What is the basic difference between GNOME and KDE?
 

What is the basic difference between GNOME and KDE? If you kindly clear it from the root level, I shall be obliged.

Don't know what exactly you mean by "root level" but for me at least the main fact is that they look very dissimilar - at least back when I still used GNOME. IMHO KDE is much more mature and full featured, but GNOME does have GTK...

Read your reply carefully. May you tell me why do you prefer KDE better than GNOME? Why are you telling KDE much mature though the desktop of those are almost similar and have same access to the programs even in similar presentation.

say what

Whahahah That's a discussion that started a long time ago and still is going on :D
Simply they are two desktop environments that look very very dissimilar.

It is you that have to choose which is the best for you.
In performance they are almost the same i think you can run all linux application on booth
so it really doesn't matter which u run.

Off course KDE rocks but that's my opinion :D

what do u wanna say?

This is for havelino :
Thank you for your opinion. I think you have a good command over both of them. May you tell me why do u feel that KDE rocks?

I prefer gnome myself. I think gnome is written in C while KDE is C++. KDE used a non open gui toolkit in it's early days, don't know if thats changed, gnome was always meant to be open source. Bunch of other stuff.

That's a personal opinion.

I tried GNOME for a while but never liked how the menu components are arranged, of course it
doesn't matter very much because 80% of the time i'm using a kernel. Furthermore you can personalize you're KDE environment look at: kde-look

PS I think KDE is open source now so if you want to develop go ha head

havelino may you tell, how do u use that kernel? as much i know kernel is the core of the operating system. how do u use it? please be clear friend.

My bad ,

Terminal / Konsole

To clear up the KDE/Gnome arguments on open source/free software.

KDE uses the qt toolkit, produced by TrollTech. It was (past tense) non free, but is now released under a dual license scheme - the GPL and TrollTech's own license. If you want to develop GPL or GPL-license compatible applications, you can do this. If you don't want to use the GPL/GPL compatible license, you have to pay TrollTech for their alternate qt license (that's how they make the money to continue development on qt).

Gnome uses the Gimp Toolkit (GTK+) developed originally for The Gimp, which is licensed under the LGPL. One of the reasons for Gnome coming about was the fact that in the early days KDE was not using a free license. This is no longer the case as I have just explained.

To summarise therefore: Both KDE and Gnome are open source (and possibly also 'free software'. Read some of RMS's literature to understand the difference between the two terms)

The 'basic' difference, then, is that they use difference toolkits with different licenses for their applications.

You can also personalize your GNOME environment. Look at: GNOME-Look.org (There's a link to GNOME-Look at KDE-Look).

That said, IMHO GNOME is still way behind KDE in the eye candy department. KDE has a lot of support for translucency which GNOME lacks, and in particular KDE's Crystal-GL Window decoration is simply cooler than anything GNOME has to offer.

OTOH, GNOME has support for vector graphics icons, which KDE lacks. Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage is debateable. On the KDE side, bitmap icons are incredibly detailed and can have a "photorealistic look". On the GNOME side, vector graphics may be cartoony but they can be scaled to any size.

does that really need to be pointed out?

if our talking asthetics. gnome feels (to me) like working on the old macs back in highschool. and thats the main reason i dont like it, i dont understand all the technical angles of this argument but kde is like the os most linux migrators know and hate/love

OOh yeah it's needed to point it out some people feel that they are attacked when you say the you like KDE or GNOME.
My Mentor for example.
So prevent is better than cure .

Fluxbox kicks ass...it supports the new X.org composite extensions. Mine is set up so the focused window is opaque whilst all others are 50% translucent..it's a great effect!

yeah yeah for a Portuguese crazy dude i can make myself a bit understandable

beginning with "i prefer" usually qualifies it as such....

Up to this point I am sure that GNOME and KDE are the two desktop environments and both of have some facilities, and there are several opinions for their personal preference. All the messages are really diamonds for newbies like us. Personally I come to know a lot from those messages. Thank you friends for your open discussion.
Now may one be specific at which points GNOME is really differers from KDE?

I'm not sure what more you want.
Gnome: c, gtk, sprayed all over the system, simple and bare with things hidden in gconf, a few apps with a few functions.
KDE: c++, qt, contained in KDE dirs, visually complicated with a giant control panel, dozens of apps with dozens of toolbars and buttons.
Both: hypercomplicated giant Linux desktop environments with special libs and special apps and special configuration and a general disregard for the system running under them.

Personally, using KDE is like beating myself in the face with a brick and using Gnome is like diving into a vat of glue. At heart, they are the same insulated bubble do-everything 'desktop environment' but, beyond that, they're completely different.

Try 'em both and experience them yourself or save some time and delete both of them.

the differene as i said is mainly graphic interface, if ur a newbie, as most if not all kde/ gnome apps are interchangeable.

so what do u like better, mac OS (gnome) or windows (kde)

Phew! What a hornet's nest!

I like KDE subjectively because... I -like-KDE! :)

Its just like some people prefer certain types of icecream, while others don't eat icecream at all.

At least, semper fidelis Linuxia, you are free to choose what you want to use. I choose KDE not because of any objective reason, but mostly because I, subjectively, prefer the way it works and looks viz a viz Gnome.

Funniest post I've ever read, but at the same time more info about each WM in one paragraph than I thought possible. LOL thanks!

BTW I'm still deciding on my WM Flux -> KDE -> Gnome :Pengy:

GNOME: Very clean looking compared to KDE, GTK is great, and the overall "feel" of GNOME is better. What I like about GNOME:

Icons
Themes
The file manager
Many applications that are written for GNOME run better -- in GNOME

Just my preference - thats really what the two desktops boil down to.

However, KDE is nice too

KDE,

functions much like Windows so it makes it much easier to adapt to
some of the KDE menus IMO are not organized well
equally great themes - especially from kde-look.org
superkarama is great in KDE
great file manager too


But, after working in both -- GNOME just felt like home to me. I like the presentation of the environment much bettter. But things for the most part function the same. Like linux, the X environment is about choice -- and I choose GNOME.

The differences between KDE and Gnome (and all the other desktops) break down into two categories: 1) How they look, and 2) what they do.

How they look:
Completely different. Sure they both have a desktop with icons and a task bar, and all the usual 'stuff'. But they LOOK different. This is a matter of personal preference. As a windows convert, I prefer the look of KDE. People who come from an Apple background seem to like Gnome better.

What they do:
The same thing. They provide a graphical interface for the user to interact with the program. Very rarely will a program work in one and not the other.

If you are used to Windows, then use KDE for a week. Then load up Gnome. If you say "Wow! I like this!" then continue to use Gnome. If you say "Aggh! This is driving me fucking mad!" then continue using KDE. And every so often use the other one to remind yourself why you usually don't.

Linux is like Lego. You can build your own desktop environment. Both KDE and Gnome are just big packages with software aimed to look and feel the same way, work well together and generally give you a nice experience. If you dislike a component, then replace it with something else. It's that simple.

Application that are "made for gnome" or "made for kde" can be used with any desktop. This only means that that the program use a set of library functions found in their underlying gnome-libs or kdelibs. You do not need to use the actual desktops to use the applications, software made for KDE and Gnome can be used with any window manager / desktop as long as you got the proper libraries installed. There is no reason to use only applications made for the desktop you prefer, the "best software" for one task is made for KDE, the best for another task is made for Gnome. Use the best from both worlds.

Both KDE and Gnome can be customized to behave exactly the way you want. What desktop you prefer is your own choice and preference. When in doubt, try to learn both. Or experiment with other desktops. Remember, *nix applications are not locked to the desktop they are made for, Gnome applications can be used in KDE and vice versa.

There is no "best desktop", but there is a desktop that's best for you. It's a matter of preference, and hardware.

That post had me literally Laughing Out Loud!! :D

See, I've always associated running Gnome with gouging one's eyes out with a spoon, whereas kwin is the One True Window Manager. (obviously I'm just kidding)

Seriously though - digiot has a point. Install and try both, and use the one YOU like better. It is as simple as that.

I happen to prefer KDE and standardized the Linux boxes at my office on it, but I install multiple window managers so that users can use whichever environment they choose. Disk space is cheap nowadays, so there is no harm in installing multiple window managers. Be glad you're not running in the days of 40MB and 80MB drives, where you had to be happy if you could get twm and fvwm installed at the same time, and still have applications to run! :)

Meh, I use neither. Fluxbox all the way but I choose to run Gtk apps over Qt :)

I hope a newb outlook can help explain the difference, this is my finding: KDE programs work fine in gnome if I remove KDE completly, but if I do the opposite the programs for gnome need the gtk libraries to work. Also I have noticed KDE apps made by programmers tend to have a little more eye candy where as gnome apps go for the KISS solution. Also this might be completely wrong but IN MY CASE gnome apps compile easier from the source and KDE apps tend to be a pain, although as I said this is just for the programs I installed. Besides there are themes/apps that make eaither one look like the other so really to judge each one you would have to look at the source versus whats on the screen. Heh, now we'll get someone in here talking about just using X instead of all these intrusive GUIs.

I use Fedora Core 3. My personal feeling is that KDE takes more time than GNOME to complete boot up. After showing the desktop KDE shows the hourglass for a moderately long time but GNOME do not. What do you feel?

For me gnome loads faster. But not on the basis of loading speed would I recommend a windows manager. Only Microsoft windows managers need to be shut down on a regular basis.

FWIW, gnome apps run just fine as long as you have the gtk libraries installed, just like KDE apps, unless statically-linked, will require the kdelibs package to be installed.