[RANT] I've been using KDE since two days to just get its feel, so last night before sleep I did the things I do usually, shut off the system and went to a peaceful sleep. However I wake up today, boot into Fedora, and I get this.
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2381/buggyeu5.png

Now can anyone tell me please where did my menu and control panel entries disappear? I haven't done anything to it, no tinkering with any config files, didn't install/update anything, there is no one else in the house, hopefully no ghosts around, and I'm totally sure it was working fine before the last shutdown. I logged out and restarted but still the same.

Yes sure, (you must say)I must have done something because KDE is Godsend and can't do nothing wrong, isn't it? Ah well, screw KDE, I'm going back to GNOME. Not configurable as KDE but stable and much faster and smoother and hasn't screwed up like this since it usage of 2 years.. And that's all I need.[/RANT]

EDIT: Ah lol, I just noticed another thread called 'KDE far better.. ',snap, this is not a rebuttal to that thread or anything, but just my rant, hehe

I'm not the greatest KDE fan either and I wouldn't trade in Gnome for any money in the world, not for KDE. KDE may have tons of features but most oft them are implemented in a half-assed way. I mean, what is wrong with that whole Konqueror? You can pick from five or six preview sizes and all of them are too big or too small, zero flexibility. And if you use "very large", you can be sure that your folder icons are pumped up to kingkongean proportions. And where are the checkboxes to enable/disable such essential desktop icons as home, trash and computer? Why do menus cover half of the screen? Why can't previews be expanded to full screen mode (and I mean FULL screen). And then those are only the first things I can think of... So far my contribution to the KDE rant thread.

Oh come on we all know you don't have any problems with your system nor with KDE, you just wanted to show us how cool your desktop is.

BTW: We can see your IP LOLZ. :P Might want to be careful with that, you never know.

LoL what?? A cool desktop? I would give coolness any day for functionality and stability man. As I mentioned above, its been just 2 days of KDE and all those things on desktop are just experimental experiments. I get fed up of things of my desktop soon. As for the IP its dynamic and I'm least bothered. But nonetheless scratched it.

I've had similar experiences with Gnome. The gnome panel is similarly unreliable, several times now it has crashed and lost all the settings, and I've had to waste time setting it up as it was before.

thats why generally i go for xfce if i want that sort of thing ...

not to say that gnome and kde are not good(they are hard work and very competent job) but when i first look at vista ... feel like want to cry ... ^_^

everyone more or less do love "eye-candy" very much ...

btw ... in my opinion , when talking about desktop appearance and its capabalities ... mentioning those "unconcerned" underlying merits of the os system is a bit too way out ...


.

Probably just depends on what you're doing. I can't recall ever having an issue with KDE, but my short time with Gnome I've had all kinds of weird issues. Just use the one that works best for you! :-)

3yrs on KDE with pretty much no issues. The only other desktop I have ran for any length of time was Icewm and XFCE, never could get the hang of Gnome.

Each to his/her own. My desktop is KDE and it will most likely stay that way for a long time, unless something better comes along.

I've had buggy problems with some KDE apps (there was a time when K3B would seg-fault at the end of every burn, for example) but this usually seems to get fixed pretty quickly. What I love about KDE is the total customizability and interrelatedness of all the components. The latter is (if I understand it correctly) because of QT's ability to compartmentalize stuff to the point that you can literally drop an editor component into a file manager pane. This leads to all sorts of cool use cases, like using Konqueror to surf the web + view files + browse a foreign archive file. Everything's in one place, but you're really using Konqueror + Ark + Kate + etc... all mashed together. Plus you've got almost total network transparency. Anyway, I like KDE but I realize that for some people (especially beginners and people who like order [not to mention separation of functionality -- the Unix way, right? Yeah, KDE *seems* to violate that, from the user's perspective.]) GNOME is probably better.

I've not had any problems with KDE. (apart from what can be narrowed down to ID10T errors. )
I started with GNOME, and I actually quite liked it. (Then I got KDE, and liked that even more. )
However, I do think that GNOME looks too much like Windows. (But, that's just me.)

Me neither.

I might be wrong, but it appears to me that KDE and GNOME interfere with each other's configs. It would probably work better if you set up a separate user account for each.

I can't say I haven't seen any bugs in KDE (I've seen a couple over time) but the ones I did see were so minor they didn't really bother me. And if I do find anything, I make sure there's a bug report out on it.

What's the point of this? IF you don't like it, don't use it. I've been using GNOME for some time and found that it's ugly and inflexible when compared to KDE (IMHO). That if not to mention that KDE beats Windows desktop as well.

By the way, you even didn't specify KDE version and I've never had problem you are describing since the first install of KDE.

I prefer Gnome, but I must say that I also have had problems with "missing" panels in Gnome since Redhat 6.2. While both KDE and Gnome looks great, I found them both very unstable. Not only the DE themselves, but also several applications. I have had more crashes with Gnome than I have had with WinXP (actually, XP is solid in most of my machines. XP sucks on my Dell machine though).

Call me crazy, but I found the every toolkit on Linux ratter disappointing. The problem is that no GUI is integrated on the linux kernel as Windows(Windows API) or Mac(Mac OS toolbox) is.

While this is a major plus when running a OS-server(less things running == more security == better performance), it is a huge drawback when developing desktop/gui applications. And that is also why you can't configure a lot of things in Linux through the GUI. And also explains why the GUI in Linux is generally less responsive than in Windows, for example.

Don't know man... I think that if Linux really wants to grab a bite on the Desktop share, it needs an integrated toolkit and dev/rad tools for it. I know the CLI-guys want to kick my butt after this post, but the truth is, the GUI was born because the CLI was not always effective (harder to learn and use for many people, for example).

Too many options(GTK, QT, whatever) is not always the best approach.

Mega Man

Are you sure your computer is up to it? I mean, I see that you are running Xubuntu, which makes me think you may have limited RAM installed. Gnome and KDE do have their hardware requirements (256MB at the very least, preferably double that). Personally, I've been using Gnome for a year (2GB RAM originally) and I haven't seen anything crashing so far (other than the occasional application but that can be brought down without killing Gnome).