GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: You prefer: KDE or GNOME ?
KDE
41
65.08%
GNOME
16
25.40%
No KDE, No Gnome
11
17.46%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll
Wow, in this pool, KDE is destroying Gnome . It could be fun to see some statistic around the World about the amount of users using Gnome/KDE. I am pretty sure the numbers would be much different.
I've no doubt KDE would win, but still, highly popular distributions, such as Ubuntu and Fedora, defaults to Gnome. That should make a big impact, since usually, an user sticks with whatever the OS defaults too (which explains why so many uses the horrible Blue-aqua-luna crap Windows XP uses).
Gnome didn't do itself a favor when they made it less configureable (except you go for the config files).
Most Linux users like to configure things the way they want to.
The point of the gnome guys that it would be less confusing that way is of course BS - you can always stick an 'advanced configs' button on there and hide the the 'confusing' stuff there.
Distribution: PCLinuxOS2007, openSUSE 10.2, experimenting with other distros
Posts: 10
Rep:
A few days ago, I posted on this question of Gnome/KDE. At the time, I was mostly undecided. But, after some careful consideration, I've decided that (for me), KDE is the clear winner. Although I don't always like the way that KDE does things, I do like that the config stuff is easier to get to. So many options, so little time...
probably people started out using kde or gnome as they are given by the default installation ... the other one would be xfce ...
i'm having the impression that windows blends both kde and gnome(the look and feel and the configuring part) of them into one by without including too much unneccssery configurable configurations very well ... accept for the "traditional" menu at the top of a window ... that is scary ...
I like Gnomes eye candy on icon-view in FM
This is sad, as Gnome allways gets in may way when I actually need a filemanager.
If I had to use only Gnome, I would be most of the time in a rxvt and mc inside of that. So what's the use of Gnome then?
So when I'm on X, I usually look to be in KDE, as Konqueror is a Battlecruiser among file-managers/browsers/etc.
When I'm looking for a stable WM I find blackbox handy for it rocks with its small footprint + stability.
Regarding performance gadgets:
Is there any better tool than gkrellm? I have it alltimes on my desktop, regardless of the WM
So, i vote for KDE (and blackbox), Gnome is IMHO deprecated.
Is there any better tool than gkrellm? I have it alltimes on my desktop, regardless of the WM
Better than gkrellm? That is a matter of opinion. Personally, I dislike gkrellm. I always switch to it when I alt-tab. It has thousands(?) of skins, but none fits my desktop the way I like it (and I am to lazy to make my custom skins). Also, if I had to monitor something, I'd ratter monitor my log files (not sure if gkrellm now can do that too) ratter than my HD space or some other useless thing. I personally would use torsmo:
Great program, small footprint, runs on the root window so it does not "interfere" with the other windows I have open and fits my desktop nicely. However, I don't use monitoring tools any more. I found them unnecessary and distracting. They(some, not all) can also cause refreshing problems when running some games.
You have a point there, may be even two
I don't bother themeing og gkrellm any more, but, oposite to You I just like gazing in gadgetry every now or then. And I really like the oversight of the OS at close-to-none CPU-cost.
At my desktop, gkrellm somehow allways grows top-to-bottom, and is allways a tight fit:
CPU mon
Proc mon
Temp mon (lm-sensors and ACPI-thermal)
Disk t/p mon
network mon
swap T/p mon + memory krell (tripple)
mail mon
battery mon (on the laptop)
and a nice closk and uptime too
And all that labels could carry custom commands so I don't have to use icons in blackbox
actually you can ... you just have to maximized it covering your whole screen ... ^_^
seriously ...
i also find find gkrellm a bit awkward to use ... i used to try very hard to use it as frequently as possible but somehow(and i donno when) i just stop using it anymore ...
Gnome didn't do itself a favor when they made it less configureable (except you go for the config files).
Most Linux users like to configure things the way they want to.
The point of the gnome guys that it would be less confusing that way is of course BS - you can always stick an 'advanced configs' button on there and hide the the 'confusing' stuff there.
Indeed, the more options is a big value for us, linux-customizers and adapting this unix strength to every of our needs.
To preserve this high quality, KDE made great job. Kcontrol is very well made, and modules of it are called from other programs. Really nice.
For gnome, it looks like this desktop is unfinished master piece of work. ESC never works all the time, key shortcuts are weird, file manager with strange behaviours.
An example: just try gnome-commander, wine totalcommander, and krusader / konqueror.Then Chance Kde exists. Look windows, when a program is sold to customers, it is usually well finished and all functionalities are working. For instance, emelfm, gnome-commander, are centuries far behind, I'd say. Vista is now dealing with voice recognition, starting (hmm) .
Lucky that we have KDE, lucky for Linux, otherwise gnome would be a bit limited (like windows desktop is) !
Last edited by frenchn00b; 08-07-2007 at 01:30 AM.
>> "Indeed, the more options is a big value for us, linux-customizers and adapting this unix strength to every of our needs."
but we shouldnt learn where and how to configure with options on "simple" things ... infact , i dont see this as a strength of unix(whatever this means) ...
if gnome would just be slightly(but not too much like kde) more complicated than what it is now , then i think gnome is hard to beat ...
As said above in this thread by one, that why this is important to have the button in the Configuration Panel: Advanced Options...
I'd say, don't you think ? It could satisfy all of us.
Greetings
but we shouldnt learn where and how to configure with options on "simple" things ... infact , i dont see this as a strength of unix(whatever this means) ...
You mean that ppl should be forced to learn messing around with config files? Just asking.
Personally I don't mind but if somebody does mind he shouldn't have to in my peculiar view of things.
Easy is good if it works.Keeps me from being annoyed by customers.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.