Is there a comprehensive listing of what each desktop has that the other does not? or for that matter the strengths and weaknesses of both? I don't want to start a who's better thread, there's more than enough of them that I've found. I guess my bottom line question is: What am I missing if I use Gnome and What am I missing if I use KDE? I've used them both and tend to favor Gnome because it seems to run better on my fedora box but I'm always curious as to what I might be missing by not using KDE.

Hope this wasn't too rambling or newbie for you.

Thanks,

well, have lost touch with kde and gnome for a while (i'm sticking with fluxbox ).
i suggest that you go check out the package listing on their respective websites. look for the apps that you need. u can also check out www.linuxworld.com/story/32636.htm for some info.

I think they have similar features. I'm used to gnome, so I use gnome. It'd take me so much more effort to make things look good again if I had to use KDE.

Hey man, KDE looks ALOT better than gnome nowadays.

Anyway, GNOME has less packaged apps, isn't as intuitive, has alot more bugs, and has the worst support on the planet.

KDE has tons of stuff, alot you need, alot you dont.... you can select what you want though, is VERY stable, is the easiest to use out of all the DEs (Desktop Environments) i've used IMO, and you can find support everywhere...... mailing lists, google, here, me.... kde-look even. And there's alot more eyecandy available... and at times can be MUCH faster... although GNOME can be too. Meh.

I think GNOME sucks, KDE rocks. Just my 2 cents

i would agree with kde 3.1.X being stable...
but i found kde 3.2 and 3.2.1 to be quite unstable.

quite often the taskbar / main menu will freeze and become un responsive, and for some reason, the only way to get it back again is to tap the alt or ctrl keys.

but yeah. i prefere kde 3.1 to gnome

...odd. Never had those problems. What distro, did you compile KDE or did you get binaries, if so where from, and what version of X

See that, punboy, I think GNOME rocks and KDE sucks (and llamoboyle-- did you actually get it to look good? The best I can accomplish is "not as mad hideous as usual").

But to respond to the question, it's not so much an issue of features per se as a question of what you want in your DE.... or if you even want a DE at all-- born4linux has a point that you could use fluxbox, blackbox, XFce, WindowMaker, Openbox, Kahakai, PekWM, IceWM, Afterstep or Enlightenment (just to name a few) and happily skip this whole discussion.

The long and the short of it is that KDE's philosophy is "one-stop shopping"... if you like your filemanager integrated with your web browser and pretty much every program type that you could even remotely want to use bundled into the DE so that they all work as a "seamless" whole (and if you also would like it to look fairly like Windows, too, while you're at it), then KDE is the place to look. The advantages are "obvious" (if you like that sort of thing)-- easy configuration, everything available. The disadvantage is a huge amount of bloat (because everything is available).

If you prefer a more modular approach, where a few programs are bundled, but most are not, then GNOME deserves a look. The disadvantage is that because most programs are not bundled, although there are many programs that are designed to work specifically under GNOME, like the gcombust CD burning program, and GTuxNES, the GNOME front-end to the TuxNES emulator, and gXine, the GNOME version of Xine, you have to collect them yourself. Of course, this gives you much more flexibility in just what programs are installed, thus reducing the out-of-the box bloat.

Whether the GNOME programs have the "features" of the equivalent KDE programs is a matter of personal opinion. Just because gedit is not as "full-featured" as Kate or Kedit (if that is in fact the case) doesn't mean that gedit is not perfectly adequate for your needs. I myself prefer using K3b to gcombust, because I understand the way k3b is set up better, so it's easier for me to use, and I don't like to waste CDs misburning stuff, but I vastly prefer using Nautilus (or Gnome Commander) and Mozilla Firefox (or Epiphany) to Konqueror for file/web browsing, and KMail is never going to tempt me away from Mozilla Thunderbird, so why do I need KMail even on the system? Answer: I don't, but if I use KDE, I'm kinda stuck with having it. At least GNOME lets me uninstall Evolution without penalty. The GNOME configuration apps are not all that great (and in some cases are truly bad), but that's what Webmin and Linuxconf are for.

It's a lot easier for me to set up a gksu shortcut to gedit on my panel to open a text file as root for editing-- even though I have to type in the root password to use it-- than to open "Konqueror File Manager (Super User Mode)" and surf to the file, right-click, and choose Open With.

But if that's easier for you, donlinux, then that's perfectly fine. It's your PC, it's your choice. The best advice any of us could actually give you is just install them both and use them both, and see which one suits your style best. Then try some of the other WMs as you learn more about how Linux works and how you work best with it.

Because who really cares, what DE/WM you happen to use at the end of the day, other than you?

Good summary To each their own. I do actually use xfce as my window manager, but gnome as the environment. If you want to make gnome look better, ar.gnome.org has a huge range of icon packages, gtk[2] themes, backgrounds gdm themes etc. If you use xfce or metacity (most likely others) as your window manager these have a huge effect on the whole look of Gnome.

Nobody's mentioned enlightenment either... I haven't looked at it lately, but it used to look damn nice. It was even slower than KDE and had a really bad UI though. Anyone know what's happened to it?

No, I meant did you ever get KDE to look good... I never have, which is one reason I use GNOME-- but how did you get XFce as the WM under GNOME? GConf Editor (changed metacity to xfce)? I know (via having seen it in a screenshot somewhere) that you can run the GNOME panel under XFce, and you could use nautilus --no-desktop to spare yourself that rather awful filemanager (the only thing that kinda stinks about XFce), but I usually use Gnome Commander or even TheClaw 2 under non-GNOME WMs, since it seems rather odd to run top-heavy GNOME base apps under a fastlight DE like XFce.

Just curious.

Oh, and it's art.gnome.org . And Enlightenment is still around... just quiet while everyone is waiting for e17, which is supposed to be da bomb or something (found E way too clunky and if it was supposed to be fab-looking, I musta missed it-- no offence, E-fans ).

Ahh! Good link, I need some icons for WindowMaker!

Though it should be art.gnome.org

The debian way - 'update-alternatives -config x-window-manager' will show you all available window managers and allow you to set the default. This can be overridden on a per-user basis if required.

All I run, really, are gnome-terminals (lots 'n lots of them), vi, evolution and firefox (firesheep at the moment - see http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/#extensions the firesomething entry ). Terminals don't really take up much processing power.

As for getting KDE to look nice... I never made the effort, but I'm willing to believe it's possible. I was happy with Gnome's look and performance, but I don't use most of the apps it comes with, and KDE comes with even more superfluous packages.

Ah yes, me no type good, art.gnome.org is indeed what I meant.

Well I like using Gnome but I use KDE because of some nice features that come with Klaptop, such as when I am not plugged in KDE automatically throttles back my laptop to what I chose, then when plugged in goes back to no throttling, also allows you to choose what you want to happen when the lid is closed on my laptop, I make it shutdown, since my laptop and the linux standby don't play well but that is what I prefer to happen when the lid is closed.

Also I use K3B because is very straight forward for CD burning, and I also use Quanta, plus I use many of the KDE apps because they work well.

One other thing was that RealOne player works with KDE but I can't get it to work with Gnome and I found that when playing Tux Racer that the graphics don't get choppy when the sound is going.

Just a few things I have found, I am using KDE 3.2.1

My 2cents

The most hilarious part of this is the statement that everything is integrated into konqueror. pfft.

i like gnome's enlightenment and i'm kinda missin it in RH, but i use kde nowadays and kinda cute for me.... but still have the heart for gnome

Features of KDE vs. Features of Gnome

for me, it's depend on the user
(kung saan ka masaya suportahan kata!)

remember the sayings: "the beauty is in the eye of beholder!"
"don't compare apple to banana"

im i right? huh!