Well after using both KDE and GNOME i think that Gnome is the better program what you guys think?

I think GNOME is faster but KDE has more features. Is that true?

And shouldn't this thread be in Linux - General or Software?

As its been brought up many many times before, this should be in another forum really. But the thread starter should try searching as well, as this could have been easily been contributed to existing threads.

Moving to Linux - Software, seems suitable enough to be there since were speaking about Software.

Between GNOME and KDE, I personally prefer Xfce.

I checked out XFCE-4 out the other day, and I thought it was really impressive. Small, fast, but not spartain like BlackBox, Fluxbox, iceWM, etc. It also looks pretty good -- a very clean interface and general look. Since it's based on GTK+, I'd say that I'd use it before I'd use GNOME.

I used to be a GNOME user, but the KDE 3.x family is so darn perfect that I personally find it so much better. It feels more complete, and doesn't suffer the same consistancy issues as GNOME.

I beleive that GNOME and KDE are both good in their own ways -- there are features in each that I admire. That being said, I think that KDE 3.2 is dangerously close from trumping the whole Linux Desktop scene -- the improvements in Konqueror, Kontact, and KOffice have made it an all-in-one solution. It's a very tightly interactive and cohesive dsktop, whereas GNOME is a collection of misc apps wadded together.

Whichever you prefer, both are good for the Linux desktop scene. Who doesn't like choice?

Tim

Basically, I perfer gtk / gtk+ over QT. Personally I think kde things use too much resources and too buggy. That's why I perfer gtk applications.

The desktop I use is xfce4 though

IMHO, fluxbox is the king. desktop load time is 1-2 seconds, and it has just enough eye candy to keep me interested. that, and its size is so small its incredible, which is important for me since im on 28k dialup.

Fluxbox is awesome-- it's a sentimental favorite of mine, and I tend to fall back on it when I know I'm going to have a LOT of windows open, and will need the real estate. It was a revelation for someone raised on KDE-- all of my apps, little of the load, blazing speed, no nonsense. And I about fell out of my chair the first time I dragged a window from one desktop to the next.

What's up w/ Enlightenment?

I'll add my name to the FluxBox list. Who needs gnome/kde when you can run all the apps in fbox?

I've used it all... Personnaly I think KDE is THE best and most pro desktop environment out there for Linux. It is coherent, almost complete and rapidly improving. The only problem with KDE (and GNOME as well) is the large amount of resources needed to have it running. Though if you have quite some memory it is realy no problem.

GNOME is nice as well, but not coherent, there are no easy tools for simple settings like setting your keyboard layout. So, I think for the amount of resources GNOME costs, it isn't worth it.

I have both Slack 9.1 and VectorLinux on this PC, so I also use vectors default DE and I have to say in the way IceWM, XFCE and Fluxbox are configured, that they make a great DE. Although you just have some basic functionallity, these are great lightweight DE's that only ask a mininum of resources. I prefer IceWM because it has the most intuitive experience.

elluva

I have tried a lot of different desktops. The major factor in choosing a suitable desktop is available system resources. On my quad Xeons KDE or Gnome are both good choices but on my 1.2 Celeron Laptop I prefer xfce4. KDE has seen drastic improvements in performance of late but Gnome is still a bit more flexible. I agree that, for fast systems, KDE is close to trumping the desktop market. If KDE adds the functionality of Gnome to their environment then users with fast hardware will have a hard time saying no. I have heard a lot of people in the Linux community refer to KDE as a "noob" desktop but this just isn't so. Just because a desktop doesn't have to be manually configured doesn't mean it is noobish. It means it is smart. It is a desktop for systems with resources to spare. Personally, I use gnome now because I prefer it's functionality and, to me, it looks just as good as KDE after a bit of customizing.

KDE

After many years of using KDE, i was told that Fluxbox was extremely good, so i gave it a try, and now i'm completely sticked to it.

Why waste 10-15sec loading a desktop if you can do it un 1-2 ?? Furthermore, it shouldn't mind if you have a fast machine to choose KDE over Fluxbox (or other desktops), the problem is the same: resource consumption. Personaly, i get around 500fps more in glxgears in Fluxbox than KDE, and i think (IMHO) I have a fast machine (P4 2.4GHz GeForce FX5900XT).

So, I agree KDE is very well integrated, but if I use 5% of what you get when you install it, i would be really a lot. And I guess many people have the same "problem". You get a bounch of things you don't know you have them or don't use them. The same happens with Gnome.

Personally, I think Fluxbox is the best. It's not complicated to configure (editing 2 config files isn't difficult), is really fast and it has everything I need from a desktop; nothing more, nothing less.