Ask Slashdot: Why Aren't You Running KDE?
First time accepted submitter mike_toscano writes "At least some of us have recently seen Linus' most recent comments on his experience with Gnome 3 — he didn't have many nice things to say about it and as you know, he's not the only one. On the other hand, there have been some great reviews and comparisons of KDE with the other options (like this one) lately. Sure, early releases of 4.x were painful but the desktop today is fully-functional and polished. So the question: To those who run *nix desktops and are frustrated by the latest Gnome variants, why aren't you running KDE? To clarify, I'm not asking which desktop is better. I'm really talking to the people who have already decided they don't like the new Gnome & Unity but aren't using KDE. If you don't like KDE or Gnome, why not?"
You can’t completely break something for a long time and expect people to jump right back when you fix it. I, like many others, had to go elsewhere when kde3 became impractical to keep running and kde4 was completely broken. What I have now works great, and more importantly, kde4 doesn’t have any killer features that appeal to me that I don’t already have in my openbox/xfce4 setup.
All I really want is good multi-monitor handling (including separate panels for each monitor) and the expected standards for managing windows. KDE 3 provided that with minimal fuss KDE 4 initially didn’t. My openbox+xfce4 setup provides it with a little work and minus all the eye candy I disabled anyway.
People will gradually migrate back. I might give kde4 a try the next time I build a machine... but for now, I’m happy with my setup and have no reason to switch back.
Why Aren't You Running KDE?
Because Xfce (personal use) and no windowing or graphical interface at all (work servers) completely satisfies all my needs?
I use Xubuntu at home on two desktops and a netbook and have yet to encounter the inability to do anything while at the same time requiring very little of my time to maintain it. I'm sorry if this sounds like a plug for Xfce, it's not. I'm simply responding by asking a counter question: what exactly am I missing if I use these machines for web surfing, e-mail and lots of hobby development? I'm forced to maintain a Windows 7 x64 partition for Diablo III, netflix and some other crappy windows stuff I can't shake so maybe I'm unaware that with KDE we can now satisfy some of those things?
Can someone tell me what Linux Jesus means when he says:
Simply because my old F14 comes with ancient X versions that don't contain all the fixes to make intel 3D really work well. And yes, things really do work better on the graphical side.
Intel 3D? Does he have a 3D monitor? Are these more than just novelties now?
My work here is dung.
Thank you, good day.
much further down in the thread Linus says, "And for all the people wasting everybodys time with "Why don't you use Unity/KDE/xfce/xyz" - I've tried them. They are even worse, and equally importantly they aren't the normal window manager. I'm really not that odd." - There is a lot more in the comment and if I could figure it out I'd link directly to it - but if there is a way to do it, I couldn't figure it out. Scrolling through this thread made me think there is room for lots of improvement in g+
As for me - I do run KDE and love it. I have for years and stuck with it even through the switch to 4, which was a touch frustrating at times but not nearly as horrible as so many made it out to be - in my opinion.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Because I am Enlightened
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Running KDE and I personally have no issues with it :) does what i need when i need to and it isn't slow as most think it might be.
http://chimpbox.us
Actually I'm running KDE for the last year, since I noticed that Alt+Tab works substantially faster and it generally feels faster than the new versions of Ubuntu with Unity/Gnome 3.
I use KDE 3.5.11 courtesy of the trinity project. I never liked gnome and I despise KDE 4.x.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The early series 4 KDE were appalling, and thin includes upto 4.4.
4.8 is good, you should all come back to the light side.
I was using kde 3.x - migrated to gnome. Hated unity. I tried mate, cinnamon, lxde, xfce and then thought I'd given kde 4.8 a try.
It's much improved from 4.0!
Because I don't need the bloaty mess of KDE or Gnome?
Configuration? The gui tools seem to change every 5 weeks anyway, so I wind up learning which text files to edit eventually anyway.
Buttons and widgets? Tmux and pentadactyl status bars are enough visual output, for input I already have buttons...they're on my keyboard.
Menus? I have a command line, or dmenu, or just add keyboard shortcuts to dwm for common functions.
One gripe with dwm is that most browsers when combined with certain webpages (mostly flash, i'm looking at you, youtube) seem to fail to figure out how wide their tile is.
I completely gave up on GNOME back in the 2.x range as I saw features get continually moved, removed, or just made harder to configure. I loved KDE3 and tolerated KDE4 between crashes (now, thankfully, gone in newer versions) until I realized that as KDE versions got newer and newer, they also got slower and slower on my, admittedly aging, hardware. I've since switched to XFCE and haven't looked back. Much.
For me, Linux or BSD is about performance. If I wanted an integrated desktop experience with bells and whistles, frankly I'd stick with Windows XP or maybe go for XFCE.
Personally, I use Openbox. It's fast as hell and exceptionally customisable. I've ran it on machines ranging from modernish laptops to a creaking old 233MHz Thinkpad 600 and I cannot fault it. For me there is nothing missing that cannot be added (i combine mine with LXpanel and PCManFM).
Openbox doesn't get in the way or chew up system resources, and IMO that is the whole point of a window manager. I'm glad KDE exists, but it simply doesn't interest me.
KDE would be more usable for us developers if the KDELibs crew would (re)implement the basic --geometry command line feature. Removed in KDE 4, available everywhere else. It has been listed as a bug since the release of KDE 4.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165355
Please vote for this and maybe the KDE developers will take notice.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
There's no KDE for Windows 7.
You mean like this:
http://windows.kde.org/
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Because I've been using RiscOS on X for awhile and see no reason to change. It's not "gnome" (though it uses gtk). It's interactively very fast even on slow hardware. It's functionally very fast; apply all sorts of filters, selections, and commands to the current window, or bring up a shell in the window's cwd by typing "x". It's an augmentation of the terminal, not a UI for casual users. It's extremely screen-space efficient, since I can do everything and keep all the menubars and toolbars off, and the icons small. It offers a nice direct-manipulation-oriented interface (i.e., comprehensive DND).
Even if KDE offers all of this, it would have to offer quite a bit more in addition to make it worth switching.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I used it for a short time. Couldn't get over how poorly designed the start menu is. All I really want is (1) the ability to start programs and (2) the ability to switch between said programs. KDE does (2) well, but (1) sucks. Maybe this has been fixed by now, but GNOME's ctrl+space+"fi"+enter is significantly faster than KDE's click+click+click+click+...
I had been waiting some time for a comment section completely devoid of any technical argument.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
because with KDE 4 they change the fundamental design philosophy of the project. I didn't want easy of use, I wanted control, which I why I originally left GNOME for KDE before that.
Now with GNOME making the same design choices, I'm left with MATE, which is just a fork of the the GNOME I want to use, but it's still lacking right now.
I understand that they want the interface to be easy for anyone to approach, but what about those of us who want to do more than just browse the web and share pictures of the grandkids?
I'm loosing all the features of the Linux Desktop that I left Windows for in the first place. *sigh
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
We're a Linux shop with around 400 desktops and have been running KDE for a decade. KDE3 was rock solid. KDE4, not so much. The KDE4 direction of "let's index everything" with nepomuk and akonadi doesn't work so well when home directories are NFS mounted. In fact, it killed our fileserver. Further, why on earth would I want 400 instances of mysql_community_server running and creating a 128MB DB for each user in their home directory just to index their PIM?
In general KDE login times have been getting longer and longer, and the overall flakiness of KDE up to 4.6 have led us to dump KDE in favor of XFCE. Initial feedback from users has been very positive, and we'll be completing the transition this summer.
KDE4 may have some features that are fine for a standalone desktop at home, but it took a giant step backward from KDE3 in terms of usability in a networked environment at work.
KDE is one of the few environments that actually works with my setup of four monitors in a dual twinview (xinerama) configuration. Unity and GNOME3 do not work at all with this setup, they render only on half the screens, the mouse doesn't work at all, and other problems.
Currently I have to run a bastardized mix of XFCE and OpenBox to get everything to work because the XFCE window manager doesn't work correctly either. MATE (GNOME2) desktop seems to work and I have been thinking of switching (back) to it but it seems kind of buggy. It will probably end up being what I use though.
But on topic, I would love to just use KDE because it works right out of the box without me having to tweak or worry about anything. BUT, it's just too weird and often has annoying bugs/crashes (sort of like Opera actually). It looks weird and doesn't work like I think. I can't really explain exactly what it is other than "weird". It feels confusing and hard to use. If I could pick one example application that showcases the weirdness of KDE it would be the Amarok app. Good grief that thing is bizarre. The UI is so funky and doesn't work anything like what I need. For me that app is a good reflection of KDE as a whole. Bizarre, ugly, and unintuitive UI. I can't get any work done in that.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Now that Mate is available on a somewhat stable basis for Fedora 16 and 17 (external repo), I have no reason to change. Gnome 2 worked well for me, and I like the look and feel.
KDE still doesn't feel right to me somehow. Personal preference, obviously. And part of it might just be the way Fedora packages it. Oddly enough KDE apps look and feel great with the Gtk theme when run under the Mate desktop.
If I was stuck with Gnome 3, I'd give KDE a serious look, but since there are now good alternatives (XFCE, Mate, Cinnamon), I'll be trying them first.
I don't know who this "Linus" guy think he is. Just because his name looks kinda similar to "Linux" doesn't mean he has the right to be jerk. The community should flame him off the forums because he apparently doesn't understand the open source ethos.
If he was a real programmer he'd just dig into the code and fix these problems. This is why linux desktop hasn't taken off -- all these moochers who just want their computer to work without putting any effort into understanding the underlying system and not being willing to chip in and help the effort.
Because fvwm does exactly what I want it to and need it to.
Because I run fluxbox- KDE runs a load of crap in the background, which is one of the basic reasons I gave up Windows looooooooong ago.
On fluxbox (and openbox, and blackbox) everything has been customizable for years now (key+click combinations etc, window layouts) which makes it ideal for applications that demand lots of hotkeys. Okay, it might not be flashy and 3D accelerated (unless you really try to make it so) but who cares: the memory footprint of the whole window manager is negligible.
And if you miss your $favouriteKDEapp or $favouriteGNOMEapp, remember that the executable can be launched from a terminal window.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
I don't like the requirement of moving my hand off the keyboard and over to the mouse just so I can navigate.
It's i3 for me.
Plus, the start menu paradigm is retarded, and the last time I bothered trying KDE they were just trying their hardest to be a shinier, blingier Windows.
I'm somewhat of a X desktop transient, switching between KDE, Gnome, and Xfce (variety is the spice of life, and all that rot).
I spend most of my days in Emacs or a term window, and I frankly don't use 90% of the features these desktop managers provide. After a few months with one of the "big three," I always come back to GNUstep. It's totally minimal, and you can do EVERYTHING without touching a mouse. It's as unobtrusive as possible.
Check the wikipedia here, or dig the GNUstep website.
Another option in the "totally minimal" world is xmonad, there's a lot to like here as well. Wikipedia: xmonad,
Or, try the Xmonad website
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Having seen the KDE people screw this up once already, many aren't interested in having it screwed up again in KDE 5.0 . KDE needs to make people understand that they admit they fucked up before and vow not to do it again.
To clarify: When you create things in 3d you have a shadow, or no shadow and a reflection to create the appearance of three dimensions.
Every version of KDE I have used has some icons with the sun in one position (say 9am) and the window chrome having the sun in another position (say 3pm). It looks like a bad photoshop job where you can just tell that everything was cut and paste with no concern for the overall look and feel.
Maybe the folks over at Linux Mint will polish up KDE so it doesn't look wrong. But until then, GNOME or a consistent flat desktop is what I'll use.
Work bio at MMWD
Both gnome and KDE have by now proven that if you use them, you *will* get screwed. Because as soon as you'll feel comfortable using any of them, they'll just stop supporting it and try getting you to switch to the new version that's awful and not what you wanted. They'll tell you "it's an just an early release, it'll get better". And indeed, it'll get better... and once it's good enough, they'll throw it all away again. I've learned my lesson and I'm now using XFCE, which I'm hoping will not go the way of gnome/KDE. I still need a few gnome config utils to get XFCE to do what I want, but I'm happy for now.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
When I open a movie from a network drive, it copies the entire file first as it is incapable of simply passing a network url to the movie application. Something that every other desktop manager out there can handle.
It is this kind of "wtf" that is rampant throughout KDE. To me, it is the kiddy desktop, where people spend ages on getting some cool feature working but the basics are falling apart. In theory, it should be highly capable but in reality, it is so fragile and its defaults so inane, that to get it working just takes to long.
That is part of the reason Ubuntu and Gnome 2 were so popular. They finally just worked. I am using Linux to be productive, KDE does not help me be productive.
Oh and one final thing KDE team, learn that EVERY single app you build has a far superior solo version out there. I don't need a complete office suite with my desktop thank you very much.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
There's just something about how KDE's UI is laid out that rubs me the wrong way.
Long-time Gnome 2 user here, probably switching to MATE. Don't care for Xfce and LXDE is too basic for my taste, as are most of the standalone WMs. Window Maker is fugly.
My two favorite computer UIs today are Gnome 2.3x + Compiz and Windows 7 + Cygwin. They mostly just work, are good about staying out of my way, and have nice UI flourishes like live preview and Aero Snap.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
the desktop today is fully-functional and polished
I'm sorry, but I cannot regard as "fully-functional and polished" any desktop environment in which menus disappear just as I am about to click on them just because the desktop has received a notification. When KDE4 receives a notification it doesn't simply display the notification message, it also causes certain classes of other windows to be removed... and this includes the "K" menu. Several times a week that menu disappears as I am about to select an item, and I end up clicking on whatever was underneath the item just because I can't react quickly enough to the sudden removal of the menu.
I have other gripes with KDE4, but they pale into insignificance compared to what is, to me, the bizarre notion that it's ever acceptable for menus simply to disappear. Obviously, the developers must disagree with me, but I honestly can't imagine why they think this is reasonable behaviour.
Mostly my other gripes are along the lines of "feature X that was in KDE3 is either absent or poorly implemented in KDE4". Many things in KDE4 are better than they were in KDE3 (which I admit I often tend to forget), but the fact remains that when I switch back to the machine on which I keep KDE3, I always find myself somehow feeling more relaxed and in control.
You are wrong. The desktop is not an OS feature, it is a program run and selected by the user. And customized by the user to his/her needs.
So what you need is consistency on your own desktop. Whether it looks completely different for somebody else is no issue at all. So find the one window manager that works best for you, configure it as you like and then continue to use it for the rest of your life with your configuration. I have been using the same desktop (with minimal changes) for > 20 years on multiple machines and even multiple OSes. How is that for consistency?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Just personal tastes. Since I can run any useful KDE app outside of KDE desktop, the choice is really this: do I want to look at purple pastels and bubbly bubbles by default? I like my environment to look (what I consider) professional. So for me, it's conservative blue or gray, not hipster purple or pink with all applications starting with a K. Even Mac OS X, with its "lickable widgets", has found the right balance not to embarrass professional users. And no, I refuse to even spend a minute to change the default look, because I have numerous alternatives to KDE.
I don't use KDE because it has WAY too many settings, menus, tabs and dialogs all mixed together with the common stuff buried amongst the advanced stuff. It's a kitchen sink of desktops and I'm pretty certain that it would have enjoyed far more success amongst end users and enterprises if it had really dialled back on this stuff. Arguably GNOME 3 goes too far in removing stuff but there is no arguing which desktop a novice would find easier to sit down and use with no experience.
I do. My desktop on openSuse 12.1 is KDE you fool.
The solution to releasing software that isn't ready for people to use is not to release it.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
One thing I also noticed when I was running Firefox in GNOME 3 is how much space is wasted when the browser is supposed to be maximized. At the top you have the GNOME bar, then an app title bar doing essentially nothing, then a menu in Firefox. Firefox could probably make use of the menu in the GNOME bar (which normally just says Quit) and hide it's own menu by default like it does in Windows 7. And GNOME a maximized app's window with its own bar instead of showing both. A bit like Unity without that execrable global menu functionality. That arrangement would work so much better on smaller screens.
Why does this story have the GNOME footprint logo, when the thread is about KDE? That's retarded. KDE should have been the first keyword, and the KDE logo should have shown up.
Actually, I run Debian 6 with KDE 4.4 on my workstation. In fact, I've been running nothing but KDE on my workstation for over a decade, so I guess you could say that it's my all-time favorite desktop environment. I even prefer using Konqueror as my web browser!
However, when I was asked to install a Linux workstations in an office environment a few years ago, I ended up going with Xfce despite my relative lack of experience with it. The reason I selected it is because Xfce is not nearly as resource-hungry as KDE and runs very well on old hardware -- even on 8-year-old machines with less than 1 GB of RAM. It doesn't look too bad either.
There are some other questions I could ask of myself, like Why didn't I switch to Gnome when things got so rough with the new KDE4 in 2009? Pure habit. I survived that period by using the KDE version of Linux Mint for a year, before going back to Debian. Or, Why did I start using KDE in the first place (in 2001)? I think simply because to me it looked more like Windows (which I used for a total of almost exactly 10 years before that) than Gnome.
In conclusion, my feeling is that a person's desktop preference is largely a question of taste and habit, so it will likely always be an uphill battle for the KDE developers to get, say, long-time Gnome users to switch to KDE even if the latter is superior. However, I think that more people would indeed consider KDE if it could also be made to run with a lot less memory and processing power than it currently requires.
So what you basically just said is:
1. You don't like KDE's default workflow.
2. You *also* don't like Gnome's default workflow.
3. You didn't bother to take any time to customize KDE's layout (and believe me it can be customized in some MAJOR ways that Gnome intentionally prevents you from doing).
4. You did bother to take the time to customize Gnome to your liking.
5. Conclusion: Gnome Good KDE bad.
I'm not following your logic at all there. P.S. --> In KDE don't use a taskbar either, I have quick launchers on the desktop and I can use the excellent krunner to launch other applications. I also have full expose features running with a single press of a customized hotkey. KDE supported 100% of these features before Gnome 3 was even launched, so I'm not buying your arguments in the slightest.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Funny... Those are the exact attitudes from the GNOME team that caused me to ditch it for KDE.
I don't see why people bash the early KDE 4.x releases so much - the KDE team stated from the get-go that they were developer previews and still needed work. Yes, maybe they should have chosen a different version numbering scheme - but it's not their fault that distros took KDE 4.x and packaged it as the default even when the KDE team recommended that people NOT do this.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I couldn't agree more. I first moved to XFCE when I was looking for a lighter window manager on an older computer. This was about a year ago, and I haven't looked back. Everything just works, and failing that, is fairly simple to configure. No godawful semi-maintained nigh-mandatory extensions lists, no configurator-cum-registry, no fighting with dozens of default helper services. It's just... functional. Is that too much to ask?
Except, of course, my dear anonymous ignoramus, that your complaint hasn't been true since KDE 2.0. By default, for instance, the chat application is labeled "Instant Messanger" in big letters, and then, smaller, in gray, you get "kopete". You can find the Instant Messenger in "Internet Applications/Chat". So, you know, if xcfe shows the binaries name in the menus, it's xfce that's about a decade behind the times.
Maybe you should consider switching to a less retarded distro...
I do run KDE, and have for years, but the changes that have been made in 4.x are, generally, frustrating and annoying. Yes, the later releases have fixed a lot of the most egregious problems, but my main problem is that the new paradigm is counterintuitive and gets in the way of what I want to do as often as not.
So yes, I still run KDE but wish that I didn't, and will switch to something else as soon as I have the time & energy to devote to making the change.
I'm a long time Linux desktop user. I watched all the different desktop environments evolve over the past 15 years and KDE has become far and above the best with Mint Linux's GNOME based MATE and Cinnamon a solid 2nd place. Lightweight desktops still are viable alternatives too but I wouldn't put desktops like XFCE, LXDE or Enlightenment in the same class as KDE, GNOME 3 Shell, MATE/Cinnamon and Unity. Not because the lightweight desktops are inferior but because they serve a different purposed and to that end, serve it really well. Overall KDE is well polished, simple and intuitive enough for beginners but doesn't get in the way of power users. If you haven't tried the latest versions of KDE I would recommend you do. You might be presently surprised.
I use linux on my laptop, And I have to use it where it gets pretty hot in the summer. I've tried many enviroments and I stick with the one that runs my laptop the coolest on idle. KDE is like Gnome 3, they run my laptop pretty hot. MATE (Gnome 2) and XFCE were the least demanding out of the more functional enviroments. I'm glad someone kept Gnome 2 alive with MATE and I'll keep using it since I used it the most these past 6-8 years. (using mint right now) KDE has been pretty nice when I had it on my desktop. 3.x ran pretty good on a really crappy AMD K6-II laptop and I I'd never get any work done playing with the sheer amount of customization you can do on the fly. 4.0 is pretty, but its not feaseable at least on this laptop.
- -= Napalm means serious BBQ =-
While its not perfect, and not every release has been stellar, its consistent, which is important in a 'desktop' environment.
It was also more about getting work done and not being 'cute', until recently.
And early license issues aside, QT has always been more mature than the other tool kits.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I dont want to watch the windows on my screen jitter while running a 6880.
I like icons on my desktop without having to read a fucking tutorial.
I dont like the feeling that Vista era Aero just vomited on the Windows 3.0 Program Manager, or "desktop" as you call it now.
I never really have liked KDE anyway, why start now?
KDE's current version is outstanding. We could spend all year talking about history, but KDE4.8 works pretty well, and frankly is a great option over Unity, Gnome and some of the lightweight desktops if you value functionality over light weight. If you like lightweight, don't go with a desktop, go with a window manager.
Incidentally, you can tell someone who hasn't really used KDE by comments like "it lacks refinement" or "it isn't pretty" or "kde4 is slow". There's really not much I can say for people who say "I don't want to customize my desktop" as the default isn't bad and KDE's biggest feature is it's customization capability.
That said there are two components that need to be better explained and left to the user to decide if they want them: symantic desktop and Akonadi. Symantec desktop (nepomuk) is basically text search engine and tagging toolkit that lets you rate, comment on and tag files. The search engine works now, but for people with networked home directories, it is not the right answer. Akonadi is the backend for the personal information manager applications. If you are not going to use Kontact (the KDE outlook clone), Akonadi probably doesn't need to run. If you are using Kontact, Akonadi offloads sending/receiving so the front end applications can be light and fast.
I'm a python developer most of the time these days I use emacs, Wing, iPython, yEd (for charts and process diagrams) and do some documentation and proposals in LibreOffice. There are a few that have been part of KDE for a long time that make it especially nice:
* opens a terminal in many apps. Handy.
* KIO - allows you to open files pretty much anywhere without the need to mount drive. You get very used to being able to open and save files on all kinds of remote systems and services from the highly functional file save/open dialog.
* Dekstops and workspaces - multiple desktops and multiple dashboards. Most are an away.
* Plasma Desktop - You can pretty much customize it however you like. Want a start menu and panel ? OK. Want a mac like menubar? OK (xbar) MacOS like dock? OK. Mac style dashboard? Got it. Windows style widget bar, ok, you can do that. Want a quicksilver like launcher? (that's been there for almost a decade). Want files on your desktop? OK. Want remote files on your desktop? OK. Don't like the look? Change it.
* Konsole, the KDE terminal app just works. And has a ton of features with an easy to detach tabbed GUI and some pretty nice automation features.
* If you did a file manager shootout, it would probably finish Dolphin, Konqueror, Finder, MS Explorer, Kommander and everything else. KDE's file managers give you a lot of flexibility and outstanding integration with tools. Dolphin is designed for ease of use, Konqueror is an MS Explorer style kitchen sink and Kommander is a Norton Commander style app. All leverage KIO to be able to browse remote systems as if they are local and launch background tasks to move files around.
* Amarok - Music player. Very well done. Probably the best one out there short of iTunes...
* Kmail - A very well done feature rich mail client.
Is KDE perfect? No. KDE went through its rearchitecting four years ago, and has emerged to be very, very good.
-- $G
Fvwm2 does all I need, plus runs rings around KDE performance-wise. The only thing it doesn't do (which might be handy), is support multiple screens properly.
I stand by my original statement: I can't think of any time you'd want to run multiple instances of an application on a smartphone
So you'd never want to work with multiple documents of any kind? Have two ebooks or web pages open (a manual and a novel, say), and flip between them? You never do two remotely similar tasks of any kind?
I can't understand the poverty of imagination that leads to the conclusion that "nobody will ever need more than one instance of an application".
This was the entire purpose of the object-oriented desktop in the 1990s, remember: that it wouldn't need to matter what "application" you were in, you'd just have "documents" and switch between them at will. We seem to have gone 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
I've used GNOME2, GNOME3, KDE4 and XFCE each for at least a year (some 2 or 3), and I've enjoyed all of them. I felt GNOME2 was solid and featured, though perhaps a little stale in some areas. XFCE was fast and efficient, though at times felt a little cold/empty. GNOME3 feels solid and has plenty of interesting ideas that are worth developing, but I found it hard to feel grounded (perhaps due to it being so unusual). I'm currently using KDE4(.8) and have been impressed by the k* range of software. It certainly has the most in common with the Windows 7 experience (as a result I tend to encourage new users towards Kubuntu), and has an average bugfix turnaround I've been very pleased with. In my opinion KDE is also by far the prettiest (I judge by the default "theme" since I deliberately avoid heavy customisation (I don't enjoy it)).
I haven't used other DEs for long enough to comment fairly (LXDE, Enlightenment, Fluxbox, etc), but I've come away with a strong opinion that debating the best DE is as pointless as debating the best Linux distro. We all have different tastes and priorities, and different solutions must exist to cater for them.
If more distros had standardized on KDE instead of Gnome, I believe Linux would have taken a much larger share of the PC market. It is much easier to get started with KDE if you come from a Windows environment.