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.
Why do so many distributions use KDE? It is very, very lame. GNOME is so much better! GNOME keeps getting better with every release, but KDE keeps getting worse.
Last time I tried it was version 3.2, and it was not all that bad, even though it was a total ripoff of GNOME. I just downloaded and tried out 4.3, though, and it is awful. Why would anybody use that?
What is the point of having KDE and GNOME? Once GNOME was already out, there wasn't any need to replace it with KDE. Plus, GNOME is from GNU and that means it is better just on face value. How can you trust KDE to run on your computer if it isn't even free software and you don't even know what it is doing to your hard disk?
Why don't they just create a forum called Flame War?
Aside from that, why would anybody use either KDE or GNOME?
KDE may be garbage but at least it's easier to install and doesn't create 50 bazillion needless dependencies as gnome does? Much like the very needless GConf! WHY!?!?!?!
While kde4 may suck because its all eyecandy and way too big a change from kde3.5.10 that actually was great. Gnome has always sucked, it is too simple and the options are hidden in the annoying gconf. The only good gnome is a yard gnome.
Now which is worse? Both use a lot of resources, i.e. ram and cpu.
You need a more or less new computer to run either one well.
My desktop on choice these days is lxde, I guess once it becomes the vista of linux like kde4 and gnome3.0 I will finally switch to running a plain window manager like openbox.
A plague on all your houses! Erm, I mean... desktop environments!
KDE and Gnome both have the same failing. They've got delusions of grandeur and suffer from extreme scope-creep. Instead of providing basic desktop functionality such as file-management, task launching, task switching and other workflow related activities, they have both invaded the application space and also control functions which I'd consider to belong in the realm of the operating system itself such as user management, package management, network configuration, stuff like that.
IMO, what Linux needs is a single application framework/widget library to provide a solid foundation to build applications on and to provide a consistant look and feel to the users. The desktops should be self contained and interchangeable in the same manner that basic window managers are now, and your choice of desktop shouldn't have any impact on what applications you can run.
At the moment, we have KDE apps, and we have Gnome apps, when we should just have Linux/X11 Apps. I have a horrible feeling this is all going to end badly.
At the moment, we have KDE apps, and we have Gnome apps, when we should just have Linux/X11 Apps. I have a horrible feeling this is all going to end badly.
Cannot agree more.
I guess this is a symptom of a larger problem Linux/FOSS has: more and more things are misplaced. Thus we have composing that STILL messes up with 3D and accelerated video (should not do so from day 1), no normal clipboard ring (should be below application level), no normal way to configure sound (should be a file to output to), no proper way to configure video (should be a file too), no way to open a folder (how can it be different from a file, everything should be a file on Unix, right?), and so on.
KDE suck if you need something that it doesn't do quite well.
GNOME and other have the same con's, so it merely a personal choice.
You can combine those, through libs, so you can run KDE apps (like K3B) without needing to run KDE itself, and vice versa.
That's the beauty of Linux, the freedom of choice, and configurations.
Although my personal experiences with KDE4 are less positive as to KDE 3.5 series. The latter one is more quicker (e.g. more intuitive menu handling), and more stable.
But that's my opinion, might be different on other systems aka users.
I 2nd my first notion that both suck!!! lol No really the problems I have are all the extra packages that are installed. I believe a WM should just handle the windows, maybe give you a taskbar, menu support, icons, and the ability to assign certain programs to different file types, or assign certain programs to different menu tasks within the WM. such as right click open, what program should be associated with open ect... stuff like that.
What I don't like are all the programs that come with WMs that are useless, XFCE even has one.... Settings Manager... Why not just make a specific settings menu item that expands to XFCE settings only? Saves space!!! That's what I'm talking about, even XFCE sufferes from bulk and I hate it. the default mixers out there, what if I didn't have sound!? why on earth do I want a mixer!? They need to give the user control over that, it shouldn't be a WMs job to do stuff like that. Now I don't mind the idea of having certain programs that work with the WM, such as mousepad with xfce, it's not installed by default but if you want it there are no extra lib costs and that's cool with me. gedit > gnome, kedit > kde ect... but they shouldn't make you instal it off the bat. though I understand they do this for people who don't use linux as much as some of us, but that is also why we probably don't use KDE/GNOME... hehe
Isn't keeping GTK largely separate from other gnome dependencies a way of having a unified linux lib for X11?... if at least only to make apps all look the same.
Additionally you left out Enlightenment DE which I have seen several programs rely on.
If one knew the black arts of both KDE and Gnome programming, they could attempt and making a unified wrapper library to support them all if not only at compile time.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.