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.

rathi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.:doh

rathi said:

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

Click to expand...

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

DAR said:

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

Click to expand...

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)..

Maximus Zeebra said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Maximus Zeebra said:

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)..

Click to expand...

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

Maximus Zeebra said:

-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)

Click to expand...

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.

CraigP said:

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]

Click to expand...

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).

Maximus Zeebra said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

CraigP said:

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.

IMG]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m67/wormmy1/Screenshot-CustomizeTheme.png[/IMG]

Click to expand...

So, you are actually suggesting I should change distro just because of Nautilus? No way, I just intalled KDE4, yes it was VERY different from any GUI I have ever tried, but after some 30 minutes of playin around I understood that that type of Desktop is just far further into the future than any Windows desktop and just decades ahead of Gnome.
I am not sure if I prefer kde3 or 4 yet though. I thnink both beat Gnome by a HUGE margin..
Actually I am so satisfied with KDE that it sucks to use ANYTHING else. Every time I use Windows vista it feels like a nightmare, every time I use XP, it feels like an ancient past, every time I try gnome, it just feels like an error, a primitively programmed and built desktop.
I have given both Gnome and Nautilus enough time and attempts, it just SUCKS huge time in my opinion, its just actualy a nightmare in comparison to KDE.. But certainly, for simplicity and stability nothing beats Gnome, except perhaps KDE on stability, and if you understand it, it also is much simpler to use than gnome.

I dont think you understand what I am talking about.. Sure Gnome is configurable, but not as configurable as KDE, not by far. Sure I configured Nautilus, but it still sucked, because I have tried Konqueror. Dolphin for kde 3 sucks, but for KDE 4, its actually the type of file manager we need for the future.

Yes, sure you can change theme in Gnome, but in KDE you can change every single part of the look of the desktop separetely and easy.

KDE is just about the only perfect thing in this world.. Its just IN THE FUTURE right NOW! I complain about everything else in the world as imperfect all the time, I never once complained about KDE, its like a computer paradise GUI, its heavenly and dream like, a mirror into the future.

Maximus Zeebra said:

So, you are actually suggesting I should change distro just because of Nautilus? No way, I just intalled KDE4, yes it was VERY different from any GUI I have ever tried, but after some 30 minutes of playin around I understood that that type of Desktop is just far further into the future than any Windows desktop and just decades ahead of Gnome.
I am not sure if I prefer kde3 or 4 yet though. I thnink both beat Gnome by a HUGE margin..
Actually I am so satisfied with KDE that it sucks to use ANYTHING else. Every time I use Windows vista it feels like a nightmare, every time I use XP, it feels like an ancient past, every time I try gnome, it just feels like an error, a primitively programmed and built desktop.
I have given both Gnome and Nautilus enough time and attempts, it just SUCKS huge time in my opinion, its just actualy a nightmare in comparison to KDE.. But certainly, for simplicity and stability nothing beats Gnome, except perhaps KDE on stability, and if you understand it, it also is much simpler to use than gnome.

I dont think you understand what I am talking about.. Sure Gnome is configurable, but not as configurable as KDE, not by far. Sure I configured Nautilus, but it still sucked, because I have tried Konqueror. Dolphin for kde 3 sucks, but for KDE 4, its actually the type of file manager we need for the future.

Yes, sure you can change theme in Gnome, but in KDE you can change every single part of the look of the desktop separetely and easy.

KDE is just about the only perfect thing in this world.. Its just IN THE FUTURE right NOW! I complain about everything else in the world as imperfect all the time, I never once complained about KDE, its like a computer paradise GUI, its heavenly and dream like, a mirror into the future.

Click to expand...

If you knew that Nautilus could be configured as a file browser, with tool menus, why did you say that it couldn't?

You CAN configure every single part of the desktop including backgrounds, panels and their looks, sounds, menus, etc much more easily in Gnome. If you knew this also, you were being misleading in your original post. By the way, I can easily put panels where ever I want with whatever I want on them and change their looks independently. You can install a theme in Gnome but, like I said, you can change every part of that theme and mix and match. How is that any different from what KDE can do.

In Gnome, pictures, PDFs, videos and other documents are preview icons. In KDE, you must click on the file to see a preview of it. Unless you've memorized all the file names, this is a quite useful feature in Gnome. The same for forgotten sound files. Just hover over them and they start playing.

KDE does have some great technology behind it but it's primarily for programmers, which isn't a bad thing at all. I can use those programs in Gnome and Mac and Windows users will be able to as well.

KDE is a great piece of technology but it isn't for everyone -- just like Gnome isn't for everyone. Let's please stop beating a dead horse and let prospective users make their own choice.

I had to say something because your comparison is so biased that you felt the need to flat out lie as evidenced by your stating that you knew about my corrections to your original post.

CraigP said:

If you knew that Nautilus could be configured as a file browser, with tool menus, why did you say that it couldn't?

You CAN configure every single part of the desktop including backgrounds, panels and their looks, sounds, menus, etc much more easily in Gnome. If you knew this also, you were being misleading in your original post. By the way, I can easily put panels where ever I want with whatever I want on them and change their looks independently. You can install a theme in Gnome but, like I said, you can change every part of that theme and mix and match. How is that any different from what KDE can do.

In Gnome, pictures, PDFs, videos and other documents are preview icons. In KDE, you must click on the file to see a preview of it. Unless you've memorized all the file names, this is a quite useful feature in Gnome. The same for forgotten sound files. Just hover over them and they start playing.

KDE does have some great technology behind it but it's primarily for programmers, which isn't a bad thing at all. I can use those programs in Gnome and Mac and Windows users will be able to as well.

KDE is a great piece of technology but it isn't for everyone -- just like Gnome isn't for everyone. Let's please stop beating a dead horse and let prospective users make their own choice.

I had to say something because your comparison is so biased that you felt the need to flat out lie as evidenced by your stating that you knew about my corrections to your original post.

Click to expand...

In comparison to KDE, gnome is not configurable at all, in comparison to Windows it is.
In comparison to KDE, gnome is difficult to configure, you have to go via 100 different tools that each just adjust a small part of the desktop, and only have a few alternatives, sure, its easy to configure compared with Windows.
In comparison to KDE, configurabilities and alternatives and the end configurable possibilities in Gnome are tiny, compared with windows its big.



You can preview everything in KDE as well, there are just tons of different ways of doing all different operations, far more alternatives than in Gnome. Konqueror is a great tool for this, and even opens PDF and a variety of documents inside a new tab. And it can browse the web at the same time, being almost as complex a browser as firefox, while nautilus is more comparable to a primitive IE browser..


How many times have you actually used KDE? Did you ever learn it properly? Did you ever go around configuring every possible thing you could?

What about standard behaviours and looks and ways of doing things in KDE, they are for sure superior to Gnome. And then you have far more alterntives for far more things in KDE than you have in gnome as well. I find gnome over simplistic and quite static and boring in comparison with KDE. Thats just no doubt. I have tried both to great lenght. I even prefer blackbox to gnome, and xfce and enlightenment.

Maximus Zeebra said:

How many times have you actually used KDE? Did you ever learn it properly? Did you ever go around configuring every possible thing you could?

Click to expand...

Bingo! NOW we are on the same page! Would you want me writing a comparison when it's obvious to you that I don't know everything there is to know about KDE?

Now put yourself in my shoes as a Gnome user reading your desktop review!

Answer me this: did you not bother to learn what Gnome could do or were you intentionally deceptive in your original post?

CraigP said:

Bingo! NOW we are on the same page! Would you want me writing a comparison when it's obvious to you that I don't know everything there is to know about KDE?

Now put yourself in my shoes as a Gnome user reading your desktop review!

Answer me this: did you not bother to learn what Gnome could do or were you intentionally deceptive in your original post?

Click to expand...

I have tried everything in gnome in several different Distroes over many years. I am not just claiming a bunch of things for no reasons..

I have used Linux for about 5 years as my main system and about 8 years in total. About 12ish different distroes. I think I know what I am talking about

Maximus Zeebra said:

I have tried everything in gnome in several different Distroes over many years. I am not just claiming a bunch of things for no reasons..

I have used Linux for about 5 years as my main system and about 8 years in total. About 12ish different distroes. I think I know what I am talking about

Click to expand...

So, having used Linux for so long, are you admitting that you lied in your original post or that you'd never really used Gnome long enough to learn it properly?

You are the master of side-stepping the issues. You should be a politician. :lol:

CraigP said:

So, having used Linux for so long, are you admitting that you lied in your original post or that you'd never really used Gnome long enough to learn it properly?

You are the master of side-stepping the issues. You should be a politician. :lol:

Click to expand...

No, I was not wrong.. All those things I said about Gnome is true, it truly just is so bad in comparison to KDE.. Perhaps if you compare it to Windows, then its a fine desktop.