One thing that I did not mention was that I do not like in XFCE4 and previous is the "Thunar File manager." It does not have an option to "open in new tabs." Even windows explorer finally opens in tabs. To use Thunar is to use Microsoft explorer.

I don't see a big need to have many tabs open in a file manager, although it's a nice feature. If all you need is 2-3 tabs (which is understandable), then you can have 2-3 windows open.

But one thing I HATE about Thunar is the permissions settings. It doesn't even have a checkbox or menu to set executable permission!

Thunar is unattractive and doesn't support network browsing that I can tell. I much prefer konqueror to anything else. If XFCE had an option to let me use konqeror like Gnome does, it would be a great leap forward.

A very good question, and one worthy of discussion, IMO.

Another good question would be: Where does functionality end and useless bloat begin and according to who?

This leads back to the cube. Assume that you were an instructor. Desktop 1 file manger multiple tabs to download and sort students assignments by category. Multiple windows and multiple tabs will be used.
Desktop 2 Resize multimedia partition (lvm) and reduce home partition's size. Move files as necessary,

Desktop3 Organize music and video by genre in the now larger multimedia partition. One window for music, 1 window for video, multiple genres = multiple tabs.
Desktop 4 Google transmissions due to the gear grinding of one's alleged better half. Rebuilt transmissions equals Firefox three windows and multiple tabs. One window for rebuilt transmissions, another window for new transmissions.

As task are progressing on one desktop, other task are being initiated and completed on another desktop. During periods of extreme tasking, I keep the cube spinning, windows and tabs constantly opening and closing. I couldn't accomplish things as quickly if I did not have file managers and browsers with tabs. It would be like being comdemned to use explorer.

You're the one who said "sounds like a job for the terminal..." ? Truthfully, I can't recall that being a problem, probably did not use Thunar long enough. Point taken though

You had to ask that question didn't you? Are you trying to provoke the rabble who might chance upon what has been a civil and objective thread? To objectively determine where functionality ends would require a set of objective standards by which to measure each desktop's performance, features, and PERFECTLY OBJECTIVE PEOPLE AND consistently perfect and equitable computer usage scenarios, which is nigh impossible
The following could serve as a guide perhaps
1)Resources available On a system with limited features, a full office suite could be considered bloat
2)Learning curved desired. On a production machine, a lower learning curve could be advantageous while a hobbyist has comparatively unlimited time to learn a desktop. However, typically, a lower learning curve equals more automated processes and background processes, more bloat.
3)Intended use of the machine. Do we really need three image and film editing suites on a machine whose sole function is that of a firewall router?
4)Variables: stability of key apps, machine quirks, user differences. Foo0 and Foo1 are different apps that do the same thing equally well. However, half all employees struggle with Foo0, and the other half struggle with Foo1. Installing both would be machine bloat, but human efficiency. What of apps that perform differently on different machines? Now we need two apps for protection. more bloat or enhanced functionality...hmm...?
5)Quality of documetation. Great documentation will either increase the desire for apps or reduce the need for more apps.


Some would add appearance to this list, which is subjective. However, no one is entirely objective, hence the problem of determining where bloat begins and functionality ends.

In my opinion, having the minimum number of program necessary to get the job done is sufficient.
I use Tinycore on a usb stick as my emergency repair OS. Fully loaded, it is 200mb. Slax could do the same thing, but it's too big (bloated, 200mb before a program is downloaded) for what it does. However, If I need a USB sized distro that I can take with me and watch DVD and surf without leaving a footprint on the hotel's host computer, then give me Slax on a USB.

Opensuse, for years, was once ranked number 2 at DistroWatch.com. I liked 11.0 However, it is slower, it had many updates which took up several gig and required clean re-installs. In some cases, the documentation was lacking. I experienced this. Now it is ranked number3. Is it bloated? It was in 11.1, measured fact on the same machine, mine, plus mutiple reviews.
Disclaimer: I am not purporting to represent the views of Linux users en masse. I my opinions are formed from my experiences and from observing that which appears to me to be the desires of most Linux users. This disclaimer is not intended for those to whom I've responded; it's intended for those who might take offense and start a contest that I would invariably win.

Do you use Konqueror as a browser? If so, why? After all, no one makes extensions for it, and if someone makes extensions for Konqueror, said extensions are probably not comparable to the extensions associated with Firefox in terms of quality and quantity. Also, using konqueror means that the skills one acquires using normal browers such as Epiphany, Firefox, and Opera go out the window when one attempts to configure Konqueror.

Oh, but wait! There's more. Europeans suck at documentation, and since there is virtually, no chance that anyone reading this knows more about education and teaching than I, I would suggest caution to those who would challenge the following: By reading documentation with a logically aquantifiable understanding of an educator's job and an understanding of how people learn, one can glean the decade in which the documentation author recieved his/her degree. In short, European documentation writers are stuck in the 1980's, with the author's of Debian's documentation. I typically refer to the 1980's as the dark ages of Linux documentation and Americaan education Note: Debian and Arch ROCK!

Then there is the fact that Konqueror is a file manager and a browser, which to me means the possibility of an unnecessary security risk for the same reason that "Explorer" and "Internet Explorer" are an unnecessary" risk. Granted, the risk is reduced due to the inherent security superiority of Linux vs. Windows.

???

I don't get it.

I was using KDE till Mandriav 2008.1. but after they changed to KDE 4 i stopped using it. and now using GNOME. although LXDE and IceWM are fine but they lack some features.... after GNOME my choice is LXDE.. pcman fm is quite good and faster than Nautilus

I'm a little smarter with Linux now and I'm sure it can be done. As you suggest, I just don't see the need or advantage to change desktops now.

Speaking about teaching/knowledge/education:
Your paragraph, as quoted, has nothing todo with the topic, and is quite arrogant and fictional/false info spreading.
I see your paragraph as a personal rant, or lack of respect for that matter, a.k.a. anti educational.
stay ontopic, or leave the thread.

I don't even understand what it's supposed to mean!

Nice, but baseless accusations. If I lied, try enumerating my alleged lies if you can. If you cannot, then you are the one spreading false information. In example, I said that Opensuse is no longer number two ranked at DistroWtch.com. Go there if you doubt me. A few months ago, Slax did not come with Konqueror. Download it yourself. Other than OpenSuse and Novel, point me to a source of European Documentation that is on par with Ubunu. Where are my lies? My opinion is it a lie too? Name a source of add-ons for Konqueror that is as rich as the sources of add-ons for Firefox. As it pertains to determining which Desktop, Gnome or KDE, is better for a person or a group, I listed possible criteria. Was I remiss? Show me european documnetation for KDE that is on par with Ubuntu or OpenSuse, not generated in America or by Opensuse, and I will publicly acknowledge being wrong! If you do not like my attitude fine, but in the future, at least write that which you can defend, otherwise you risk publicly embarrassing yourself...again

Still, what does this have to do with Europe?

I just don't understand what this discussion is about, and what it has to do with "education and teaching". I don't know if this is what you mean, but I don't think you have to have a language degree to write good documentation.

To the contrary, the original post asked, quote, “GNOME or KDE? Which would you like to use?”
Along the way, the questions became “where does bloat begin and functionality end?” Also, asked was” where does simplicity end and too Spartan to be useful begin?” It can also be said that the quality and quantity of documentation can determine a desktop's appeal and usefulness. In fact, DistroWatch.com, among others, touts Ubunu's documentation as an advantage. To that end, Gnome is better tham KDE because of the Ubuntu factor addressed below and above. Even Redhat's Alan Cox states that Gnome is easier to use than KDE although he added that KDE gives one more configuration options.
For those new to Linux, Documentation or the lack of documentation can be a major issue. For those who doubt, go to DistroWatch.com, click major distributions, where one can see a relationship between popularity and quality and quantity of documentation. In Ubuntu, the quantity and quality of the documentation is better than that of many other distros, source Distrowatch.com. Since Ubuntu uses Gnome, it is far easier to find Quality documentation for Gnome than KDE because of the Ubuntu factor. This means that people learn Gnome and become comfortable with it. It stands to reason that the more people who understand Gnome, the more useful and user friendly the forums will be with respect to finding information about Gnome. This can make Gnome a more practical choice when compared to KDE because of the greater availability of quality documentation.
The questions then becomes by what standard does one judge quality documentation? The answer is too obvious: The best documentation will most likely be that which is written by someone with a degree in education administration and teaching, a background in Linux and who teaches or writes textbooks for a living. Indeed, since education is continuously evolving, one can glean the decade in which a documentation's author received their degree.

In example, take Debian, an excellent distro, when one looks at Debian's documentation, one sees the discussion based writing style of the 80's. Key steps of a process, are intermixed with background information and other information that has nothing to with completing the steps at hand, making the task needlessly more complex. Any documentation should keep related ideas together. Debian was released in 1993;Ubuntu was released in 2004. Older Distros (Debian) which defer to the “I received my degree in the 80's” style of writing are not as likely to produce documentation that keeps related ideas together, and so it is no surprise that, according to Distrowatch, Debian is not as popular as Ubuntu even though both Distros are Debian. This of course means that it should be no surprise that Gnome is more popular in the USA than KDE.

To put it another way, at some point, everyone has found documentation, struggled with it and then found good documentation that made the task much easier. The distro or desktop with the best documentation will probably be most popular and best for most people. Apparently, that means Gnome for Americans as indicated by Alan Cox and every poll that I've ever seen.

I am critical of European documentation, with the exception of Opensuse because it is often written in a Spartan style that shows no knowledge of how people learn. It often requires that one have an inordinate amount of pre-existing Linux knowledge. Kde is European. This was my experience in 2007-2008.

The founder of “Tinycore Linux,” Robert Shingledecker, in the Tinycore forum, has said that Linux experts are not the best documentation writers. Since the purpose of documentation is to teach, one would think that documentation author's would be open to politely couched constructive criticism, but they're not, quite the opposite, due to pride.

Knowing that documentation is a point of contention, I made it a point to reference something other than myself. I also, alluded to education and that which is common knowledge. I stated that I know more about education than most Americans because I do, and to reduce the possibility of having to respond to frivolous responses. I do not mind if someone expresses an opinion that is different than my opinion. However, the knowledge of education that I have gives me a frame of reference which means that with respect to talking about documentation, I would detest being contradicted by someone who would assert an opinion as fact while they simultaneously showed an inferior frame of reference.

To summarize, this thread was about which Desktop (Gnome or KDE) is preferred and why. Key questions were, “Where does simplicity end and too Spartan to be useful begin?” Where does functionality (more programs redundancy) in apps go from being performance enhancing to excessive bloat?” The answers are obvious: It's subjective; it depends on the audience and the intended use of the desktop. However, objective criteria can be applied to at least get an idea of which Desktop is better for the majority within a given audience under a given set of conditions. I've simply stated that the quality and quantity of documentation can affect the usefulness of a desktop, and one's preference for Gnome over KDE. I've backed up my statements with information that is publicly available.