digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

KDE vs. Gnome: Which is better for you?

psychocats.net — An essay that looks at the differences of each GUI and what each is best for.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cptchaos, on 10/12/2007, -18/+49"One of the most common questions people new to Linux ask is "Should I use KDE or Gnome?" Unfortunately, the answers are usually useless--anything from "Just try each one to see what works for you"

    I honestly fail to see why this answer should be useless?! Of course the easiest approach to decide what Desktop-Environment fits your taste is to just try both and then decide. Its not as if its a big problem to install and run them both on any Linux-Distro. You just install them (some distros like suse even have them both preinstalled) and then choose one at login... certainly easier than reading through dozens of articles and flamewars and be none the wiser afterwards!

    By the way: GNOME IS BETTER ;-)
    • 0siris, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22I have 2 gnome computers and one kde, and i have to say the kde is nicer looking and a little more modern, but it seems bloated and a little counter intuative. Its kinda like saying which is better "windows XP theme" or "classic windows"
    • tonyr1988, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4It's sad when your comment, which is an objective view at how a n00b can determine which environment is best for them (with one line of humorous fanboyism), gets fewer diggs than flamers.
    • GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I like to load all the window managers and occasional give each a test run.

      I think its very educational to see what other concepts of windowing are out there.

      For slow machines, I like IceWM. For a fast loading and small memory footprint, I use something without menu bars and eye candy. Otherwise, I use Gnome.
    • rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -13/+0*deleted*
    • pwill, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3This guy has obviously never heard of "gnome-keybinding-propeties"
      He says that you have to go to gconf to edit keyboard shurtcuts...
    • sailor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I use KDE most of the time (I have both installed) I compare them as follows:
      *KDE can look like anything you want, Gnome has fewer customization options.
      *both are pretty equal in speed, although I feel that KDE might be a tad faster.
      *KDE has far more applications and addons than Gnome (kde-apps.org, kde-look.org)
      *I don't like some of the apps that come with it, for example, Nautilus (spatial windows is a option? who would want that?)

      I use Fluxbox on my old slow machine or in virtual player.
    • nixdoctor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12It's like saying crunchy thin crust pizza is better than ultimate deep dish pizza. Dude, everyone has different tastes and preferences, and there is nothing like "better" that works for everyone! I like GNOME too, but it's not "better" for everyone. It's a fact.
    • nixdoctor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Moreover, I find it extremely distressing when people say GNOME "versus" KDE. It's as if they're in a boxing ring! Linux gives you a "choice" - a choice to choose... not to fight! Ideally, we should see it as "GNOME and KDE" rather than "GNOME versus KDE".
    • sp1r1t, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@nixdoctor

      I agree with everything you've said. At least Linux gives a choice, that is the beauty of open source. Stop bickering and use what fits you best.
    • SledgY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ sailor
      There may be more KDE applications, but most work perfectly well on Gnome as well (after installing the KDE libs etc).
    • TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"KDE vs. Gnome: Which is better for you?"

      Who cares? heres a tip go into the shell and type 'switchdesk kde' or 'switchdesk gnome' and all your indecisive worries are melted away like butter.
  • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22if i had to choose one and remove the other i would keep KDE and remove gnome...
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8fortunately you dont
      i run gnome, but have a handful of qt apps that run fine in it, i also ran kwin under Xgl for a while so i could have a decent window manager for switching between 3d desktop and games (thats no longer nessisary though)
  • supriyadisw, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23I vote for Gnome! :D
    • motang, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Yeah me too, I have gotten so used it since I have been using it for 4 years it's hard for me to use anything else.
    • zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I vote for neither and here's my reasoning:

      The constant fights of KDE vs. Gnome makes for confusion for users. If these two groups could learn to play nice together instead of simultaneously reinventing the wheel the state of Linux GUI's would probably be further along than it currently is. Pretty buttons and widgets aren't the end all be all of GUI. They should be looking at advancing usability and that takes a cohesive view.

      Of anyone to be able to create the next generation GUI it would be these guys. Addons like XGL are interesting but they are spit polish on an old tool (and are effectively adding onto existing ideas in OS X and Vista). So where is the next generation?
    • Justathought, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@motang

      Yes, unfortunately, like you, most people vote for what they know instead of making the effort to see what else there is. That is why most people stay with their religion of birth even if they don't know how to defend their beliefs in a rational way. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is. The alternative takes effort and that is why Ubunt is such a boon for Gnome.
    • Th3_anOmoLy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The first few months that I used Linux I got used to Gnome and was decidedly avoiding KDE. I didn't really know what the difference was but I used it once on a live distro and felt lost. After giving KDE a second go on PCLOS I found that it really worked for me. Now my main laptop is running Kubuntu (Ubuntu+KDE) and I love the combination. I do still keep one laptop running with Gnome for comparative and learning reasons. I do, after all, still consider myself a bit of a noob :D
  • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33I vote for both, they are both good.
  • Waterrat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20 I've always used KDE, so it's what I'm used to. I'm sure if I'd started out with Gnome,I'd be feeling the same way about it.
    • jcaino, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Funny thing - I started out with KDE with RedHat and then later on in SuSe.....however, since Ubuntu, I'm pretty hooked on Gnome....


      *shrug*

      at work it's windowmaker

      b/c sometimes you just need to get things done and not look at eye candy.
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i started off with kde and switched to gnome for s little while with ubuntu. However kde 3.5.4 in kubuntu edgy is awesome, way better than ubuntu IMO. It is very sexy and is much cleaner than it used to be. Very good job by both the kde and kubuntu devs.

      cant wait for kde 4
  • subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26KDE works just fine for me and has never "frozen" in the 14 months I've been using Linux. Gnome looks cool but as long as KDE covers my personal needs I see no reason to change.

    BTW (an off-topic note)---this is precisely the sort of Linux debate that causes so many Winusers' eyes to glaze over and stick with what they know.
    • Waterrat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18"
      BTW (an off-topic note)---this is precisely the sort of Linux debate that causes so many Winusers' eyes to glaze over and stick with what they know."

      Yeah, I'm sure it is..Hey,sometimes this sort of topic makes *my* eyes glaze over as well.
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"this is precisely the sort of Linux debate that causes so many Winusers' eyes to glaze over and stick with what they know."

      I'm a Windows user who has knowledge of Unix and has previously installed and used Linux for some time, and I can tell you this: Linux users LOVE sweeping issues under the carpet and then whistling that it's either not a real problem, or that it's not difficult to overcome it. They work overtime like this on issues that Windows users in particular would find quite important to them.

      So, let me just tell you that it's REFRESHING to see an article about Linux that both targets newbies and discusses draw-backs and problems with any aspect of the "Linux experience". When I read that, to install KDE themes, the author had to edit numerous configuration text files, my eyes didn't glaze over. Instead, I nodded to myself and thought, "At least he's not pretending like this is not a problem."

      The problem with computer evangelists is that they will routinely try to pretend like there are no problems, ESPECIALLY when talking to newbie users.

      "Oh yeah, just try it, you'll love it! Problems? Nah, it's not that bad! Just try it! It's very easy now! It's simple!"
    • HerbertScrunge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8" So, let me just tell you that it's REFRESHING to see an article about Linux that both targets newbies and discusses draw-backs and problems with any aspect of the "Linux experience". When I read that, to install KDE themes, the author had to edit numerous configuration text files, my eyes didn't glaze over. Instead, I nodded to myself and thought, "At least he's not pretending like this is not a problem."

      The problem with computer evangelists is that they will routinely try to pretend like there are no problems, ESPECIALLY when talking to newbie users. "

      Indeed.

      As an extra bit of info: The article was written by ubuntuforums.org powerhouse "aysiu", an English teacher who is very well respected on the forums due to the truly prodigious amount of help - in the form of posts on the forums answering questions and "beginners" articles - he has provided during his stay, and the fact that he is more than happy to "tell it like it is", as it were, when it comes to Linux's shortcomings as a desktop environment. I imagine you'd admire him even more in light of this thread he made which agrees very strongly with the sentiment in your final paragraph:

      http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=259479
  • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16When I tried Gnome I spent 1 hour to make it look like KDE, then I thought why bother? I also think that Gnome default theme is horrendous, I hate the roundish widgets and the icons are plain ugly. I also miss KIO servers that are so useful in KDE, most of the programs that I use are KDE programs except for GAIM.

    I'm sure both are pretty good, I prefer one, somebody else might prefer the other one, this is the best sign that both are needed. Long live freedom, long live choice!
    • tropican8, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I thought I was the only one who did that! It took me an hour too. I then went back to KDE. I bet a lot of people have also tried to make KDE look like Gnome, now that I think about it.
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18I don't use KDE for 2 reasons:

    1) Most of the apps I run are GTK.

    2) The UI just isn't my thing. Too many icons, buttons, etc. I like a clean UI that doesn't distract me with an abundance of options I'll probably never use anyway.

    GNOME isn't perfect but it's a lot closer to what I'm looking for.
    • faulkner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5tried fluxbox? it's very minimalist, but plenty powerful enough for me. and there are plugins and tools if you miss desktop icons, etc.
      if you're feeling frisky, you should disable the slit [fluxbox's taskbar]. free your screen!
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8AMEN BRUDDAH.

      Gnome user here for those reasons exactly. And I dig the Human theme for Gnome the Ubuntu distros come with now.
    • sailor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9GTK apps will run in KDE
      and the number of icons/buttons is determined by the user...I am not sure I follow your logic...never had a problem with too many features, but I do have a problem with a lack of features. :)
    • dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I agree with the "too many buttons" thing with KDE.. I find KDE very cluttered, and Gnome a lot cleaner

      For anyone who wants a very.. err. unclutered.. interface
      http://www.nongnu.org/ratpoison/
      It's basicly an `screen` as a window manager, everything is controled by the keyboard.. I'm just about to set it up on my laptop, so I can use it inplace of Gnome when I don't need all it's functionality
      - Ben
    • fatas, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2True the KDE desktop is cluttered as badly as MS Windows.
  • tgone, on 10/12/2007, -27/+1I've been using Ubuntu as my primary OS since May. When it comes to usability, both KDE and GNOME are inferior to Windows and OS X.
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8How is that, when you click on the icon the program doesn't start? when you click on the "x" button the program doesn't stop?
    • atezun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2While I don't prefer GNOME to a mac, I like most GTK apps better than their windows counterparts.

      All i need is a one-note app fro linux.
    • rafgar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Windows, usable? Maybe for the first month or so. After that you start running into maintenance issues, which most people don't know how to deal with. Not an issue with Linux.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12You know I've switched to Ubuntu right when Dapper Drake came out and I'd have to completely disagree with you. Even my mostly computer illiterate (yet VERY smart) girlfriend liked using it so much that she wanted me to put it on HER PC as well. She's using it full time now also.
    • thebairyhum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@tgone ...Nor do you offer any evidence to back that up. Welcome to Web 2.0. Yes window's GUI is in the kernel whereas desktop managers from linux are not that is the reason why windows is moving Vistas out. So now let's get into the argument of why you shouldn't have a GUI in the kernel...

      I wonder why the writer of the article dualbooted between Kubuntu and Ubuntu when he could have just ran either one from one install :/
    • tgone, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5First of all, Windows and OS X have out of the box support for consumer products and mainstream file formats. Your average consumer doesn't want to hassle with setting up Ubuntu to play MP3s.

      KDE and GNOME are great for hackers, programmers, nerds and admins. But Windows and Mac OS is better for everyone else. This may change in the future, but right now Windows and Mac OS are more usable. That's why they own the market.

      And for the record, I use Ubuntu as my primary OS. It's the only computer I have.
    • tgone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0@rafgar,

      I'm only talking about the GUI. Internally, Windows is crap. But the interface is why it's so popular. Windows and Mac OS are designed for the typical no brain consumer.
    • tgone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@skyshock21,

      I always hear dudes talk about how their girlfriends use Ubuntu. She can use it because you configured it for her, right? Did she install Ubuntu, configure Flash, RealPlayer, MP3 support and the other essential consumer stuff? The only reaosn why my family uses Ubuntu is because I set all those things up for them...
    • bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@tgone

      Wrong. You can't play DivX or any DVDs on Mac or Windows. And until WMP9 you couldn't rip to mp3 without paying for an add on.Mainstream formats? PDF in Windows?

      So what's Microsoft's solution? Try to surplant it with it's own version of the format in Vista by pushing pdf into the background.

      So Windows plays wma and mp3 out of the box. Doesn't mean you don't have to go pay another $150-200 for an office sweet to make it usable.
    • tonyr1988, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@tgone's reply

      1) It's not hard to get other formats (like MP3) working in Linux, but I'm sure you know about that.

      2) More importantly, it's tons easier to get some MP3 files setup than trying to do maintenance on WinXP. You think average users would rather:

      a) Click a link to get EasyUbuntu (or Automatix, or whatever) and check the boxes they want, or

      b) Go into their registry, startup folders, "safe mode" to avoid getting something they don't want.

      3) This isn't a technological error in Linux at all. It's a legal problem. One that will hopefully be solved soon.

      4) When an average consumer buys a computer with WinXP, it's all setup and configured for them. How many n00bs have ever installed Windows on their computer?
    • tgone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@bigtomrodney,

      You're right, Ubuntu does come with DVD support. I like that. But why can't they just support MP3 out of the box? Is that too much to ask for? Everybody wants to listen to MP3s, why should they have to follow some tutorial to do this?
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6For the ten millionth time XP does not have MP3 support as default. You have to install a codec for it like in Ubuntu. The only difference is Ubuntu has a codec in the repos while in Windows you have to chase one down using Google or find an install disc. Same goes for DVD playback, no DVD playback as standard on Windows. The OEM might install these but that could happen with Linux as well.

      As for KDE vs GNOME. The whole debate is stupid, the two are getting closer together with each release (especially since KDE are going very cathedral like with recent releases, joining GNOME in that respect) and both are really far too bloated but are nice if you just want a drop in solution. The real comparison should be whether you prefer a DE like KDE/GNOME or a WM like Fluxbox/IceWM and build your desktop customly. Also XFCE and Enlightenment get ignored all too easily in these arguments yet have a totally valid place in the Linux world.
    • sailor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You obviously not a linux user...
    • tgone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@sailor,

      I've been running a web site on Fedora since 2003 and using Ubuntu as my primary OS since May. I'm not a pro at Linux, but I consider myself a user. Infact, I'm using Linux right now. I only have one computer and it runs Linux.
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3big deal to install mp3 codecs, also, not everybody listen to mp3s I listen to radio and don't have any problem with it.

      If you want MP3 codecs installed by default buy Linspire, it's a trade off you want free -- no mp3 codecs by default, want mp3 codecs -- you need to pay. BTW, it's not Linux fault, it's because MP3 is not a free format (there are patents on it that will expire in couple of years) anyway you have Linux with MP3 codecs installed by default if that's what you want.

    • Saoshyant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1X/K/Ubuntu has several easy ways to install MP3 support. The EasyUbuntu and Automatix scripts are the most well known.

      It's useless, but anyway I'll ask (one more time) for people to consider ripping their music in Vorbis (commonly called OGG) and share it around in that format. Better quality, no DRM, no legal issues, nothing bad with it. Still, people won't see beyond the MP3 horizon... Oh well, you can start modding me down by now.
    • Shadowman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@atdigg
      You don't have to buy Linspire. Just use Freespire. It includes MP3 support and costs nothing. It's great for n00bs.
  • pairanoyd, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7KDE... Period. End of discussion.

    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Linus Torvalds encourages everyone to use KDE also.

      http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=12956

      I use Gnome precisely for the reasons he says you shouldn't though. :)
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't see the problem to be honest. You can configure GNOME through text format files and via gconf-editor. Ok theres no dialogue for every conceivable option but that isn't needed, no other OS has that and frankly Linux users shouldn't need such hand holding*. Far more annoying is GNOME devs crying whenever a distro trys to release anything non standard, thats a PITA and runs totally counter to OSS ideals.

      Really neither KDE or GNOME hold true to the ideals they are supposed to anymore. QT's license is now more free than GTK's, KDE have moved far from the Bazaar, GNOME has more dialogues while KDE has far fewer. Before long the only thing differentiating them will be their supporters who will debate dead issues as portland and convergence makes it all irrelevant and people like myself stick with Fluxbox simply because it is what I make it rather than what somebody else decides.

      *The KDE devs agree with me since they are moving towards simplified controls. Who here can remember the KDE clock with 4/5 tabs in the config dialogue.
  • rafgar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Fluxbox....it looks better than either KDE or Gnome, has a much lower resource usage than either, and I don't have to worry about anyone messing with my settings.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Uses simple, true to Unix config methods. Has no mountains of unneeded apps built in. The merging of windows is the greatest feature ever. Gives you complete choice wrt customisation with no-one complaining if you release with extra features built in. I honestly think that distros should be building their DE's around Fluxbox but the current options are too entrenched to do that.
  • phraud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Ahem...

    www.get-e.org
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"Enlightenment DR 17 is a next-generation window manager for UNIX operating systems. It is currently in a *pre-alpha stage* and is under *heavy development*."

      Ahem...

      No thanks.
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10My vote is for Enlightenment also.

      Yes, Enlightenment DR17 is pre-alpha and in heavy development. That's why you use DR16, which has been stable and highly functional for years.
    • jp007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here here. e.16 has been my favorite environment for a while now. Make it as clean or as fancy as you want. However, lets remember that e.16 is a window manager. KDE and Gnome are more than just window managers, but complete "desktop environments". Their default window managers are, I believe, metacity and kwin, respectively. However they can be replaced with any compliant window manager. Right now I'm running Ubuntu with a Gnome desktop, but I shucked metacity for e. Lets just not make the mistake of cunfusing Gnome and KDE as simply window managers.
  • DarkStalker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It's pretty clear that this essay is quite old. For example, when the author says:

    "In Gnome, when you choose to rename a file, only the actual name of the file gets highlighted for editing. In KDE, the entire name, including the extension gets highlighted for editing."

    That hasn't been true in KDE for quite a while... at least six months from what I remember off the top of my head. I've also never had a freeze or crash of KDE since maybe the 3.2 days.

    Maybe the author's using Debian Stable?

    Looking at the date, it's over a year old. No wonder. Buried.
  • metalhead3767, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I like KDE. I just think it looks better. One of the reasons that I didn't like linux when I first tried it was the ugly gnome theme in ubuntu. I swiched to KDE and suse. I like it more then windows.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You realise that you can theme both almost endlessly. The only limits are your imagination and technical abilities.
  • Raaben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I use XFCE for my desktop. If I had to choose between Gnome or KDE, I'd take Gnome because that was the first one I learned. Honestly, I don't prefer one over the other. I've always thought this "desktop war" or whatever is pointless. Use what works best for you and be happy.
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The war is mostly between developers; they would have easier collective lives if the OSS community would settle on one widget set (GTK+) or the other (Qt).

      Really, I agree; a single coherent API for GUI widgets would make developing for Linux far more attractive. Me, I pull for Qt, as I feel it's simply more polished. For some reason, GTK+ programs, unless they've been skinned (like Firefox), just look ugly to me.
    • HerbertScrunge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"The war is mostly between developers"

      On the contrary; the "war" is mainly a product of the users. The devs themselves view each other (nowadays) more as friendly competition. As Zack Rusin said on his LUG radio interview (roughly paraphrased) - "But amongst the devs, it's all love!"

      "they would have easier collective lives if the OSS community would settle on one widget set (GTK+) or the other (Qt)."

      This will never happen and not so much out of pride or warlike-ness than simple practicality: both DEs are so inextricably tied to the toolkits they use that to "switch" to the other would necessitate a total re-write.

      Happily, there's things like gtk-engines-qt that help make the breach less obvious.

      "Really, I agree; a single coherent API for GUI widgets would make developing for Linux far more attractive. Me, I pull for Qt, as I feel it's simply more polished. For some reason, GTK+ programs, unless they've been skinned (like Firefox), just look ugly to me."

      I'd also opt for Qt as Qt4 seems to be faster, more memory efficient (these last two are vaguely subjective, I guess) and has much better cross-platform support than Gtk. It won't happen, however, and as someone who wants both desktops to stick around and share (or steal!) ideas from one another and goad the other into progressing, I'd go as far as to say that it *shouldn't* happen.
    • NTolerance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Fordi

      Agreed, I also think the GTK widget set is just plain ugly. It reeks of Windows 95. The part that bothers me the most is that there is no mouseover highlighting on the main program toolbars. Windows XP and KDE both include full, uniform mouseover highlighting on everything, but GNOME mysteriously leaves this out and the desktop feels less reponsive to me.

      All this being said, I still use GNOME because I can't get away from using GTK apps.
  • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"In Gnome, when you choose to rename a file, only the actual name of the file gets highlighted for editing. In KDE, the entire name, including the extension gets highlighted for editing. I prefer usually to rename only the file, not the extension--though, you can always highlight the extension in Gnome, too, should you choose to do so; it just doesn't happen automatically."

    This must be configurable in KDE, as my experience is that KDE behaves the way gnome is described to here.
  • Troopy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I prefer KDE..

    Purely because I think it looks sexier, it does what I need to do and the project seems 'busier' than Gnome and has more customisable options and a bigger community.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5gconf-editor. I know it looks like Windows regedit* but the tool is fully functional and lets you configure to your hearts content.

      *regedit isn't why the registry is bad anyway. The fact the keys are labelled awfully and the fact that its one huge blob with no standards whatsoever are what make it awful.
  • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I prefer KDE, but both are nice. A lot of it is just that I like Konquer.
  • cubiculum, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10If you need a ***** "essay" to pick between Gnome and KDE, you probably shouldn't be using X Window in the first place.
    • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Exhibit 1: Why Linux will not take over the desktop market anytime soon.
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9They're both too much alike to say that one is better than the other. You can use KDE applications in Gnome and vice-versa.
    I use Konqueror as my file manager no matter which GUI I'm using. I also use GQview and Gftp regardless of whether I'm using Gnome.

    There would be many more pro/con points to make by comparing one of the two to XFCE or Blackbox. It's not like the GUI you choose to use on any session is a permanent decision anyway.
  • shaolinpunks, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2i like gnome best
    but on my pentium 2 i use kde
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You use KDE on a pentium 2???

      I find that hard to believe. KDE 3.5 struggles along on a 1.2 celeron I have. Definately XFCE/Fluxbox territory.
  • loading, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1i love trends:
    http://www.google.com/trends?q=KDE%2C+Gnome&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
    • sashmit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Gnome is also a english word, not just an desktop environment-- I think that affects search results. AFAIK, KDE has always been more popular than Gnome (not that it matters).
  • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I think they are both bloated and ugly and, with the defaults, look too much like WinXP.

    I prefer WindowMaker.
  • saon, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4KDE and Gnome are for wussies who can't handle going outside of a 'desktop environment.' Ion, dwm, wmii, icewm, BadWM, WindowMaker, blackbox, openbox, and fluxbox are all superior WMs to begin with. I'm using dwm now (it still has a few things to iron out) because it's really tiny and gets out of my way. I sometimes go back to ion3. wmii would be okay if its default keybindings didn't immediately induce carpal tunnel. I'm not too sure what everone needs fancy graphics and window decorations and animated effects for other than to use up resources and impress noobs. Even fluxbox, blackbox, and openbox are a bit too fat for me now. If you actually use your computer as a computer, you don't need any 'desktop environment' at all.
    • saon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6aww i got groupthunk down. I'll just say that I run slackware with mostly custom everything, compile software from source as standard operating procedure, and mostly use my machine for browsing, reading, coding, movie-watching, and listening to music. I do a lot of typing, and moving things around is bothersome and impedes upon progress when i have to constantly be moving my hands over to the mouse just so I can see wtf I actually have on the screen.

      Having a 'modern desktop environment' mostly means that it has the same crappy focus model as always, the ill-concieved task bar, and retarded window placement and management. Within ion and dwm, I have full control over my window layout and full visibility of what's going on. Ion in particular is superior in this regard because it allows for frames where you can do window tabbing just like in fluxbox or pwm. It doesn't have pretty pictures really, but it does have a floating window mode to allow you to use it just like you would pwm and supports window shading. The panews mode is a nice compromise of tiling and floating that works very well to help you with window management for specific sets of jobs.

      Dwm lets you split desktops and view windows from different desktops easily. It employs the notion of a master window that you're working in which takes up a set amount of screen space. It also supports floating mode, but has no sense of a taskbar. This seems like a hinderance to most people, but really, it's not. In most cases you just have crap floating in your taskbar that you're not using or reading, but you minimized because it was in your way of working on the screen itself. Since dwm doesn't have retarded window controls to begin with, it's mostly a non-issue.

      I really hope the people who are digging me down have done real work with a computer and actually tried other standalone wms like blackbox, fluxbox, openbox, afterstep, windowmaker, icewm, dwm, wmii, ion, fvwm, or others. This Gnome vs KDE battle is retarded because they both largely fail at trying to be OSX or Windows. I know noobs like to have pretty background pictures and integrated interfaces, but for people who do real work on a computer, it's not that big of a deal.
    • imsoclever, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Thats pretty cool, I sometimes go outside to see the sun and other times go socialize with friends.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Evilwm is an interesting one that you've missed from there, it certainly has a different design philosophy to most other WM's. Properly configured any of the custom WM's walk all over any DE naturally, a persons preferences will always beat a default.
    • subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So you are absolutely opposed to the expansion of Linux into the Winuser collective - right? KDE is simply a tool that works quite well for "daily drivers" on the information highway and getting all religious about the subject is absurd.
      And Gnome obviously works just fine too.
    • saon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh I'm not opposed to inching into the winuser collective at all. But a windows 'user' as still going to be a 'user' on linux.
  • Patented, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4When KDE first came out, it was a godsend to those of us trapped in the FVWM95 hellhole. Granted, Enlightenment was out there, and Windowmaker (which I eventually used predominantly), but KDE was exceptional when it released. The last time I tried to use it, it was way too busy and un-elegant for me to deal with.

    After rolling my own Black/Fluxbox for a couple years, I was pretty happy with it. I have to admit that I just run XFCE now... no major config headaches, no text files, and it looks clean and works.
  • endgame, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7KDE PWNS U All
  • vcleniuk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2There's no place like Gnome... (sorry, couldn't stop myself).
  • rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why on earth would you dual boot Ubuntu and Kubuntu?
    • loading, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2read the P.S. at the end of the story
    • rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Fair enough. Thanks for pointing that out.
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I got tired of how KDE maximizes windows. It leaves the border visible, so if you move the cursor to the right of the screen to drag the scroll bar, you'll often end up resizing the window instead. So in KDE, I need to remember move the mouse back to the left a bit before scrolling.

    It seems like such a small issue, but the daily annoyance adds up, so I went back to Gnome.
  • wfmk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not the window manager, but the distribution which is important. And by important, I mean important for the individual user's needs.

    Gnome works well with desktop apps in Ubuntu, but KDE is more useful for the power users of Slackware and Gentoo.


  • tgone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1GMorgan said:

    "For the ten millionth time XP does not have MP3 support as default. You have to install a codec for it like in Ubuntu."

    Every Windows computer I've ever bought has played MP3s out of the box. I never had to install anything myself.

    As for DVDs, every Windows machine I've ever bought has come with DVD software. So for me the consumer, Windows plays DVDs out of the box. Mac OS is the same, right?
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you bought a machine preinstalled with Linux it would likely be the same. If you installed a copy of Mepis you'd have codecs as standard anyway. Remember Ubuntu != all of Linux, there are other distributions that have different (maybe better for you) defaults.
    • insaneavocado, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That's the thing; you bought a windows machine. Chances are it came with windows? Chances are the manufacturer installed those things.
    • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Try installing a retail copy of Windows. Your modern hardware will probably be unsupported. The first boot will probably leave you stuck in VGA mode without a working network connection. You'll have to (possibly using another computer) visit every manufacturer's website and download the drivers for your system. Once you've got it all working, you'll notice that Windows XP doesn't come with much more than 98 did. It especially won't play DVD's, not without spending money.
  • vicaya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I used to think KDE is bloated, then I realized that It's fairly easy to configure a minimalist KDE environment that's small and fast. KDE/Qt based apps (like Akregator, Amarok and Krita) in general seems to be more polished (in looks, functionality and integration) than Gnome/gtk based apps.

    It's easier to develop for KDE/Qt than Gnome/gtk too. There are plenty of good reasons why Apple picked KHTML over other alternatives as the base of their webkit (for safari and other i* Mac OS X apps)
    • sashmit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4KDE *IS* bloated, however, it also uses lesser amount of resources than Gnome does, especially memory. This wasn't always true-- Gnome 1.x used less resources than KDE.
    • HerbertScrunge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"KDE *IS* bloated, however, it also uses lesser amount of resources than Gnome does, especially memory."

      For reference, see e.g. here:

      http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2350

      Admittedly, the study was carried about by a KDE developer, but his methodology seems sound. The conclusion also follows logically: a rich and comprehensive API leads to less duplication of code amongst the apps that utilise it. If parts of the API are not used by any apps currently running (true for the vast majority of the API at any time), it is not loaded into memory.

      Hopefully the memory footprint will be even better under KDE4, as Qt4 already has significant speed and footprint-reduction advances.
  • KevinWPeters, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I started out with KDE, went to Gnome a couple of months later, then went back to KDE after 5 years. I really like all the changes that have been made to KDE since the 2.1 version. QT to me is the superior widget set, as GTK looks too immature. With me, it's all about looks. If I was worried more about functionality, I'd boot to the command line and start everything from there.
  • nikkkko, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Is Ubuntu still brown? I don't like brown. Or yellow.
    • h3r3j3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yes, it's brown... but it's easy to change that!
    • fatas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You only like white, you racist KKKDE
  • bdmbdm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How the hell did this make the front page? That page shows barely anything about which is better.

    And why the hell is he dual botting Ubuntu and Kubuntu? It's posted everywhere on the Ubuntu Forums that you can have 2 DE's on the same OS, but only run one at a time.
  • mesostinky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Gnome more stable? Even the Gnome devs won't go there.
  • ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's obvious. GEOS is the winnar here.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9KDE to me is the clear winner and everytime I give Gnome a go, just to dip my fingers in and see if I feel any different, I eventually switch back within a week.

    I'm not trying to say that Gnome is crap. It's not.

    But KDE has:
    - more polished apps (and the reason I suspect this is so is because of Qt)
    - killer apps to add to that (krusader, amarok, yakuake, kate, quanta, k3b, digikam, akregator, etc)
    - a more intuitive desktop (for anyone, not just Windows users, which is commonly said)
    - looks much better
    - and a friendlier community.

    KDE may be faster in the benchmarks, but it is marginally so and would hardly be noticable in most scenarios, TBO.

    Traditionally, though, KDE and Gnome were of two mindsets and so people would debate over these things. KDE was more integrated, while Gnome was more simple and cut-to-the-chase. Now, Gnome has been adopting more and more of KDE's ism's, so such an argument is getting more narrow as time progresses and Gnome tries to adopt all the good features from KDE.

    The problem with Gnome is, it is a desktop without a soul or direction. I don't mean this litterally, but in terms of the developer communities approach to Gnome in the future and defining a Gnome desktop metaphore. There isn't really any. It's a constant battle between "Well, that button looks better there. This menu item should be here" and this seems to take up most of the communities time, when you follow the mailing lists. This is without concern for the overall picture, but merely being content and debating the details.

    For one, Gnome doesn't look great. Let's be honest. It's not hideous, but it hasn't changed much in a long time. And I'm not saying KDE is perfect - it's not, but its a sight better looking. Plus, there have been no new ideas. Gnome needs to re-think and radically improve the interface it works on to give more power for the user to customise his/her desktop and to develop ideas for UI for a new generation in computing.

    The KDE team is currently trying to do that (and I'm really excited to see what they come up with).

    Gnome has found a niche though, which has helped it gain success in one area, and, ironically, it is the dullness of Gnome that has helped it find that success. And I'm talking about commercial support. A desktop that limits the complexity is easier to support in a corporate environment, right?

    Perhaps so, but it is also a limiting factor for Gnome, because now there are commercial interests in where development should head, and that in turn will cause resistance and reluctance to change. Whereas the KDE team are free to come up with bigger, better ideas that might work.


    In general, I like KDE. It hasn't let me down yet, while Gnome makes me feel cramped, claustrophobic and un-inspired. But who really cares? There are plenty of other Window Managers to suit your particular needs and it's all seperated from the underlying Windowing layer, so anyone can use Gnome apps in KDE and visa versa.
    • ibis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"For one, Gnome doesn't look great. Let's be honest."

      You know you can theme it right? I find the default Gnome and default KDE themes both equally crap. I just spent 3 days trying to make KDE look nice, and it's still a long way from my Gnome install. The biggest problem is making Firefox and Thunderbird not look crap. I know they're GTK apps, but KDE makes them look utterly terrible, and the only solution seems to be to try and find Firefox/Thunderbird themes that look vaguely like your KDE theme.
    • Th3_anOmoLy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"But who really cares? There are plenty of other Window Managers to suit your particular needs and it's all separated from the underlying Windowing layer, so anyone can use Gnome apps in KDE and visa versa."

      I think this is about to close to a conclusion as you'll get. I haven't been around Linux too long, but everything I've seen and read had focused on the fact that all of us using it on a day to day basis are doing so because you can make it your own OS. Each person has a slightly different twist on how their desktop is setup, or how they personalize their system. One of the great things about Linux is that it opens up that possibility to the user.
    • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ ibis :

      >> You know you can theme it right?

      Ya, I do, although, theme-ing Gnome is more a hassle than it is in KDE. I wouldnt agree on that KDE and Gnome by default both look crap. KDE certainly has an upper hand here (KDE 3.x >), but you are right, most people will spend some time personalising it anyways. Plus, GTK in general is uglier than Qt. Many of the comments here reflect that... the font is off, buttons too big, etc...

      @ Th3_anOmoLy :

      >> I think this is about to close to a conclusion as you'll get. I haven't been around Linux too
      >> long, but everything I've seen and read had focused on the fact that all of us using it on a
      >> day to day basis are doing so because you can make it your own OS. ... One of the great
      >> things about Linux is that it opens up that possibility to the user.

      aye, absolutely
  • pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bah. TWM FTW.

    "Desktop Environment?" What's that?
  • guice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6GNOME vote here simply for simplicity.

    I used KDE for several months before I converted to GNOME. I hadn't looked back. KDE just seems like "too much." Their options are utterly packed. Icons everywhere. Very full menus, etc. KDE feels most like an attempt to Copy Win95/98.

    I like GNOME cause it's simple. You can get to what you need easily and you're not bogged with 10 option groups in your options with an added 3-5 tabs per option group.
  • zmigliozzi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3fluxbox or Xfce anyone?
    but i prefer gnome over kde.
    • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2my favorites are Openbox and an older version of xfce (4.06) when i want a light window manager when doing resource intensive work yet still need to run an X-Windows application, (OpenOffice & some java macros or burning CD-Rs, etc...)
  • braydonf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1deleted
  • Malachai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dugg, not necessarily for the article, but for the comments. Very thought-provoking; it's nice to see comments like these without having to weed through a bunch of flames.
  • skeptictank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The dichotomy was giving me headaches so I use xfce. Love konqueror tho
  • jonnyq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1From the article: "I currently triple-boot Ubuntu Breezy (Gnome), Kubuntu Breezy (KDE), and Windows XP."

    What?? You can install all the packages for both Ubuntu and Kubuntu without "multibooting"... you just choose whether you want to log in to KDE or Gnome... In fact, you'll probably end up installing all those packages anyway. For example, I use KDE and I have to have all the GTK packages installed to get those apps to look right. I also use GDM to login instead of KDM (don't ask). I use Evolution for email, which is a GTK app (which looks great after setting up the gtk-qt packages).

    Also, when I was using GNOME, I liked using Konqueror for browsing, which required pretty much all the KDE packages. Since you can't turn passive FTP off in GNOME, and I'm behind a firewall and connecting to an FTP server that likes PSV, I ended up using Konqueror for my FTP. So, yeah, you end up with a lot of overlap.

    Overall though, KDE ftw. I'd much rather spend a few hours tweaking KDE settings and trimming down menus instead of spending a few hours adding crap to GNOME and trying to figure out where crap is just to do simple things.

    GNOME is like having a toolbox with only a wrench and a hammer because the rest of the tools would just confuse people. KDE is like having a toolbox with every friggin size - metric and standard - of everything. At least KDE has the tools you're looking for and you can throw out the extras.
  • antdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I prefer KDE over GNOME. However, I have both installed in case KDE breaks and I need a backup GUI something to use.
  • Aloiv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, I personally like Xfce, but gnome is nice too
    • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3xfce is gnome done right, or what gnome should have been...

      runs & hides :p
  • fatas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2If you are into pedophilia you can't go past KDE's kindergarten Icons & themes.
  • vipernicus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How's this for a cluttered KDE desktop?
    http://vipernicus.evolution-mission.org/images/screenshots/kde-3.5.4-clean.png
    http://vipernicus.evolution-mission.org/images/screenshots/kde-3.5.4-dark-clean-09-22-2006.png
  • tinker123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Installing Ubuntu is the easiest way to see Gnome at its best. Installing Kubuntu is one of the easiest ways to see KDE at its worst.

    This is the inverse of the situation for just about every other distro.

    Gnome's design philosophy is to keep the interface simple, but getting it set up can be a royal pain in the ass. It lacks many of the tools and much of the configuration capability sophistication that KDE has. Just try and make a keyboard shortcut that is off the beaten path, even in Ubuntu, and you will see what I mean.

    I do like Gnome's look and feel over KDE. I like the gnome office apps over KDE office. I use neither because that slow chugging horse Open Office has the best MS doc interoperability.

    Gnome has the apps. KDE has everything else.

    • bhalo05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What apps? Most of the apps people use on a Gnome environment are not Gnome apps by any means.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.