Well, havent you little bitches gotten ugly. Hopefully none of you have to look at a page with a bad word in it tomorrow, since some of you are acting like a group of pubescent girls in the middle of their periods. Fact this Fact that, how about arguing for something a little more realistic than what you prefer. You know who you are, why dont you acknowledge the calming (almost KDE effect) of not arguing. Stop arguing little facts and look at the bigger picture of what it does for the newbie. Put out your best, hopefully your best isnt an argument.

What about Fluxbox or box variants?

Thanks

Both DE's have improved greatly over the past couple of years. I am currently using Gnome under Ubuntu but plan to add KDE so I can have the option of using either. The problem with gnome(and i pronounce gnome like NOME as in "underpants gnomes" Gahnome or whatever is silly and cumbersome IMO. > The great part about GNOME is GTK and that you don't have to pay a license for developing apps with it unlike Trolltech's QT counterpart. However, I voted for KDE because its the superior product. KDE just looks better. The wallpapers, themes, icons, UI. Its smooth, slick and sexy. Gnome has the potential to beat KDE in the future but currently it is not as mature as KDE. I think if more people devoted time to improving the look of GNOME then one day it would bury KDE. I just wish the projects could somehow MERGE or a new DE come out to kill them both. With the DE wars it makes it hard for a divided linux community to compete with Micro$oft.


Jeff

I actually like the look of the Gnome desktop but dont like the way Gnome applications look. The fonts seem to render differently and windows (Toolboxes, tabs etc) look angular and dominant making the workspace appear very busy. Thats just my personal opinion but KDE is much more mature and polished.

I mostly prefer a simple window manager (ion3) but when I occasionally want to use a full-blown desktop environment, it's KDE with Window Maker:

export KDEWM="wmaker"
exec startkde

I've compiled and used Gnome 2.12 and KDE 3.5 for my system, tried both for about a month, and I prefer Gnome. Not for any huge reasons. KDE is a great environment that I would happily run if Gnome wasn't around, but there are some things I like about Gnome much better.

I prefer Nautilus as a file manager. I love being able to go up the directory tree to any ancestor directory with one click. I absolutely love the Gnome Virtual File System, and I wish more apps were compiled with support for it. Konqueror seems to be a web broswer first and a file manager second. It's just easier to click the button at the top of the Nautilus menu for the dir I want as opposed to pressing up a bunch of times or changing the text in the address bar.

Gnome offers me the ability to easily change icons for anything I want. It's cool to change my mp3 playlists for full albums from some lame mp3 icon to a pic of the album cover... or if I have a bunch of directories of pics I can choose a representative for each one as the icon by simply right-clicking.

One of the big incentives I kept reading about for KDE was how fast the QT-based Opera browser was. However, I was shocked that Firefox-1.5 in KDE was quicker to load, and otherwise indistinguishable in performance from Opera-8.51 in KDE. I expected very different results, considering my hardware is pretty old (Athlon XP 1800, Abit KR7A-RAID, 256 MB PC2100 DDR, Radeon 8500 64 MB).

i agree about the option in nautilus to have clickable locations, tough that's the only thing i really like about it. functions like the split-screen from konqi, dirfilter (now also in gnome, i know, but it has been in kde since 2 years!), better network transparancy, more file previews, many possible views, and its speed make me use konqi... and the clickable location thing is available for konqi, somewhere on KDE-apps.org (yeah, konqi has extensions, had them before most firefox users ever heard about firefox).

Well what do you know I got a winner here, I really icewm but for some reason I'm always running back in KDE, I guess it just works for an all around desktop.

I say match the source to the load: Slack, I use KDE for general stuff and for work, fluxbox. On the old Toshiba laptop, it's Mandriva2005 with GNOME.
Still, KDE kicks GNOME in the tuchus, so no big surprise!

if only the majority were knowledgable enough to know better

They are very knowledgeable.

I like to keep the number of dependencies that have to be managed to a minimum. If a particular distro writes their own tools with GTK I'll use GNOME and if they write them with QT I'll use KDE. So for SuSE it's KDE and for Red Hat/Fedora it's GNOME. My whole system just feels less bloated that way.

I've been using Linux FedCore3 for 3 months now with gnome2.8 and KDE3.3; gnome is like solid granite, it is so dependable. KDE is this too - but the amount of personalisation you can do with KDE is awesome.

Those came under the window manager award.

Well, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like an nail.

I use Gnome and KDE, depending upon the tasks at hand, and I even use windows xp.
Gnome, when there is no system work to do, and when my wife and grandchildren want to do things easily.

KDE when I want to kyum, or use the other tools to do administrative work.
And XP and word/Excel when I need to do that type of work. (I did give OO a try, and it is klutzy, still buggy, and far from easy to adapt to.)