Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
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.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I suppose it's just the default setup that most distributions provide it with - Plastik window theme (Windows XP-like), and a panel on the bottom with a main menu and taskbar. I suppose that the default GNOME setup reminds people more of Mac OS with the menu bar at the top of the screen.
Would someone mind explaining to me what is meant by "KDE is more windows-like" I have never understood that.
When I first started using Linux, I was exposed to Red Hat 7.2 or something like that, using GNOME. It took me almost no time at all to dislike Red Hat for this reason. (I had Windows, Mac, and Solaris experience at that time, so I was not adverse to a "different look and feel." Still the structure of GNOME in those days was a pain. Doing anything seemed to involve arcane procedures with odd groupings in the menus, etc.) Anyway, I converted to KDE and felt instantly at home. It has to do with the way menus work, the way the applications work, etc. Some things make more sense than others. Usability is more than just a preference, it is the ability to make things intuitive or provide alternatives for people who like to work on a computer in different ways. I am sure that Microsoft has spent a bundle of money on usability, and I admit that although their OS has weaknesses, in my opinion it is more user-friendly and intuitive at most levels than competing OSs. Perhaps having similar usability makes KDE seem more like Windows.
For the record, I am using GNOME on openSUSE as I type this, so I have gotten used to it, but it is not my preference.
The layout of gnome was kind of hard to get used to, but now that I'm used to it I really like it. Then again, many of the opinions on the subject were probably formed some time ago when things were completely different... Either way its nice. And it probably all has to do with preference.
For someone coming from Windows, I'd probably recommend KDE since it's "Windows-like" (the whole start menu-ish kinda thing at the bottom), except ALOT more configurable and has a reputation for shinier looking apps.
For someone new to computers, I'd recommend GNOME because for the most part things are alot more straight forward (apps/places/desktop/controlpanel menu at the top for example). Office app, boom. Web brower, boom. No need to go through endless submenus.
However, judging them on the basis of looks is a wrong measure on my part because both of them can be configured to look like the other to a great extent (or something completely different).
I personally have them both installed and use whichever one I'm in the mood for (mostly GNOME, haha) that day. It's better to choose both at installation time rather than install one later, since it CAN be (but isn't necessarily) messier.
I also have XFCE...which is the easiest lightweight DE I've used.
None is better than the other...stick with whichever one feels like "home" I guess.
Well i dont know about others, but in my case what i mean by saying windows like is it works a bit like windows UI, with a bit of tweaking it can be made to look like windows and have most of the options and menues where you would find in windows... This apprenttly makes the transition period a bit easier. Also, a bit more configuration tools etc all make up for an easier to use experience for a newbie like me. Although once you have got the hang of thinks, ppl tend to move on to other environments...(as was the case with most of my friends.).
Well thats the best i can come up with. To a newbie it looks familiar.
i currently use KDE, i have tried gnome and XFCE and while i get on well with them infact i use XFCE quite a lot
the mail thing in KDE that i cant seem to do wthout is Konqueror, im not a fan of teh way the nathaulus (sp?) navagates the tree, (for the newbies here, konqueror is very like windows explorer but with all the bugs fixed and everything youve ever thought "i wish explorer had this" either inbuilt or easally downloadable and addable!)
Distribution: Laptops: Linux Mint 18 XFCE, Debian Jessie XFCE, NAS: OpenMediaVault 3.0
Originally Posted by sumguy231
Careful now, let's not start a flamewar.
Really wasn't my intent, I just cannot stand KDE. My post was just being fun about it, If KDE works for someone(which it apparently works for lots of folks), I say use it, no sweat off my back, its just not for me...
Windows users will always like KDE when switching or trying Linux, but what they do not know that it is very, very bloated and it slows down the computer. For KDE, I recommend 512 MB of RAM to get good performance while 1 GB or more will provide excellent performance.
GNOME feels like MAC OS. It is half bloated as KDE.
XFce4 is very light-weight and it is fast, but this depends how your distribution compiled it.
ICEWM looks like Windows 95/98. Like XFce4, it is light-weight and fast.
It is ok to go for eye candy effects, but it slows down your computer. If you are going to use your computer for multimedia and games, it is best to pick the lightest desktop or window manager. None of the desktop and window managers uses the video card to accelerate them.
It has to do with the position of the clock (lower right for KDE and winblows) and the single "start" button in the lower left in KDE, whereas Gnome has multiple pulldown menus at the top like OSX.
I would highly recommend the Gnome/KDE discussion on the Linux Reality podcast. Extremely informative.
I started with Gnome on FC5, tried KDE but found the apps kind of crashy, moved back to Gnome, moved to Ubuntu (with Gnome, of course), and have been there for over a year. Now that I've got a setup that works for me I'm very reluctant to change anything about it. I've got Ubuntu running on both laptop and desktop with ssh servers on both. I can run multiple rtorrent clients in screen sessions on the desktop, come home, turn on the laptop, log into the desktop with multiple terminal windows, and resume each screen session(on the desktop) in a terminal window(on the laptop). That way I can monitor the progress when I'm home, but when I'm ready to leave for work, I just shutdown the laptop and it just disconnects the screen sessions and keeps the clients running 24/7. I've also get podget.sh (google it, very cool app) running in cron daily.
Nautilus, the Gnome file manager, is really cool for transfering content around the network. I use one window to drill down into the desktop(through the mounted ssh server) where I store my content, select what I want and copy it. Then in another window I've drilled down to where I want to put the content on the laptop, and paste it.
But now that I've become completely reliant on this content delivery system I cannot afford to take any chances with trying anything new. I'd like to try playing with KDE, slackware, asterisk, MythTV, etc, so now I have to buy an old beater PC off of craig's list or Ebay, but I bet the need for a development box is nothing new around here.
Last edited by sidney.harrell; 01-30-2007 at 12:10 AM.
now I have to buy an old beater PC off of craig's list or Ebay, but I bet the need for a development box is nothing new around here.
perfectly good boxes shoudl be avalable quite cheap soon as all the windows users get new computers because their P4 with 512 ram ints enough to run vista propally! so they dich their "outdated" Pc for teh latest DELL (or Compaq)
dude Its alll your choice , whatever you feel comfy with , though if you have any space problems or downloading probelms or are just asking an openion , I will vote for KDE why ? well ITS PERSONAL THING (my name starts with K ) so since your username name starts with E , i suggest ya Enlighttenment (yeah that was a joke)
But dude what ever you prefer , like ,and feel comfortable with , thats what YOU SHOULD use (some people mostly use the terminals ..now beat that? )
So again what ever you feel comfy with