GNOME VS KDE software, what a mess?
 

I've recently converted myself from Mac to Linux and I really enjoy it, its a great new world and its been the most exciting thing that happened to me in 2008 I think.

I do webdevelopment and I really dig Quanta+, a KDE web editor. Now, why on earth if I use gnome some kde functionalities are broken? And, in the same way I guess if I use KDE some other softwares will be broken?

This is very very stupid, and self destructive. Ok lets keep many desktop environments, I can see it is useful, but we should find a way to harmonize apps, or at least developers should create two versions of the same software, or some other solution.

Me being new here, this sounds like total nonsense.

What dyou say?

thx!

It's only to do with dependencies and libraries. If you have the full set the software should work flawlessly in either environment.

What "functionalities" are broken for you? I use apps from both desktops and I've never had any problems with them. The only frustrations I see are in things like the file browser dialogs being different between the apps, so they don't have an integrated look and feel.

In any case the chaos surrounding the different ways to do things is due to the decentralized development history of FOSS software. Parts are different because Linux is an amalgam of separately-developed projects. But don't think that interaction problems are being ignored. Most distros and DE's now try to follow the guidelines of the Linux Standard Base, which is working precisely to define a common baseline so that everything can work together no matter what the platform.

Bit surprised to hear functionality is broken. As Arckane says, its probably a missing library.

Some webdev on Gnome put forward Bluefish and Screem as alternatives. I am not involved in that side myself, so I wouldn't know.

Mons

I can't really give a concrete answer without knowing what functionalities are "broken".

They really shouldn't have problems. There's nothing magical about kde apps. Kde apps are like any other apps, just that they link against kdelibs. It's similar for gnome apps. So, as long as the required libs are there, the app should work, and work well. So, let us know what kind of problems do you have, and what kind of harmonization do you think of.

yes yes the functionalities I am referring to are the file browsing ones, which sometimes are annoying.

So what you are bothered about is that the file browsing dialogs are not the same for kde and gnome apps? That's to be expected.

To be more concrete, there are undergoing projects to achieve cross-desktop interoperability and consistency. But it's something that will take time because there are lots of pieces involved, and the only sane way to do this is on the toolkit level, which is something that the desktop projects can't control directly.

There's some stuff being done in freedesktop.org to standarize some low level stuff.

There are also persons working on this in QT, the kde toolkit, like for example:
http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2008...logs-in-gnome/

I don't know if the gtk people are doing the same thing though.

Describe which functionalities are broken and how exactly they are broken (error messages, etc) if you want help, because right now (without additional info) your question doesn't make any sense.

as i said its mainly to do with file browsing, for example i cannot see my bookmarks in the quanta file manager. its little things, like when i open a folder, i just need one click, something i tend to forget, so maybe i end up opening a file i didnt want to... now i cant make a list because i dont even remember them, my work is not disrupted by them as they are not real bugs, but they make the experience somehow less smooth.
I dont understand why, for example, quanta cannot use nautilus as file manager. Or is it possible?

You were complaining that things were "broken", but now we find that everything is working fine, it's just that the features you want aren't available everywhere.

As was explained above, this is mostly due to the different widget sets used in the various graphic programming toolkits. These things are built into the programming and can't simply be ripped out and replaced on a whim. People are working on it, but until some system is developed that can let programs use features from multiple toolkits, then you'll just have to live with it.

For the record, I agree with you that it can be frustrating. Many's the time I've wished that things like the file browser dialogs were provided by the desktop environment itself, perhaps with a kind of plugin architecture, so that you could specify the one you want to use across the whole system. But I don't really need it. It would just be nice to have. So until such a thing is developed I'm not going to worry about it too much. It's just part of the price you have to pay for a FREE OS stitched together from 30+ years of some of the best software that open source has to offer.

Major advantage of Linux: Lot's of different way of doing things.

Major disadvantage of Linux: Lot's of....(you guessed it!!)


start with a basic system using KDE, Gnome, XFCE, whatever....

If you want an app that uses different libraries, the you must---well---install those libraries. That's just how it is...........:)

If you are using a modern package manager, the whole thing will be transparent.

About the single vs. double click thingie, that can be configure in the konqueror or dolphin configuration, and in kcontrol/systemsettings depending on the version of kde. You will have to look for the option yourself since I don't have kde installed and don't remember the exact location. But it's there, somewhere.

About the bookmarks, unless specific support is implemented you are out of luck. Kde and gnome are different things. When you save a bookmark in firefox you don't expect that it will magically appear in IE or Opera, do you? It's the same. The only way that that could work as you say is if there was some kind of OS-level bookmark repository which all the browsers used, but that doesn't exist in any OS, it's not just a linux thing as far as I know.

It's a big transition from the Mac OS to Linux, even though both have Unix underpinnings. The Mac OS is a tightly controlled proprietary commercial OS totally under the control of one company and required to run only on tightly controlled hardware. It provides a uniform user interface and its desktop interface is highly refined after 25 years of continuous development by one company. It's a remarkable product in many ways.

Linux is remarkable as well, but in other ways. No one is in charge, at least no one has control over all aspects of Linux development. It can be a messy business at times. But it's freely available, infinitely configurable, with a wide range of choices and options.

I agree with the suggestion of trying to stick with one distro and one GUI to the extent possible at least initially. Using a distribution with a good package manager to handle all the dependencies will also save a lot of headaches.

I deal with Windows, Mac OS X and Linux on a daily basis and the little (and major) differences in the user interfaces can be annoying. But somehow the brain adjusts pretty quickly.

Short answer: Linux will never be quite as consistent as the Mac. You'll just have to get used to it.

Not mixing desktop environments is still the best approach, if only because it makes the experience of using Linux more streamlined. As suggested by someone else above, you should have a look at bluefish.