Thread: KDE vs Gnome Desktop

I just installed Fedora core with Gnome in addition to my two other Linux distrubutions that I have on my computer, PCLinuxOS which comes with KDE, and Debian which I put KDE on... I just want to say how much Gnome sucks as a desktop environment and I want to brag about KDE as the best Desktop environment that exist, far better than any of the Windows desktops..

Gnome:
-Inflexible
-Few configuration alternatives
-Fragmented configuration tools
-Ugly and non configurable look(only a few different options)
-Nautilus file brower sucks, its not a / browser, and it opens new windows constantly
-Its difficult to get an overview in Nautilus
-No tool menues in Nautilus!!! Grrrr.(file, edit, view, tools, bookmarks and so on)
-Confusing menues in gnome, difficult to find anything
-Annoying windows behaviours(non configurable)
-Administration in Gnome sucks big time
-Configureable options lacks
-Difficult to configure at all
-Clumsy

KDE3.5)
-Worlds most flexible and adaptive Desktop environment
-Tons of configuration alternatives, you can change EVERYTHING to suit your needs
-Control panel where you can configure EVERYTHING at the same time in easy overview + you can configure everything individually like in Gnome if you prefer.
-Looks great, and in additon you can change the whole look in different pieces(every part individually), not lousy themes like in Gnome.
-Konqueror file brower rocks, enourmously good overview and / based browing, in addition it works as web browser if you want and FTP brower and other things. You can configure it to work and look and display files in hundreds of different ways.
-Elegant menues in KDE, very easy to find what you want
-Heavenly windows behaviour that are highly configurable.. Focus switch and shading and so on, just cant live without those functions. Makes other desktops look primitive.
-Administration in KDE is easy and massive, you can administer just about anything you want, and you can configure every piece.
-Tons of easily configurable options
-Elegant and heavenly desktop, fantastic and easy to use, innovative and just marvelous in all ways.


How can ANYONE use Gnome, its even worse than Vista and XP.

What can I add...I agree with your assessment 100%. I grew so tired of gnome that I actually went and did a complete reinstall on my laptop and am now using KDE. Gnome is a bloated hog imo.

Although KDE does give you more options in customizing everything, but are perfectly functional setups that accomplish the same task. I find them quite similar and the whole religious war kind of pointless. Linux needs to focus more on getting hardware compatibility and driver support than a gnome vs kde civil war.

Originally Posted by rathi

Although KDE does give you more options in customizing everything, but are perfectly functional setups that accomplish the same task. I find them quite similar and the whole religious war kind of pointless. Linux needs to focus more on getting hardware compatibility and driver support than a gnome vs kde civil war.

Gnome is a popular desktop, it needs to get its **** together to not ruin things for new users, its the Desktop for the most popular distribution for example, Ubuntu, which many people use. Its a shame gnome is becoming all of those people first experience witha Linux Desktop rather than KDE. Gnome just sucks big time, its so clumsy, and to the contrary of what you say offers FAR fewer customizing possibilities than KDE.

In Kde you can customize everything from details in the start panel, from how the clock looks, to how the windows behave and the overall look is, and behaviours of the Desktop itself ofcourse. And everything that falls between. The packages for KDE are also far superior.
Another annoying thing is if that you try to slim down Gnome, you cannot, just tryin to uninstall simple parts(programs) is impossible because the Desktop environment relies on them, and you cannot uninstall them without uninstalling the whole desktop.

Not to mention Gnome is slow.. Can you believe that? A slow desktop, on the same distribution , on the same pc, on the same Linux core.
YUUUUUUUKK.

Originally Posted by rathi

Linux needs to focus more on getting hardware compatibility and driver support than a gnome vs kde civil war.

Agreed.

I haven't used Linux in years, so I'm not qualified to comment on the current versions of Gnome or KDE; but on many of my linux boxes, I'd installed both desktops. I found myself using KDE most of the time, so I guess that's what I preferred.

But the larger battle is getting linux onto desktop PC's in the first place, and that battle involves--as you point out--device driver compatibility, as well as linux ports for "industry standard" software by major developers. One of the reasons I run a Mac today is OSX's deep BSD roots and the fact that it just works really well; with very few glitches, seamless updates, and ease of device integration. Once I stopped working in geek jobs (which provided exposure to lots of OSes, and immediate access to lots of hardware and additional technical expertise), my desire to fight with hardware dwindled. But I still wasn't convinced that Microsoft offered the best alternatives.

Regards,
DAR

Originally Posted by DAR

Agreed.

I haven't used Linux in years, so I'm not qualified to comment on the current versions of Gnome or KDE; but on many of my linux boxes, I'd installed both desktops. I found myself using KDE most of the time, so I guess that's what I preferred.

But the larger battle is getting linux onto desktop PC's in the first place, and that battle involves--as you point out--device driver compatibility, as well as linux ports for "industry standard" software by major developers. One of the reasons I run a Mac today is OSX's deep BSD roots and the fact that it just works really well; with very few glitches, seamless updates, and ease of device integration. Once I stopped working in geek jobs (which provided exposure to lots of OSes, and immediate access to lots of hardware and additional technical expertise), my desire to fight with hardware dwindled. But I still wasn't convinced that Microsoft offered the best alternatives.

Regards,
DAR

You have to take into consideration that Microsofts only strength is hardware support, and that their hardware support is strong because of their cooperation with the hardware industry. Same goes for big software houses like adobe for example. Corruption/threats/monopoly/money is the reason for all these things. Poor Mac, they were only allowed to step in to stop the Linux threat, and allowed only a small niche part of the market, and special hardware compatibility as their reward(and to avoid them competing with Microsoft on equal footing)..

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

You have to take into consideration that Microsofts only strength is hardware support, and that their hardware support is strong because of their cooperation with the hardware industry. Same goes for big software houses like adobe for example. Corruption/threats/monopoly/money is the reason for all these things.

And I've attended meetings with product development groups that had to weigh the pros and cons of different architectures and operating systems on which to develop our software products, firmware, and discreet device drivers. Most of us in those meetings had worked with linux quite a bit; running our web, mail, FTP and database servers; screwing around with it at home, and utterly amazed that such a strong, reliable server operating system could be downloaded for free off the internet.

I worked for two different tech companies while they were transitioning from one OS to the next. One company moved from OS/2 to Windows NT for precisely the reason you describe: Microsoft has a much longer hardware compatibility list and, if push comes to shove, you (at least, technically) have some degree of formal, corporate support for the core OS.

The other company that I worked for was transitioning from QNX (which I really liked, but has a very short hardware compatibility list) to SunOS (largely because the Sun products supported the database engine that we were using and had a LOT invested in that portion of our software). As both companies slowly moved their development and product lines, linux was considered time and again. At the end of the day, we were charging prime time coin for our highly customized software and hardware solutions, and linux, as much as we loved it, didn't come with a formal support model. We needed a core OS to develop on that came with a more formal support stream than "use at your own risk."

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

Poor Mac, they were only allowed to step in to stop the Linux threat, and allowed only a small niche part of the market, and special hardware compatibility as their reward(and to avoid them competing with Microsoft on equal footing)..

My only gripe with Apple is their proprietary hardware model. Macs cost 2 - 3 times what comparably equipped win-tel machines cost. But as far as ease of use, stability, compatibility and support it's worth the extra money up front, IMO.

Regards,
DAR

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

-Nautilus file brower sucks, its not a / browser, and it opens new windows constantly
-Its difficult to get an overview in Nautilus
-No tool menues in Nautilus!!! Grrrr.(file, edit, view, tools, bookmarks and so on)

You haven't spent enough time with it. That is Fedora's default implementation of Nautilis, which does suck but it can be configured. This is what Nautilis looks like on my Ubuntu machine complete with tabbed browsing.

Originally Posted by CraigP

You haven't spent enough time with it. That is Fedora's default implementation of Nautilis, which does suck but it can be configured. This is what Nautilis looks like on my Ubuntu machine complete with tabbed browsing.

IMG]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m67/wormmy1/Nautilis.png[/IMG]

Yes, but you seem to have not ever tried conqueror, its lovely by default, you can configure it to be erotic and heavenly. Then you have dolphin for KDE4 which is just marvelous when you configure it right, and decent by default(better than any config of nautilus).

I will send attach some pics later. I use kde4 in Fedora 10 btw, and Kde3 in PcLinuxOS. I have to reboot and such, as of now I dont have time, and I am just too lazy.. Here is one of Konqueror for Kde 3(more or less default settings).

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

Yes, but you seem to have not ever tried conqueror, its lovely by default, you can configure it to be erotic and heavenly. Then you have dolphin for KDE4 which is just marvelous when you configure it right, and decent by default(better than any config of nautilus).

I will send attach some pics later. I use kde4 in Fedora 10 btw, and Kde3 in PcLinuxOS. I have to reboot and such, as of now I dont have time, and I am just too lazy.. Here is one of Konqueror for Kde 3(more or less default settings).

I have tried both Dolphin and Konqueror but I didn't just run them and assume that that was what I was stuck with. My point was that you didn't give it enough time to even tinker with Nautilis and just assumed that it was non-configurable. I don't know what Fedora was thinking when they made the configuration you describe the default. If you don't want to customize it, try another distro. If you're going to make such a comparison, put as much time into learning one as you have the other. KDE was a confusing mess UNTIL I took the time to learn my way around it. I still find it buggy and unstable while Gnome is rock-solid - one of the reasons Gnome gets compared to Mac and KDE to Windows.

Another thing you got wrong is that Gnome has an ugly and non-configurable look. It can look like Vista, Mac OS X, KDE... you can even very easily mix, match and custom-select buttons, boxes, colors, window borders, icons, fonts and mouse pointers.