no gnome in my home
 

"one of the priciples in gnome is to keep everything simple and leave the configuration and such like for powerusers"

It wasn't always this way. Originally gnome pushed its configuration options over windows as one of its major strengths. However, the rate of development of KDE was increasing all the time, and only when it became clear that gnome development could not keep up with KDE did gnome adopt the "usability" principle. Its a lot easier to remove functionality than it is to add it. LESS FEATURES DOES NOT MAKE A DESKTOP MORE USABLE. Problem is, gullible gnome users swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and overnight all became "usability experts". They now believed they had a new weapon with which to attack KDE, something they haven't had since the licensing issues were resolved.

"the type of individual(and there are a frighteningly large percentage of them) who would panic at the decision between pressing OK and CANCEL are more at home with Gnome"

Linus was spot on when he said that usability had become a disease in gnome. Panic attacks such as these are a symptom of this disease which seems to only affect gnome usability experts.

"its not at all easy to redesign all the applications on kde, because thats what needs doing if it wants to appeal to the masses"

Look at the numbers. On this forum it is almost 2.5 to 1 Kde vs gnome. As it is on nearly every poll, survey, study etc. I've ever seen. If gnome is so "usable", why aren't more people "using" it?


"the point is, out of the box, gnome is far superior for the average user."

You are not the average user. Don,t assume everyone else is no more intelligent than you and has the same priorities.

that must be the biggest pile of garbage anyone has ever written or seen in their whole life :tisk:

Looks like it's going to be one or the other.

Actually, I agree with some stuff that the guy wrote. Sometimes concentrating on simplicity takes away features that other people may need. The good think about KDE (and even XFCE) is that the advanced options are available if needed. In the case of XFCE, it is feature rich without any clutter.

there's one essential point that you've missed out that nullifies the argument. in KDE, the options are there all right...whether the user wants them or not. if KDE had a basic, clean, and userfreindly interface such as gnome, but with an "advanced" button so that power users could gain the extra options, kde would be as near perfect as kde could ever be. instead, they have gone about it in wrong way by crowding the UI. and thats not good for the average user at all. and thats why gnome gets the thumbs up and kde gets the thumbs down from the average user.

This is not entirely accurate. The KDE 3.x releases particularly 3.4 and 3.5, have had a lot of the clutter removed and many advanced options put away from default view. Obviously the interface cannot be totally changed during a point release but the interface should be greatly inproved in the 4.x releases. GNOME 2.x has a clean interface, but they have sacrificed features and functionality to do that. GNOME 1.x had a good user interface and lots of features, so I don't see why it would be so difficult to make GNOME 2.x feature rich but keep the interface clean and simple.

still far far far too much. i have 3.4 running on mine.

"in KDE, the options are there all right...whether the user wants them or not".

Exactly. Its called choice. And if you do want to 'use' them it makes your desktop more 'usable'.

'if KDE had a basic, clean, and userfreindly interface such as gnome, but with an "advanced" button so that power users could gain the extra options'

Unbelievable. Its gnome that needs that needs the advanced button. Then that lovely 'userfriendly interface' wouldn't require people to use gconf to get what they want. Being an 'average' user and such an expert on userfriendliness, tell me, what does the 'average' user think about gconf? Do they know it exists? Do they find it user friendly?

By the way, what do you use your computer for?

Also, could you please enlighten everybody as to what your definition of a power user is.

ONLY for a power user. not the average user. for the latter, it has the opposite effect.

its already got one. its called gconf-editor.

seems like you don't quite get the idea of either gnome or kde. the average user isn't going to be using gconf-editor. thats for power users only. its a much better idea than the mess called kcontrol.


i use mine for development mostly. you?

a poweruser on linux is someone who is interested in linux and knows their way around to a greater or lesser degree.

gconf is supposed to show configuration options that are more advanced and only savvy users would want to change... the problem is that there are not more advanced options in there than in the preferences menu. It's good to hide advanced options but not to take them away.

So your a developer but you struggle with the menus in Mandriva:-)))
My first linux was red hat 6.2 and I have used both gnome and kde over the years and watched both develop. Gnome was the one that showed the most promise early but has lost the plot since it got hijacked by the corporate it world. Now its future is in the hands of people like Novell, and being a "developer" I'm sure you're aware of their track record.
My main objection to people like you is that you rubbish everything KDE, the whole DE and the apps while not substantiating any of it. Comments like "k3b and amarok crash all the time" is just ridiculous.
You criticise Krita while raving about Gimp. Of course gimp is more powerful, look at how many years of development has gone into it compared to Krita. Being a "developer" I'm sure you can appreciate that. But where is the consistency in your argument? Krita is currently a program in its infancy that would meet the basic requirements of many users (what you love about gnome) and Gimp is a "power users" program with the worst user interface of all time!(exactly what you say about KDE). Why people like you cant just use what you like without trashing the work of others is beyond me.
By talking up the shortcomings of gnome as positives you are just sticking your head in the sand. Think its just me who thinks this way?, start watching the gnome developers mailing lists.

From Linus Torvalds:

This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality of
Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will
use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long
since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do.

I'm sure you know better.

gnome doesn't take them away - they are all there. anybody with any nous can find all the preferences that they want to change in there. then again, not everyone has nous.

they're observations. just because you don't want them to be true doesn't make them any less so. you'll just have to come to terms with it when you open your eyes.

i certainly don't but many people do.


forget about what mr torvalds says. hes full of cack. hes a kernel developer, not a UI designer. he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. he should stick what he knows about.


you've obviously not been on the kde's. the gnome developers talking about whats wrong with gnome rather than the kde devs being blind and not recognising their own faults clearly shows that the gnome devs have an insight that the kde devs lack. nothings perfect, and if the kde devs don't want to recognise the shortcomings of kde, then that is the problem of kde and those who blindly esteem it for what it isn't. thats quite sad.



btw i'm an ex kde user who saw the light.

Last year I tried a Knoppix Live CD, which had KDE 3.4, and was pleasantly surprised withe look´n feel of the desktop. I then tried Mandrake which had KDE 3.2, which I felt was a bit of a let down compared to 3.4, I also tried fiddling with the other DE but I have to say if Knoppix had been GNOME based I would never have given Linux another chance, the icons looked too busy, the desktop too cluttered, the interface too counterintuitive. Maybe GNOME is something for MAC users. I dropped Linux though as my usb adsl modem was not supported, but recently I needed an wireless ethernet to set up a network and tried Linux again. I now use Mandriva and installed KDE 3.51 which really looks nice.


Strange thing though in XP the first thing I always did was turn off all the eyecandy, like themes and background because I felt it looked to busy but in KDE it really adds to the desktop expirience.

But the best desktop, imho, still is Amiga Workbench 3.11 :)

Actually I read both mailing lists. To suggest KDE devs dont critique their work shows how clueless you really are. One look at the Plasma web site should explain where KDE is heading. The fact they dont listen to idiots who want KDE dumbed down to the level you'd be happy with is not a weakness, it shows they listen to their users. People who use KDE love the configurability of it and DONT want it dumbed down. Only a small but very loud and persistent minority of self proclaimed gnome "usability experts" are calling for this so get it through your head, its not going to happen. Why people like you feel you have to do this is what is really sad. If you were truly happy with what you were using you wouldn't feel the need to. I am very happy with KDE now and confident with where it is heading in the future so couldn't care less what the gnome boys do.
Just do yourself and everybody else a favour. Stop talking on behalf of others like you know what everybody wants and needs. You only know what YOU need and want. At the end of the day, the majority of Linux users use KDE not Gnome and this gap will widen when KDE4 is released (put your house on it!). And KDE "WILL" win DE of the year!!!

P.S. Sorry to interrupt your "developing" ;-)

given what you've said so far, no comment is necessary here.

i don't know how you've been listening to. i certainly don't want kde dumbed down to try to compete with gnome because thats a bad idea. both kde and gnome serve different purposes, and thats the way that it should continue to be....especially if linux is to become mainstream. what kde should do is to clear up the interface but still have the options available as an "advanced" button.
it should also do something about its stability(erm, lack of) too.


if kde and gnome compete, there are no winners, so stop talking like this.