timothykaine
12-08-2002, 06:27 PM
Whos using which, and why?
Can anyone give a pros and cons list of them?
Can anyone give a pros and cons list of them?
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : GNOME vs. KDE
Raoul_Duke
12-08-2002, 07:11 PM
I'm working in both until i've decieded........KDE seems to have better eye candy though :D
Hayl
12-08-2002, 07:17 PM
which one: i don't use either.
reason: don't need all the bloat that comes with KDE and/or Gnome.
reason: don't need all the bloat that comes with KDE and/or Gnome.
je_fro
12-08-2002, 08:54 PM
it's a little less bloaty than KDE.
Looks more professional, too.
No offense anybody, but I got flashbacks to winXP when I first saw KDE.
Looks more professional, too.
No offense anybody, but I got flashbacks to winXP when I first saw KDE.
somebitch
12-08-2002, 09:11 PM
i use gnome and sawfish (or whatever its called) i used to always use afterstep but now i got a decent machine so why not run gnome?!??! KDE is too windowish for me.
BigFatJoe
12-08-2002, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Cybr099
which one: i don't use either.
reason: don't need all the bloat that comes with KDE and/or Gnome.
Gnome is too bloated and KDE is way to window-ish (which implies bloat, and more...)
Blacbox anyone?
^As long as you can live w/out the different apps for KDE and gnome. If not, from what i understand fluxbox is blackbox + KDE/gnome support for applets.
which one: i don't use either.
reason: don't need all the bloat that comes with KDE and/or Gnome.
Gnome is too bloated and KDE is way to window-ish (which implies bloat, and more...)
Blacbox anyone?
^As long as you can live w/out the different apps for KDE and gnome. If not, from what i understand fluxbox is blackbox + KDE/gnome support for applets.
Molecule Man
12-08-2002, 09:40 PM
Use them both and make your own choice. Or just use a Window Manager.
KDE uses QT libs.
GNOME uses GTK+ libs.
If most of the programs you use, use QT then use KDE, otherwise use whatever.
KDE uses QT libs.
GNOME uses GTK+ libs.
If most of the programs you use, use QT then use KDE, otherwise use whatever.
sharth
12-08-2002, 09:43 PM
They both look to windowsish for me :)
Homer119
12-08-2002, 09:54 PM
nononon ur all wrong Windows reminds me of KDE and GNOME
Fryguy8
12-08-2002, 09:56 PM
What GNOME are you using? GNOME by default looks very different from windows.
Most good programs to me seem like they are GTK, so I usually just install the GTK libs and just use a window manager. Though on my LFS System (which I just finished, YAY) I'm going to try gnome since I can speed optimize it for my computer.
Most good programs to me seem like they are GTK, so I usually just install the GTK libs and just use a window manager. Though on my LFS System (which I just finished, YAY) I'm going to try gnome since I can speed optimize it for my computer.
bskahan
12-08-2002, 10:26 PM
there are several zillion threads that expound (at length) on this topic
zie
12-08-2002, 10:38 PM
okay, gnome users, please help me. I installed the entire gnome package from scratch. It does work after some tweakings. There are some funny things about basic gnome2. 1st, it doesn't include a window manager. Well, it does mean that i am free to choose (rather than the standard kwin in kde). Now i really have a serious problem. How can i put something to the gnome menu?? There is nothing like kmenu (gmenu? anybody?) And i am wandering where can i find a new theme (There is no gnome-look.org). Well, KDE looks better in general. Right now, i am running framebuffer :p, with aalib version of mplayer to watch lord of the rings, hell that was awesome.
je_fro
12-08-2002, 11:25 PM
The windows mgr. I have under GNOME is Nautilus.
whm1974
12-08-2002, 11:39 PM
I use KDE due to it's having everything I need for desktop use and works very well. Did give Gnome a try but didn't care for it.
Bill Meadows
Bill Meadows
reallynicejerk
12-08-2002, 11:56 PM
I like Gnome better simply because of the flexibility of the panels.
The panels crash in Redhat 8.0 though if you put them vertically and reboot it will screw up your computer. and you'll be locked out of that user's Gnome until you fire up .gnome-conf from the command line and remove the vertical panels.
apparently their CVS fixes this problem, unfortunately I can't find any links to their Current version.
The panels crash in Redhat 8.0 though if you put them vertically and reboot it will screw up your computer. and you'll be locked out of that user's Gnome until you fire up .gnome-conf from the command line and remove the vertical panels.
apparently their CVS fixes this problem, unfortunately I can't find any links to their Current version.
reallynicejerk
12-08-2002, 11:58 PM
oh and I also have to have a crontab echo " " > /home/user/.xsession-errors every 10 minutes when running gnome (maybe KDE as well I dunno cause I don't use KDE that much) to keep my .xsession-errors file from growing into the multiple gigabyte range with nothing but the same line about widgets over and over agian and filling up my partition and thus preventing me from being able to start my xserver.
JohnT
12-09-2002, 12:02 AM
I've got a HD larger than 2 gig's so can take the bloat, besides minimalist I've done for years in windows with LS. So it's KDE here.
bskahan
12-09-2002, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by je_fro
The windows mgr. I have under GNOME is Nautilus.
nautilus is a file manager, metacity or sawfish is your window manager
The windows mgr. I have under GNOME is Nautilus.
nautilus is a file manager, metacity or sawfish is your window manager
jlmb
12-09-2002, 12:43 AM
Ummm what about a WM for an old pc?, i dont quite like how kde runs on my machine, it's kinda slow....
PIII500Mhz
Rivatnt2
256MB.
PIII500Mhz
Rivatnt2
256MB.
UnderDog138
12-09-2002, 12:55 AM
I guess since KDE was the first one I used it's the one I like better. It seems more configurable than Gnome and Konqueror is a better file manager than Nautilis as far as I'm concerned. I gave Gnome a fair try and I wasn't quite as happy with it overall. It's all a preference. KDE is better than Gnome at some things and Gnome is better than KDE at some things but in my opinion they're both equally good desktop environments and one can't be better than the other simply because it's an opinion based argument.
I think it's interesting though that just about all my apps are GTK apps running on KDE. Just check my screenie...
I noticed that KDE looks more like Windows. I don't see why this is a problem for you people. I know most all of us are anti-Microsoft, but you gotta give them a little credit for making at least a nice-looking GUI for Windows, especially XP. Just because KDE looks more like Windows doesn't make it Windows. I say embrace the fact that's it's pretty neat looking like Windows and not ugly like TWM.
I think it's interesting though that just about all my apps are GTK apps running on KDE. Just check my screenie...
I noticed that KDE looks more like Windows. I don't see why this is a problem for you people. I know most all of us are anti-Microsoft, but you gotta give them a little credit for making at least a nice-looking GUI for Windows, especially XP. Just because KDE looks more like Windows doesn't make it Windows. I say embrace the fact that's it's pretty neat looking like Windows and not ugly like TWM.
PerfectBlue
12-09-2002, 01:30 AM
underdog, i like your wallpaper or kde theme, mind telling me where did you get it? :)
BigFatJoe
12-09-2002, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Yorsh
Ummm what about a WM for an old pc?, i dont quite like how kde runs on my machine, it's kinda slow....
PIII500Mhz
Rivatnt2
256MB.
Are you mocking us? or do you really consider that a slow computer?
Originally posted by UnderDog138
I guess since KDE was the first one I used it's the one I like better. It seems more configurable than Gnome and Konqueror is a better file manager than Nautilis as far as I'm concerned. I gave Gnome a fair try and I wasn't quite as happy with it overall. It's all a preference. KDE is better than Gnome at some things and Gnome is better than KDE at some things but in my opinion they're both equally good desktop environments and one can't be better than the other simply because it's an opinion based argument.
No one ever seems to complain about the console. "the console's not customizable...", "the console looks too much like dos...".
The lack of complaints ... its almost like its trying to tell us something. If only we knew what...
; )
Ummm what about a WM for an old pc?, i dont quite like how kde runs on my machine, it's kinda slow....
PIII500Mhz
Rivatnt2
256MB.
Are you mocking us? or do you really consider that a slow computer?
Originally posted by UnderDog138
I guess since KDE was the first one I used it's the one I like better. It seems more configurable than Gnome and Konqueror is a better file manager than Nautilis as far as I'm concerned. I gave Gnome a fair try and I wasn't quite as happy with it overall. It's all a preference. KDE is better than Gnome at some things and Gnome is better than KDE at some things but in my opinion they're both equally good desktop environments and one can't be better than the other simply because it's an opinion based argument.
No one ever seems to complain about the console. "the console's not customizable...", "the console looks too much like dos...".
The lack of complaints ... its almost like its trying to tell us something. If only we knew what...
; )
frankprogramer
12-09-2002, 02:31 AM
A lot of people are saying that Kde and Gnome look to "windowish". Who cares? Windows has a great GUI, that's why they are the number one desktop os. As for everything else about windows, well, that's another story. I use kde because I like the way it looks. If you are not using Gnome/Kde because it only resembles windows; that's just sad.
-Frankie
-Frankie
reallynicejerk
12-09-2002, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by Yorsh
i dont quite like how kde runs on my machine, it's kinda slow....
PIII500Mhz
Rivatnt2
256MB.
Up until today I ran a 500 mhz celeron p2 and it ran great in linux with both KDE and Gnome.
As for KDE and Gnome looking like windows, I can say one thing about Gnome's desktops that are better than window$, MULTIPLE PANELS... I've never seen a windows computer be able to run more than one "task bar" or better yet, none at all. I run 3 on auto hide. One with the windows lists, one with menus and desktop switcher and one with shortcuts to my most used programs. Screen shot included (http://www.reallynicehosting.com/screenshot.jpg) =) Note that my clock is off because I just built a new computer and forgot to change the time ;)
i dont quite like how kde runs on my machine, it's kinda slow....
PIII500Mhz
Rivatnt2
256MB.
Up until today I ran a 500 mhz celeron p2 and it ran great in linux with both KDE and Gnome.
As for KDE and Gnome looking like windows, I can say one thing about Gnome's desktops that are better than window$, MULTIPLE PANELS... I've never seen a windows computer be able to run more than one "task bar" or better yet, none at all. I run 3 on auto hide. One with the windows lists, one with menus and desktop switcher and one with shortcuts to my most used programs. Screen shot included (http://www.reallynicehosting.com/screenshot.jpg) =) Note that my clock is off because I just built a new computer and forgot to change the time ;)
je_fro
12-09-2002, 03:24 AM
JUDGE NOT THY NEIGHBOR, THAT YE BE JUDGED!
<sound familiar?>
<sound familiar?>
savethegibbons
12-09-2002, 04:39 AM
I personally much prefer kde and qt, which tend to be much more productive (with excellent unified print and file selection panels), plus they look much nicer, and you claim KDE is a rip of of windows? I couldnt agree less, KDE is extremely flexible, and can in fact emulate a wide array of interfaces, gnome and gtk+ on the other hand, looks poor in my opinion, and only adds to the lack of "sophistication" many windows/mac users think when they see a linux desktop.
I have tried vainly to make gnome look good...where I think I did quite nicely with fluxbox, enlightenment and *gasp*, maybe even windowmaker, I failed horribly with gnome, its configurable, but in all the wrong places...plus gtk apps drag down the look of my computer :).
Heres some examples.
File selection :
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/kdefile.jpg
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/gtkfile.jpg
I think the gtk file selection needs to be improved a lot, and you cant argue that its dumbing anything down since the gtk file selection dialog is much less powerful, since you cant properly turn off/on hidden files, or view by a wildcard (or thus file type), the shortcuts on the left make it a LOT quicker to use as well.
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/printkde.jpg
And heres the common printing interface you get across all qt apps, which makes things a lot easier to be honest, and guarantees you get a decent printing interface, often on gtk they all are different, and usually (with the exception of things like the gimp) they are much less powerful and dont properly support all the different print systems.
If these 2 things were improved, and gnome was made more "themable" with interchangable iconsets for application plus perhaps better support for alternate widgetsets, and I would be much happier. Right now though, for me, KDE has it.
More screenshots at http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots , most are just my attempts at mac os x rip off though, but (to me) my KDE looks pretty snazzy :O.
Fluxbox is nice too.
I have tried vainly to make gnome look good...where I think I did quite nicely with fluxbox, enlightenment and *gasp*, maybe even windowmaker, I failed horribly with gnome, its configurable, but in all the wrong places...plus gtk apps drag down the look of my computer :).
Heres some examples.
File selection :
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/kdefile.jpg
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/gtkfile.jpg
I think the gtk file selection needs to be improved a lot, and you cant argue that its dumbing anything down since the gtk file selection dialog is much less powerful, since you cant properly turn off/on hidden files, or view by a wildcard (or thus file type), the shortcuts on the left make it a LOT quicker to use as well.
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/printkde.jpg
And heres the common printing interface you get across all qt apps, which makes things a lot easier to be honest, and guarantees you get a decent printing interface, often on gtk they all are different, and usually (with the exception of things like the gimp) they are much less powerful and dont properly support all the different print systems.
If these 2 things were improved, and gnome was made more "themable" with interchangable iconsets for application plus perhaps better support for alternate widgetsets, and I would be much happier. Right now though, for me, KDE has it.
More screenshots at http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots , most are just my attempts at mac os x rip off though, but (to me) my KDE looks pretty snazzy :O.
Fluxbox is nice too.
bskahan
12-09-2002, 04:52 AM
Heres some examples.
File selection :
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/kdefile.jpg
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/gtkfile.jpg
I think the gtk file selection needs to be improved a lot, and you cant argue that its dumbing anything down since the gtk file selection dialog is much less powerful, since you cant properly turn off/on hidden files, or view by a wildcard (or thus file type), the shortcuts on the left make it a LOT quicker to use as well.
excellently demonstrated!
You just posted the most convincing argument I've seen for either side. I disagree about your aesthetic opinion regarding gnome (gnome 2 desktops can look quite nice) but otherwise, very informative.
-brian (who won't use gnome or KDE)
File selection :
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/kdefile.jpg
http://transient.dynu.com/files/screenshots/gtkfile.jpg
I think the gtk file selection needs to be improved a lot, and you cant argue that its dumbing anything down since the gtk file selection dialog is much less powerful, since you cant properly turn off/on hidden files, or view by a wildcard (or thus file type), the shortcuts on the left make it a LOT quicker to use as well.
excellently demonstrated!
You just posted the most convincing argument I've seen for either side. I disagree about your aesthetic opinion regarding gnome (gnome 2 desktops can look quite nice) but otherwise, very informative.
-brian (who won't use gnome or KDE)
je_fro
12-09-2002, 05:16 AM
Wow! You definately scored one there. That's nice; I'll second the "point well made". I've been a gnome user about 4 months now. (out of 4 months using linux) I never thought about how shabby my windows look compared to KDE! Mostly what I didn't like were the animations and colors. I realize now that everythings configurable, though. I'm going to see what I can do to spruce things up around here!!
savethegibbons
12-09-2002, 05:47 AM
Dont anybody get me wrong, I think gnome is extremely functional other than those 2 things, and I do use it, but I have problems getting it to be aesthetically pleasing. I suppose I do have a thing for eye candy though...well, perhaps not eye candy, but I like things to look "smooth".
If anyone is wondering about the look I gave KDE, a lot of is due to the "high performance liquid" style engine, which provides the various niceties such as translucency, stippling, and the nice widgets. The icons are "crystal", and a few stolen from mac os x hehe :).
The window decorations are "quartz" which comes by default with all the versions of kde 3 ive used.
All can be obtained from www.kde-look.org.
If anyone is wondering about the look I gave KDE, a lot of is due to the "high performance liquid" style engine, which provides the various niceties such as translucency, stippling, and the nice widgets. The icons are "crystal", and a few stolen from mac os x hehe :).
The window decorations are "quartz" which comes by default with all the versions of kde 3 ive used.
All can be obtained from www.kde-look.org.
jlmb
12-09-2002, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by BigFatJoe
Are you mocking us? or do you really consider that a slow computer?
I do considerer my PIII500mhz slow pc comparing it to today processors. (3.06Ghz) . Im not mocking anyone...
I run KDE on RedHat7.3. It could be me but i do think it runs slow, i couldnt run 3 konqueros at the same time cause my pc almost collapsed.
By the way, what pc you own?
Every time i see you guys screenshots, they are full of transparencies, and really neat stuff for what i suppose you need at least 800MHz to run it decently besides a newer video card and ddr mem.
Originally posted by reallynicejerk
Up until today I ran a 500 mhz celeron p2 and it ran great in linux with both KDE and Gnome.
What pc you own know?. By the way, your wallpaper is really cool.
Are you mocking us? or do you really consider that a slow computer?
I do considerer my PIII500mhz slow pc comparing it to today processors. (3.06Ghz) . Im not mocking anyone...
I run KDE on RedHat7.3. It could be me but i do think it runs slow, i couldnt run 3 konqueros at the same time cause my pc almost collapsed.
By the way, what pc you own?
Every time i see you guys screenshots, they are full of transparencies, and really neat stuff for what i suppose you need at least 800MHz to run it decently besides a newer video card and ddr mem.
Originally posted by reallynicejerk
Up until today I ran a 500 mhz celeron p2 and it ran great in linux with both KDE and Gnome.
What pc you own know?. By the way, your wallpaper is really cool.
sharth
12-09-2002, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Yorsh
Ummm what about a WM for an old pc?, i dont quite like how kde runs on my machine, it's kinda slow....
PIII500Mhz
Rivatnt2
256MB.
i almost have that exact configuration. debian sarge here. riva tnt. 551mhz processer (bought it overclocked... grr. evil computer show). 256mb ram.
I use blackbox personally, It runs quite fast for me. I want to say I have a slow computer, atleast compared to those 1ghz processers, but we're not compared to the 386s :)
Ummm what about a WM for an old pc?, i dont quite like how kde runs on my machine, it's kinda slow....
PIII500Mhz
Rivatnt2
256MB.
i almost have that exact configuration. debian sarge here. riva tnt. 551mhz processer (bought it overclocked... grr. evil computer show). 256mb ram.
I use blackbox personally, It runs quite fast for me. I want to say I have a slow computer, atleast compared to those 1ghz processers, but we're not compared to the 386s :)
Penrich
12-09-2002, 07:17 PM
On my super-duper fast PII 266 MHz, I've just found KDE and Gnome a wee bit too slow, although useable. Appearence-wise, I tend to favour KDE somewhat more than gnome, but I never tried too much customization. Fluxbox for me right now, although I'm gonna try enlightenment too, and maybe waiemaeiaemea if I can ever get it spelt correctly...
BigFatJoe
12-09-2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Yorsh
I do considerer my PIII500mhz slow pc comparing it to today processors. (3.06Ghz) . Im not mocking anyone...
I run KDE on RedHat7.3. It could be me but i do think it runs slow, i couldnt run 3 konqueros at the same time cause my pc almost collapsed.
By the way, what pc you own?
Every time i see you guys screenshots, they are full of transparencies, and really neat stuff for what i suppose you need at least 800MHz to run it decently besides a newer video card and ddr mem.
I don't if you were asking me (since you did quote me) but...
The all-mighty beast:
450 MHz, 128 MB RAM
Viper 770(ultra) (32MB) [nvidia card - awesome for graphics, and faily good for games (when I still ran Windoze)]
14.4 GB HD
fans and cooling - sounds like a server... (and runs like one too)
Still running potato...I know, I know...but I like it. I'll get around to woody one of these days.
I run Blackbox and aterm...all you'll ever need.
; )
The loyal servant:
P60
32MB RAM
300 MB HD
2x CD, floppy
Happily runs Debian Potato
You try installing Xfree86 (even 3.3) on 300 MB.
I do considerer my PIII500mhz slow pc comparing it to today processors. (3.06Ghz) . Im not mocking anyone...
I run KDE on RedHat7.3. It could be me but i do think it runs slow, i couldnt run 3 konqueros at the same time cause my pc almost collapsed.
By the way, what pc you own?
Every time i see you guys screenshots, they are full of transparencies, and really neat stuff for what i suppose you need at least 800MHz to run it decently besides a newer video card and ddr mem.
I don't if you were asking me (since you did quote me) but...
The all-mighty beast:
450 MHz, 128 MB RAM
Viper 770(ultra) (32MB) [nvidia card - awesome for graphics, and faily good for games (when I still ran Windoze)]
14.4 GB HD
fans and cooling - sounds like a server... (and runs like one too)
Still running potato...I know, I know...but I like it. I'll get around to woody one of these days.
I run Blackbox and aterm...all you'll ever need.
; )
The loyal servant:
P60
32MB RAM
300 MB HD
2x CD, floppy
Happily runs Debian Potato
You try installing Xfree86 (even 3.3) on 300 MB.
jlmb
12-09-2002, 10:03 PM
LOL it feels like family here! we around 400-600MHz! lol.
Tomorrow i have a big exam (Electromagnetic Fields) so im really nervous....I'll certainly need help from God itself :)
I've said it like 2x10^9 times with this one: I'll give Debian a try as soon as im off school. Im sure i'll love it.
Well, gonna eat something, im starving....
Tomorrow i have a big exam (Electromagnetic Fields) so im really nervous....I'll certainly need help from God itself :)
I've said it like 2x10^9 times with this one: I'll give Debian a try as soon as im off school. Im sure i'll love it.
Well, gonna eat something, im starving....
jmorr649
12-12-2002, 10:24 AM
I personally use Gnome but KDE is a great choice too. They both work fine and you will get use to whatever one you choose. Just pick the features you want and go from there.
justlinux.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.