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.
LoL what?? A cool desktop? I would give coolness any day for functionality and stability man.
Ok, hand over to me and I'll tell you what bash is, for a start. If it sounds bad, there are some choices around..definitely functional and stable, and fast as anything. Well, maybe MidnightCommander over that..
Used both Gnome and KDE from their first days (well, not the first birthday of course, I was playing f00ball at the local golf place then, but the earliest versions anyway), and have to say that KDE was far better when it's version was 1, compared to this 3 series. Hopes are high that KDE4 saves the day, but it remains to be seen..Gnome has taken huge leaps from it's early days, especially those few versions in the beginning of 2.xx that it just beat everybody up and drank your coffee without saying "thanks". Well, shortly said, both of them are plain hell they're just like Windows, it works the first time you use it and may continue to do so for some time if you never touch any of it's settings, and try to disturb it as little as possible. XFCE is a nice lad, better than those two, but it's got one huge problem: if you DO want to have a graphical desktop environment, why would you ever accept a thing with only core stuff? I mean that anything XFCE basic package includes can be done in console a lot faster and more reliably. When it gets to stuff you can't do with console, you can't do it with XFCE either - then it's about Gnome or KDE, having those nifty configurations, settings, panel garbages, seven views and little widgets..
On laptops I could never even dream about using KDE nor Gnome. Battery just dies out because CPU is going hot all the time drawing the nice windows around and about..phew. Vista is something I wouldn't throw even at my worst enemies - it's just sad plagiarism of OS X and the most used Gnome/KDE widgets with everything done even more half-ass-way than in KDE, with a very bad performance and still ugly looks. If you take the money you need to buy a regular pc capable of running Vista (and even some programs on it!) with full effects, you can just buy a Mac and have it all actually working. Or you can just spare it on hot dogs, nice cars and long-haired girls while actually being able to do your job using textual shell
Distribution: Slackware / Debian / *Ubuntu / Opensuse / Solaris uname: Brian Cooney
Posts: 503
Rep:
I would be willing to bet that it is actually beryl that is buggy, and not kde. That red gem looking thing is a control applet for beryl, try disabling the beryl window manager if its running and going back to kde's default.
This 'users are idiots, and are confused by functionality' mentality of Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do.
He doesn't use Gnome yet he uses Fedora because it's simple to set up et. all. *G* Fedora treats its users like idiots, go for Gentoo or Slackware. Sheesh.
Just to make sure it is known that you CAN control the icons on the desktop. KDE uses a desktop folder in the users home folder. You want to get rid of one of them but perhaps want it back later without figuring out how to create it, you could just create something like a kde-desktop folder in the home folder and move the icons from the desktop into it. They will magically disappear from the Desktop folder at the time you do this. If you want them back just move them back to the desktop from your kde-desktop folder.
In Gnome you do that from Nautilus or gconf editor but with KDE you simply move the icons where you want them and KDE adjusts. It's a good way for those who switch back and forth with Gnome too, as you can remove the icons before booting into Gnome so you don't get useless additional KDE desktop icons along with the Gnome ones.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
they're just like Windows, it works the first time you use it and may continue to do so for some time if you never touch any of it's settings, and try to disturb it as little as possible. XFCE is a nice lad, better than those two, but it's got one huge problem: if you DO want to have a graphical desktop environment, why would you ever accept a thing with only core stuff? I mean that anything XFCE basic package includes can be done in console a lot faster and more reliably. When it gets to stuff you can't do with console, you can't do it with XFCE either - then it's about Gnome or KDE, having those nifty configurations, settings, panel garbages, seven views and little widgets..
