On behalf of the KDE developers I apologize for your indigestion. Fortunately, I don't get sick of looking at either KDE or GNOME (IceWM, GnuSTEP/WindowMaker/AfterStep and FVWM are another matter).
I "feel comfortable" in front of GNOME or KDE. A lot of it depends on mood or need at the time. But if forced to choose, I'd choose KDE. Why? Because it simply does more and has more functionality built into it.
But as they say "different strokes for different folks". For example, I'll never understand why XMMS (and conversely WinAMP in Windows) are more popular than "competing" applications.
I guess folks just like controls and labels that need a magnifying glass to view and ugly ancient dated interfaces (in the case of XMMS with GTK1).
"KDE looks cheap and plasticy, like a vinyl record left in the back window of the car on a hot day, or hot cheese poured over broccoli."
You're entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree. KDE's default desktop looks quite polished. The only desktop I can think of that looks more so is that of Mac OS X. KDE is the closest thing in the free software world to the polish of Mac OS X.
GNOME's default desktop looks dull and dated. Thankfully not many distros go with the default. Even so, QT widgets look so much more polished and professional than GTK2 ones. And let's not even talk about GTK1 which some strangely still use in various apps. I'd say it's hideous but that wouldn't do it justice.
GNOME looks really great with about 15% of the themes you can find for it. The rest of them stink.
"Gnome could stand improvement,"
They both could actually, but GNOME more so. How does one change the color of a window background or title bar in GNOME? hummm? It's a fairly simple procedure, right?;-)
I thought Nautilus was to also include a web browser element (a la Konqueror). It never maerialized.
"... but I trust it more than KDE."
I can't think of any desktop that I "distrust" offhand...
"I realize that there are cave-dwellers that really love the K desktop. I am not an interface Nazi, and don't have a pre-disposition towards showing off my system in a 'macho' sort of way. I simply prefer Gnome to KDE. Please let me have my choice, and since its my choice, please Linus, mind your own fscking business. Thanks."
I'm sure Linus doesn't really give a rat's a** what desktop you or I as individuals use. He was just expressing his opinion, as we just did.:-)
You and Linus are on the right track. I do use both KDE and GNOME though. They both have advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. I'm glad for the "choice" when it comes to X desktops.
As far as Kubuntu being treated like a "red-headed stepchild" I don't see that at all. Kubuntu is the most up-to-date desktop around and the Kubuntu folks contiually provide packages for KDE beta releases as well as new releases. Ubuntu makes you wait up to 26 weeks for any update to GNOME. At first I thought it didn't make sense that Kubuntu existed. Now I'm glad they do.
FWIW, I use both GNOME & KDE regularly and XFCE and Fluxbox occasionally.
Re:If KDE is so advanced, why gnome?
on
KDE 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
I don't see incompatibility at all in these instances. There is nothing preventing one from running GTK or QT apps in Enlightenment. There is nothing preventing one from running GNOME apps in KDE and vice-versa, etc, etc....
If you want everything tied together nicely use a Desktop Environment (KDE, GNOME, XFCE) rather than just a Window Manager. Again, regardless of what Window Manager or Desktop Environment you use, you can run any most any X applications with the right libraries installed.
I don't see what the problem is. Linux is about choice and I like that. Do you want a distro that focuses mainly on just one environment? There are plenty out there to choose from that do just that.
I run KDE, GNOME, XFCE, Enlightenment and Fluxbox on Ubuntu 5.10 and I have no trouble running any of my installed applications, regardless of what Window Manager/Desktop Environment I'm using.
The exception of course, is when an app is buggy and won't run, period.
I find webcam support nice, but not important. However, what this does now is move me from Gaim to Kopete regardless of what Linux Desktop Environment I'm using. Gaim has plans for Webcam support as well in version 2. But it's not here yet and I've always found Kopete's interface more appealing then that of Gaim.
Several times, my stories have been rejected as dupes, yet this one which practially hit me in the face screaming as dupe (as soon as I saw the headline) makes it through? What's the deal/.?
Not to mention, this isn't just a dupe it's also old news
You imply that Ubuntu is not as stable as Debian. I disagree. Ubuntu manages to take source code from Debian testing and unstable packages and make it stable in a relatively short period of time. Debian takes years to accomplish the same thing.
Debian just has too many "cooks" that "spoil the broth".
That sounds like some mighty-small text in that browser window.
As it is, I have to increase the font size defaults in Firefox on my 1280x1024 screen. I'd have my screen resolution at 1024x768 but it's a 19" LCD which (as you probably know) has optimal resolution at 1280x1024.
"Both GTK+ and QT are completely themable, so calling one "ugly" in comparison to the other makes no sense."
It makes perfect sense. The default GNOME theme which is what users (are to) see first is just plain ugly. The GNOME 2.12 switch to Clearlooks was a definte step forward and I like Clearlooks, but the plain vanilla default Clearlooks desktop still isn't nearly as attractive as that of KDE (Plastik).
Now you can have some GOREGOUS desktops in GNOME, but not without tweaking (an hunting down the themes) and then watching the theme installer in GNOME crash when you try to install them.
GNOME needs to work on a little polish in it's default desktop. I don't mean eye-candy like gDesklets, but just a little more polish. Vanilla GTK2 just doesn't match up to vanilla QT3.
Well there's less development involved with just one desktop for starters.
I prefer having both KDE and GNOME installed, regardless of distro.
One of Shuttleworth's goals from day one was to have everything you need to get started fit on a single CD. That woudln't be possible if both KDE and GNOME were included.
Personally I think Ubuntu should switch to DVDs as thier primary disk image distribution method and include both KDE and GNOME on the DVD.
Right now thier DVDs just offer a mix of (K)ubuntu installation and live versions. Yet they only take up a few gigabytes, which still leaves room for both KDE and GNOME on your standard 4.7GB DVD.
Personally I like choice. Yes there pretty much has to be a default desktop but distros such as SuSE, Mandriva and RedHat/Fedora have always given you the option to install others during the initial setup/installation. I for one, like this, because I don't prefer KDE or GNOME. I prefer both.
Having run KDE on Mandrake, RedHat, SuSE, Fedora and (K)ubuntu over the years, I can honestly say that the Kubuntu Krew has managed to top them all on the first try. I get virtually every KDE app that's important to me with Kubuntu. The others never seem to be able to pull that off. And I really don't like SuSE's messing with the Menu structure. I guess they never heard of the Free Desktop standards , which I know for a fact that Kubuntu, Fedora/RedHat and Ubuntu are quite familliar with.
Now if Ubuntu would just change it's policy and offer important software updates between releases (like Fedora Core does) it would absolutely positively rule as a distro.
Currently I'm running Ubuntu/Kubuntu and Fedora Core. Both are at the top of my list of fave distros. And both also suck at many things that the other doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
"Desiring worship and obedience is Stallman's ..neurosis."
If you looked like this you'd be demending worship too.
more like......
"So long as it has a shortcut key to open good, easy to use terminal." [1]
[1] gnome-terminal OR konsole
On behalf of the KDE developers I apologize for your indigestion. Fortunately, I don't get sick of looking at either KDE or GNOME (IceWM, GnuSTEP/WindowMaker/AfterStep and FVWM are another matter).
I "feel comfortable" in front of GNOME or KDE. A lot of it depends on mood or need at the time. But if forced to choose, I'd choose KDE. Why? Because it simply does more and has more functionality built into it.
But as they say "different strokes for different folks". For example, I'll never understand why XMMS (and conversely WinAMP in Windows) are more popular than "competing" applications.
I guess folks just like controls and labels that need a magnifying glass to view and ugly ancient dated interfaces (in the case of XMMS with GTK1).
"Needless to say I long for a decent spreadsheet implementation, because, to put it politely, Kspread is a bit lacking. How about a Knumeric, team?"
http://www.openoffice.org/ ?
Yep just like you can change GNOME to launch programs with a single click....
If you just installed everything from the getgo "switching" would be a quick and easy transaction.
;-)
I've got GNOME, KDE, XFCE, Enlightenment and Fluxbox installed at present and "only" 300 GB of disk space remaining..
"KDE looks cheap and plasticy, like a vinyl record left in the back window of the car on a hot day, or hot cheese poured over broccoli."
;-)
:-)
You're entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree. KDE's default desktop looks quite polished. The only desktop I can think of that looks more so is that of Mac OS X. KDE is the closest thing in the free software world to the polish of Mac OS X.
GNOME's default desktop looks dull and dated. Thankfully not many distros go with the default. Even so, QT widgets look so much more polished and professional than GTK2 ones. And let's not even talk about GTK1 which some strangely still use in various apps. I'd say it's hideous but that wouldn't do it justice.
GNOME looks really great with about 15% of the themes you can find for it. The rest of them stink.
"Gnome could stand improvement,"
They both could actually, but GNOME more so. How does one change the color of a window background or title bar in GNOME? hummm? It's a fairly simple procedure, right?
I thought Nautilus was to also include a web browser element (a la Konqueror). It never maerialized.
"... but I trust it more than KDE."
I can't think of any desktop that I "distrust" offhand...
"I realize that there are cave-dwellers that really love the K desktop. I am not an interface Nazi, and don't have a pre-disposition towards showing off my system in a 'macho' sort of way. I simply prefer Gnome to KDE. Please let me have my choice, and since its my choice, please Linus, mind your own fscking business. Thanks."
I'm sure Linus doesn't really give a rat's a** what desktop you or I as individuals use. He was just expressing his opinion, as we just did.
You and Linus are on the right track. I do use both KDE and GNOME though. They both have advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. I'm glad for the "choice" when it comes to X desktops.
As far as Kubuntu being treated like a "red-headed stepchild" I don't see that at all. Kubuntu is the most up-to-date desktop around and the Kubuntu folks contiually provide packages for KDE beta releases as well as new releases. Ubuntu makes you wait up to 26 weeks for any update to GNOME. At first I thought it didn't make sense that Kubuntu existed. Now I'm glad they do.
FWIW, I use both GNOME & KDE regularly and XFCE and Fluxbox occasionally.
Scott
Running (K)Ubuntu Breezy
Oh really?
;-)
Well I've been using GNOME but now I'm switching to KDE cuz "Mister Linux" said to."
"Most use what is default for their distro, which, more and more often, is GNOME."
Actually, you'd be at surprised how many use both. So it's not "GNOME vs. KDE", it's which do I feel like using right now?
And Debian is agnostic? I'd have sworn it's Default was GNOME as well (although it de-emphasizes that fact).
Dearest Zonk,
Allow me to introduce you to
Bouncer.
Bouncer is driving all of the downloadsfor the Mozilla Foundation.
Since this has predictably turned into a KDE vs. GNOME discussion, I'd like to point out something. I'm sure I can't be alone in this either.:
;-)
I like an use both. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Both excel at certain things that the other does not.
That's exactly why I like and use both.
That's OK isn't it?
I think he forgot XFCE too...
I don't see incompatibility at all in these instances. There is nothing preventing one from running GTK or QT apps in Enlightenment. There is nothing preventing one from running GNOME apps in KDE and vice-versa, etc, etc....
If you want everything tied together nicely use a Desktop Environment (KDE, GNOME, XFCE) rather than just a Window Manager. Again, regardless of what Window Manager or Desktop Environment you use, you can run any most any X applications with the right libraries installed.
I don't see what the problem is. Linux is about choice and I like that. Do you want a distro that focuses mainly on just one environment? There are plenty out there to choose from that do just that.
I run KDE, GNOME, XFCE, Enlightenment and Fluxbox on Ubuntu 5.10 and I have no trouble running any of my installed applications, regardless of what Window Manager/Desktop Environment I'm using.
The exception of course, is when an app is buggy and won't run, period.
I find webcam support nice, but not important. However, what this does now is move me from Gaim to Kopete regardless of what Linux Desktop Environment I'm using. Gaim has plans for Webcam support as well in version 2. But it's not here yet and I've always found Kopete's interface more appealing then that of Gaim.
Just how "stable" does something have to be? My software works. My system doesn't crash. And unlike Sarge, it's current.
;-)
And just becaue Ubuntu has a 6-month release cycle, there's nothing forcing one to upgrade every 6 months.
On a related note, I wonder if Debian will really truly abanodon it's recent *three year* "release cycle".
Several times, my stories have been rejected as dupes, yet this one which practially hit me in the face screaming as dupe (as soon as I saw the headline) makes it through? What's the deal /.?
Not to mention, this isn't just a dupe it's also old news
You imply that Ubuntu is not as stable as Debian. I disagree. Ubuntu manages to take source code from Debian testing and unstable packages and make it stable in a relatively short period of time. Debian takes years to accomplish the same thing.
Debian just has too many "cooks" that "spoil the broth".
That sounds like some mighty-small text in that browser window.
As it is, I have to increase the font size defaults in Firefox on my 1280x1024 screen. I'd have my screen resolution at 1024x768 but it's a 19" LCD which (as you probably know) has optimal resolution at 1280x1024.
Am I missing something here? What does this have to do with desktop Linux. This guy doesn't sound like a sysadmin to me.
OK, let me put it another way.
The Default Kubuntu desktop is attractive.
The Default Ubuntu desktop is not
"Both GTK+ and QT are completely themable, so calling one "ugly" in comparison to the other makes no sense."
It makes perfect sense. The default GNOME theme which is what users (are to) see first is just plain ugly. The GNOME 2.12 switch to Clearlooks was a definte step forward and I like Clearlooks, but the plain vanilla default Clearlooks desktop still isn't nearly as attractive as that of KDE (Plastik).
Now you can have some GOREGOUS desktops in GNOME, but not without tweaking (an hunting down the themes) and then watching the theme installer in GNOME crash when you try to install them.
GNOME needs to work on a little polish in it's default desktop. I don't mean eye-candy like gDesklets, but just a little more polish. Vanilla GTK2 just doesn't match up to vanilla QT3.
Well there's less development involved with just one desktop for starters.
I prefer having both KDE and GNOME installed, regardless of distro.
One of Shuttleworth's goals from day one was to have everything you need to get started fit on a single CD. That woudln't be possible if both KDE and GNOME were included.
Personally I think Ubuntu should switch to DVDs as thier primary disk image distribution method and include both KDE and GNOME on the DVD.
Right now thier DVDs just offer a mix of (K)ubuntu installation and live versions. Yet they only take up a few gigabytes, which still leaves room for both KDE and GNOME on your standard 4.7GB DVD.
If I'm reading this corectly, you're saying that Kubuntu's installer isn't as good as the Ubuntu installer.
They seem identical to me.
Personally I like choice. Yes there pretty much has to be a default desktop but distros such as SuSE, Mandriva and RedHat/Fedora have always given you the option to install others during the initial setup/installation. I for one, like this, because I don't prefer KDE or GNOME. I prefer both.
Having run KDE on Mandrake, RedHat, SuSE, Fedora and (K)ubuntu over the years, I can honestly say that the Kubuntu Krew has managed to top them all on the first try. I get virtually every KDE app that's important to me with Kubuntu. The others never seem to be able to pull that off. And I really don't like SuSE's messing with the Menu structure. I guess they never heard of the Free Desktop standards , which I know for a fact that Kubuntu, Fedora/RedHat and Ubuntu are quite familliar with.
Now if Ubuntu would just change it's policy and offer important software updates between releases (like Fedora Core does) it would absolutely positively rule as a distro.
Currently I'm running Ubuntu/Kubuntu and Fedora Core. Both are at the top of my list of fave distros. And both also suck at many things that the other doesn't.