ok , let us be fair and just vote for gnome ... ^_^


[PS ::] but i think xfce and rox could be the most "non-windows" reasonably-graphical desktops out there ...


.

There is a really easy way to deal w/ trolls & flamers here: Your own personal ignore list! I suggest that more of you use it rather than responding to the spewed crap.

Actually, troll baiting is my 2nd favorite indoor sport. We have a young one in the LUG here in Houston, & every so often we have fun setting him off. Notice that I didn't say "trying to set him off", there's no trying necessary -- it's a sure thing. His major weaknesses are being a(n) Ubuntu/Gnome fanboy, a Perl monger, & a Firefox fanboy.

One of my favorite ways to get to him is to say "Ubuntu looks like $#!t!". When he argues, I respond w/ "It's brown, of course it looks like $#!t.". Almost never fails, you'd think he'd learn. You might think I ought to grow up (chronologically, I'm probably old enough to be his grandfather), but it's SOOOO much fun.

<mode=serious />
I think you may be right. On the other hand, I did start w/ Gnome, but it was the RH 7 version. I am sure that blue being the default color is one of the things that keeps me w/ KDE. The fact that it works for me on my hardware helps. (YMWAV.)

In any case, my preference & my vote go to KDE.

I am looking at Xfce for light weight use in building a VM server, but I think that the learning curve is too steep. I'll get the extra RAM now & play w/ Xfce later. I'll have a lot of VM's to do it in.

how could someone started out in linux with redhat7 in gnome and kde ?? ... thats not possible i think ...

believe me ... when the time comes , we will going for simpler and even more simpler things while everything else make no sense at all in the end ... ^_^


//its true that i vote for gnome ... its a "decision making" thing ... get what i mean ...


.

Orginally, I voted for gnome, but after loading Slack, I've really become more attached to XFCE. Sure, it's not as sexy, but who cares, it flies!

KDE-->Was bloated, seems to become less true with version 3.5. Deals with looks better.
Gnome-->More resource efficient than kde. Again, bloat seems less of a factor with version 2.16. I like it because of things being spread out over 3 menus & has a more simple feel.

XFCE-->Never bloated, never will be. I wasn't too fond of it until version 4.4 came out & it rocks! Replaced xffm & xterm with Terminal & Thunar, which rocks! Extermely responsive desktop. The agua theme give it a more sexy OS X feel to its window manager.

I've seen some appealing effects from the only two I've used, Gnome and KDE, but I did find that KDE worked a little faster, so I stay with that.

i tried KDE but it was too sophisticated and polished for me

GNOME gets my vote becuase it is so dumb it suits me just fine


duhhh uhhh i love rms

KDE FOREVA

>> "Replaced xffm & xterm with Terminal & Thunar, which rocks!"

you do know that that is not the way to use xfce ... right ?! ... hmm , guess that things are getting out of hand ... sorry guys , i vote for gnome anytime ...


//.period.one_word ...


.

[UPDATE ::] have just voted(for real this time) for gnome ... its not easy for me to vote for anything at all you know ...


.

It doesn't make any difference to me what DE somebody else prefers. They each have their attractions and detractions. If you are new to Linux, KDE has the easiest learning curve, and for that alone it deserves it's place as one of the most favored environments. Many will stick with it and find it quite usable, and with a box with enough grunt and ram, they will find no need to try anything else. If it gets the job done, why change? Those with more of a bent to get the most out of their pc will eventually try other environments, and some like me will have a few installed, changing sessions as needed to run our favorite applications. I have KDE, Gnome, XFCE4.4, XGL/Beryl on Gnome and FVWM-Crystal, and I chop and change as needs be. My main work environment is Gnome, as I have conky, vnstat, wallpapoz and a few other apps running which provide me with system information and an ever-changing wallpaper on each desktop, alleviating boredom from 18hr days staring at my monitor. I switch to KDE for graphics and my camera, as Gnome just won't recognise it. XGL/Beryl is there for when someone comes raving about Vista, otherwise it doesn't get touched, as the eye-candy is nice, but it doesn't really improve productivity. XFCE4.4 I switch to occaisionally if I need to run a VM for a while. It's nice to look at and is not a resource hog, leaving more for the VM. FVWM-Crystal I keep on board for when someone asks for a distro for an older or less grunty box. It looks good, easy learning curve and light footprint. Sitting on top of Ubuntu or Debian it suits older boxes well. I also have a variety of distros in iso format, such as DSL, PUPPY, Sabayon, DreamLinux, OpenSUSE, Fedora, Freespire and Mandriva ready to fire up in a VM for the same reason, getting folk off the MS merry-go-round and onto Linux.

Everybody has their favorite DE, and it doesn't matter what it is, as long as it does what they want and they are comfortable with it.

hmm ... those who prefer kde(no-matter what and how) tends to run debian and her derivatives ... ^_^


//i still prefer gnome anyway if i need to choose ...


.

The first time I was intoduced to Linux -- Debian. So I used Gnome for root previliges and KDE for regular user activities. In a fair race, neck to neck on the start line, KDE won me.

I keep switching back and forth between KDE and GNOME although GNOME feels alot more "homey" to me than KDE. With the exception of XGL on GNOME KDE is something I'd be less embarrassed to show off to friends (I've been known to minimize apps like rhythmbox and totem in the presence of others).

For me, while the Gilouche theme makes GNOME look nice and presentable, I still think having something like the Linspire clear theme on KDE looks even shinier. Functionality-wise, apps like Amarok put Rhythmbox and Banshee to shame I think (not true of all qt apps of course).

Still GNOME just feels homey to me because it keeps things simple yet beautifully functional. It just has a bit more of a unique feel to it. People get all upset when others mention the ghost of Windows in KDE (I'll admit I get turned off by the whole K menu/taskbar concept but I'll also be the first to admit that despite this, when I use KDE I prefer not to change the "Windows-like" UI layout).

I know I'm talking mostly cosmetics, but that's because I use a fairly even mix of qt and gtk apps, depending on their suitability for me (though again, gtk apps seem to integrate more nicely within KDE than vice versa, e.g. GAIM in KDE looks less out of place than Amarok in GNOME).

KDE for tweakers/interior decorators , GNOME for businesses and getting mom and dad started on Ubuntu/Fedora, and XFCE for older and/or dedicated hardware.


Feet, mice, and dragons for everyone.

If this were 6 months or so ago I'd have said KDE. If you ask me right now though, I'd say XFCE4.4 . I did have trouble installing XFCE though this is because of the peculiarity of my system (it's an AMD64 system running slad64; the problem I had in a thread elsewhere on this forum have now been solved).

But why not KDE? Two reasons -- firstly I've noticed on different systems I've run KDE on (not just the AMD64 PC but 2 laptops and a 2Ghz 32-Bit PC system) that with each new version of KDE the "KDE crash handler" (I forget what it is called exactly) seems to make more and more frequent appearences - reminders of windows' GPFs. Also there's the possibly worrying trend that KDE wants to be cross-platform with windows & mac systems. Which could mean that windows/mac only code (e.g. some sort of activeX code) might end up in KDE/QT. Possible result? KDE could become just a fancy button/tool windows app, with the gnu/linux desktop dead and forgotten (at least for KDE). A pity really as my destkop has always been KDE, my first I think was KDE 2.x .

In comparsion XFCE is light, quick and it has yet to die on me with a "crash manager" or "crash handler" message. XFCE also is nice and fast on an old clapped out IBM T22 Laptop with only 128MB of memory.

As for GNOME I have never tried it, so I can't really comment on it.

ROX isn't bad either -- I have used it and it can be very quick indeed. A Good example of this is in puppy linux ( http://www.puppylinux.org/user/viewpage.php?page_id=1 ).

I wonder if there are any other desktop enviroments that have been forgotten ?

SP

It looks like it's time to introduce some reason, balance, fairness, good sense, penetrating insights and immeasurable wisdom to the discussion.

My desktop on Xfce looks much the same as my desktop on Kde. A single colour background and two panels, one top and one bottom. Why is one (Kde) "Windows" and the other not?

I've been motivated purely by functionality in moving from Gnome to Kde then to Xfce. Now, I find I have to change the window manager in Xfce. I only discovered yesterday that was possible. Can you change the window manager in Gnome and Kde?

Configuring Xfce is much simpler than configuring Kde and none of the tools nuke the system (unlike "Themes manager" - or something like that - in the Kde control centre).

I use at least 7 Kde apps, either because there is no replacement or because they are better than the other options. It bothers me that two of the apps (Konqueror and Kate) have persistent faults and Kate, at least, seems to be developing others.

To open an archive I use File-Roller from Gnome. I'm quite happy to pick and choose, mix and match and grateful that I can do so.

>> "ROX isn't bad either -- I have used it and it can be very quick indeed. A Good example of this is in puppy linux ( http://www.puppylinux.org/user/viewpage.php?page_id=1 )."

how could i missed that one(or two ^_^) ... seems that rox has some new stuffs to offer lately ... a bit complicated for me but have to say that among all the "default" filemanagers that come with a de , rox filemanager is the only "default" filemanager that i use ...


very heavily "graphical" type of filemanager ...


.

I don't understand why people keep saying KDE is Windows like. KDE was in existence long before WinXP copied a lot of it's look and features. I also don't understand why Gnome Fanboys think Gnome looks any different. All of them let you move your task bar to your location of choice. Top, bottom, side, doesn't really matter. A taskbar is still a taskbar....