Let's be honest other DE's cant compete with gnome or kde in a part of functionality, yes, xfce for example is faster, BUT, if you go away from standard theme it get's quite slow.
I have used kde and gnome for quite some time and what I don't like about kde is that it was and is crashing all the time both 3 and 4 versions in the same time what I love about gnome is it's stability and it isn't as much slower as even xfce if you configure and tweak it a little bit.
People are saying:
oooh gnome is so bloated, what do you mean?
What are actual minuses of gnome?

Here are a few things about gnome that bugged me when I tried it.

1. Flat grey appearance.
2. Entering a program in the start menu, starts a different program instead of autocompleting matching program names.
3. Options are hidden, and contained somewhere in xml files which are harder to edit than text configuration files. I'm not good with xsltproc yet.
4. Starting to look like OS X. Too many gnome programmers use Macs and don't wipe the drives of Apple software. Bad influence.
5. The pronounciation: GeeNome instead of Nome. Look it up in the dictionary.

Not geenome, but g'nome (for those w-hoo k-no).

before I start moaning, what do we moan about here, gnome2 or gnome3 ?

That's just silly. Do you mean this dictionary?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnome

How about this pronunciation?
http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/a...2/G0218600.wav

I hope you were joking.

I've never heard nor read how to pronounce the name of the Gnome Desktop Environment. I have read that you are supposed to pronounce the "g" in GNU which causes my stomach to ache. I'm not persuaded that this practice is supposed to carry over into Gnome DE.

Hey, jschiwal,

thanks for answer,

1. I don't agree, I think it looks not flat grey, it looks solid
2. Not sure, if I understood you correctly
3. hmm.. I must say I would agree with you, but XML's have good structure, so it's very disputable
4. bigger hmm... I think it's not bad influence, I think it's good, tested influence, but I would agree with you that this is a lost a bit of originality ;)
5. Everybody is very alarmed about this most important of your points. :D Here I can say I like how English language sounds I think it is one of most cool sounding languages in the world, BUT, you have a MESS with writing and pronunciation. I think it would be hard to find another language where you have to make spelling contests, if somebody reads some new word(term) in some youtube video it is hell for them to prononciate it correctly, so they give you 3 - 4 ways how you can say the same word :D it's funny,

And actually I prefer to say like DavidMcCann given example g'nome, simply because you write "gnome" so say as IT IS, it is written gnome so say g n o m e :) I am sorry to all who are offended by this, peace people ;)

oh and yes, I think that sound file is incorrect because I watched video about open source and some person was explaining reasons why you have to say g'nome, it was some time ago, so don't ask link to video :)

and almatic moan please about gnome 2 :) I haven't used 3rd version.

out of the box:
I don't see any weaknesses in Gnome. (not using 3 atm but 2.x)
KDE4 is very complete, but very buggy.
KDE3.5x was way more stable, but has a very flat appearance. (like the nineties)

Gnome (2) is very intuitive (easy navigation), fast (faster compared to KDE4), and stable (less crashes, spontaneous hangs)

I don't moan about Gnome. I like Gnome and the Gnome Project. I actually use Xfce, though. Funny. I make extensive use of themes and I've never noticed a slowdown in Xfce. Anyway, if you hear me ever moaning at all, it would be about KDE4.

A lot of this boils down to taste.

When I started with Linux in 2005, KDE had superior eye appeal and Gnome looked clunky; Gnome has come a long way since then, while KDE has larded itself down with a bunch of overhead (read, Akonadi) that I find useless and annoying. That's just me.

I now use Fluxbox on almost all my computers because I don't need a desktop environment with lots of widgets doing things I don't care about soaking up RAMs in the background--I need to start and stop programs and want minimal system tray type stuff. I run a mix of KDE and Gnome programs, depending on which ones do what I need to do most effectively and gracefully.

(Granted, when you first install Fluxbox, it really lacks in the eye candy department, but, with a little bit of RTFM, you can make it really pretty.)

And it's still a matter of taste and of what works for you.

I've never heard it pronounced without a vowel sound. Not in english anyway. Plus the word gnome is in the dictionary and the g is silent.

Most persons I know say "guh-NOME" to differentiate between the desktop environment and things found in persons' gardens.

If I may be so bold, I don't see much to gain from disputing the pronunciation of a made-up word which is basically a trademark based on an acronym--a benevolent trademark, to be sure, but still a trademark.

I don't like Gnome (2 or 3) because I like KDE (3 and 4)

Yes frankbell, I like fluxbox too, but let's try to moan about gnome

look at fbt, this is the best moan until now

-------

But honestly from this thread I understand that nobody can tell serious reason why gnome would suck, and as KDE is starting to move proprietary because of NOKIA and QT and is crashing all the time.

Currently, GNOME is the most complete and stable desktop environment.

When I look at GNOME 3, 'complete' is not a word that comes to mind. Unless it was in a sentence such as "I am not complete(ly) sure I like where this is going".

As for stable, well, if you mean in terms of not crashing then I've never had any problems with GNOME 2 crashing, I've yet to seriously use GNOME 3. If on the other hand you mean stable as in terms of delivering a consistent user experience, well go look at GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 and see how 'stable' their user interface is between those two versions. Also GNOME 3 isn't even guaranteed to give everyone the same interface, what you get depends on how good your graphics hardware and drivers are.

I used to moan about GNOME because they took out lots of customisations with GNOME 2. Tabs in GNOME Terminal were a long time coming. I use GNOME 2 at the moment but now the thing I find to moan about is that it seems like just as GNOME 2 got to a point where it was really solid they decided to invent a new desktop workflow paradigm or whatever the relevant buzzwords are. What I and I think a very large number of GNOME users would have liked GNOME 3 to be was to be the same basic concept as GNOME 2 but somehow... improved. Maybe a new window manager that works well with and without hardware acceleration so there's a single window manager you always use instead of having both metacity and compiz (if your distro has a settings for something called Desktop Effects or similar, turning that on and off switches between the metacity and commpiz window managers). Fix idiotic bugs like the Appearance Preferences window being complete frozen until every thumbnail is loaded. Stuff like that.

Good points, arizonagroovejet

As I said previously, I haven't used gnome 3.