS X look like a OS for geeks.

He's being overly polite...

[GooberToo]

Byfield acknowledges that he's heard rave reviews about GNOME 3, but disagrees: 'I suspect that the majority of users are more likely to be satisfied with KDE 4.6 than GNOME 3.'"

I've actively sought out reviews and have yet to read a single positive review of Gnome 3. Not one. In fact, they are as universally bad as they are universally duplicates of each other. They all seem to very quickly identify and cite the same core problems with Gnome 3's usability, the specific and seemingly broken process which yielded Gnome 3, but also touch on Gnome's process failures and general lack of specification and healthy process.

I'm personally excited to see what all the brouhaha is about with Gnome 3 (hell, can always revert to Gnome 2 or KDE), and I say that as a current Gnome 2 user, but frankly, based on a wide number of reviews, I have exceptionally low expectations of Gnome 3.

Seriously, if you know of some good, unbiased Gnome 3 reviews, please post them here. Thus far, I've never read a single one.

Re:He's being overly polite...

[Yiliar]

I have been looking at Gnome 3 on Fedora for a few weeks now.

I have made a concerted effort to 'use' it instead of just berate it. Learn the keystrokes, re-learn desktops up and down instead of right or left, etc.

Here are the things that I just cannot seem to come to grips with, yet:

1. Lack of configuration choices.

A. I hate tools bars! If they are really necessary, PLEASE allow me to hide it/them.

B. I had to use gconf-edit to set focus on mouse instead of click to focus. Ridiculous!

C. Adding an extra click to launch an application is NOT intuitive. Its like START/REALLY START?

D. Automatically compressing desktop spaces when the last application in that space closes is very frustrating. Start 20 or so apps in various desktops and get everything just how you like them. Then add an extension to Firefox and you need to restart it. And watch your carefully laid out desktops contract. :( Now you get to start Firefox in the bottom desktop instead of desktop two, where it belongs! What are you supposed to do, start all 20 apps again and get them all the way you want, every time you need to restart Firefox or Thunderbird? REALLY?

E. It is obvious and understandable that GNOME 3 is getting a lot of development right now. But it is VERY frustrating to users when significant changes are made to the GNOME configuration data bases and config files. You may carefully set up back ground and theme choices to have your entire desktop fail to load because of an incompatibility with an updated GNOME preference. Lets please settle on configuration choices before final release, pretty please?

2. Assumptions -- you know what they say about assumptions ...

A. All users may really not want the exact same things showing on the top tool bar. On a smart phone we have limited space, but even there users have choices. On GNOME # desktops everyone has a long, boring, and almost empty tool bar. (and it won't hise! Oh wait, I already said that) Why?

B. You cannot, and MUST not assume that all users will read a howto web site, or take a class on Gnome 3 before trying to shut down their personal system. That is the only way to learn how to do it properly. (Hold the ATL key down while in your personal menu to see Logout change to Shutdown, and press Shutdown to see Reboot ...) Sad ... Other things like running and app from the desktop/window manager, need training before it can even be guessed at. (ALT F2) Just a bit arbitrary, don't you think? "Hey we need to allow a command input somehow. Lets just stick it on ALT F2, that's not used yet is it?"

3. New features, or features that have not been done before or better

... Maybe I just don't get it.

Close, but no banana

[Angst Badger]

'I suspect that the majority of users are more likely to be satisfied with KDE 4.6 than GNOME 3.'

I'm certain that the majority of users are likely to wish developers would stop fucking with the interface they're already comfortable and familiar with and find something more useful to do with their time.

Re:Gnome/KDE division discourages developers

[_Sprocket_]

Around ten years ago, I was interested in building some GUI apps for Linux, but there was no clear path as to which of the two GUI APIs I should learn. I found the lack of a clear path to be enough of a discouragement that I ended up losing interest. I doubt that I'm the only one who has felt that way about it.

You're doing it wrong. Go with whatever API / toolkit you prefer. I'll use your software if its good even if it isn't 100% with my desktop environment of choice. In fact, I'm more likely to continue using your excellent software no matter how much taste might change and motivate me to move to a different environment.

I understand that this seems strange to someone from a different environment. But this is Linux. The chaos is a feature.

Re:Gnome 3 vs KDE 4 vs reality

[jadrian]

You can install Gnome & KDE apps side-by-side and they just work.

This is not the case, you probably missed the slashdot story on the drama between GNOME and Canonical. In particular see Aaron Seigo's rant on how GNOME ignored "status notifiers", a cross desktop specification submitted to Freedesktop.org and with an existing implementation by Canonical.